Jump to content
caulfield12

COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mqr said:

Yeah. But you’re getting Biden

Is there a big difference between cuomo and Biden? I’d lean Biden 10x /10.

Cuomo May be doing better press conferences but light foot/pritzker have done a much better job than deblasio/cuomo, including a high likelihood that cuomo delayed the shelter in place just because deblasio wanted it first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bmags said:

Is there a big difference between cuomo and Biden? I’d lean Biden 10x /10.

Cuomo May be doing better press conferences but light foot/pritzker have done a much better job than deblasio/cuomo, including a high likelihood that cuomo delayed the shelter in place just because deblasio wanted it first.

Politically? No probably not. 
 

Cuomo currently has a functioning brain though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mqr said:

Politically? No probably not. 
 

Cuomo currently has a functioning brain though. 

🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2020 at 2:47 PM, Quin said:

He's addressed that. It's because we're testing at a much higher capacity. You know the cases are out there, so you want to find them.

New York? They’re about to be our first nightmare. They run out of ICU beds on Friday and the Morgue already can’t keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

Iowa might be his strongest of all those states right now.

You're right though - this was supposed to be about COVID, including Trump's part in it, but we've gone well off course. Partly my fault too. Sorry.

Carry on with Corona!

 

My fault as well. I'll stop :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers about WI. Here are the polling averages I am seeing for the key states I mentioned, using Trump vs Biden head-to-heads, in B-rated and higher polls, for March, by range:

FL: Trump +1 to Biden +1 (this is a dead heat, as you pointed out)

OH: Biden +4 (this is a very surprising one, but only one poll out)

PA: Biden +6

MI: Biden +3 to Biden +7

WI: Biden +2 to Biden +6

AZ: Biden +1 to Biden +8 (this one is particularly interesting to me, with AZ in play it changes the landscape a bit)

MN, NV, IA: *No head-to-head polls in last few weeks

And again, Trump needs to win almost all of those to win the Presidency. Biden only needs a couple or three depending on which ones.

 

 

Realclearpolitics.com

I think PA could be at risk if they continue with the more extreme anti-fracking platform...but that also depends on the viability of it in terms of longer term gasoline prices four to six months from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/22/minnesota-political-transformation-137289

 

And back to Covid-19 for a few hours or days until our renewed era of bipartisanship collapses when one side or another holds up Phase 3, right?   Bill already being assaulted on left and right as more fine print details are forthcoming.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/25/politics/what-matters-march-25/index.html

 

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Texsox said:

Is anyone else seeing an uptick in "busy work" at work? Damn, it's like my athletic department opened a file of "if we have time lets . . ." projects. 

Yep, busy work all while I am trying to build skills and change careers. At least I get to leave this summer for some place better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heads22 said:

Will be absolutely shocked if Trump doesn't win Iowa. I think D's have a better chance in NC and AZ.

 

Also I thought we weren't doing politics in here

Just wait until AOC (and/or Ivanka) runs in 2024 or 2028!!   And that’s not even taking Greg’s Chelsea Clinton fears into consideration...

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harry Chappas said:

At least it is not Bernie..........I do not want to vote for Trump and I liked Bloomberg and now Cuomo.  It really is too bad that the DNC cannot get heir act together.

 

Even if Biden wins he can't fill 8 years can he?  

 

 

I don’t think he’s planning on getting through one term. His VP is going to have to take over at some point. Harris or Abrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heads22 said:

Will be absolutely shocked if Trump doesn't win Iowa. I think D's have a better chance in NC and AZ.

 

Also I thought we weren't doing politics in here

I think we can handle it. This beats the living daylights out of any conversation I have found anywhere!

Edited by The Beast
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Beast said:

I don’t think he’s planning on getting through one term. His VP is going to have to take over at some point. Harris or Abrams.

Klobuchar is just as likely, IMO.  Minnesota is in play.   At one point, some were pushing Kasich, just like Lieberman in 2000, with the idea of securing the Heartland and Rust Belt states that will largely decide the election. 

Warren, depending on how far the pendulum shifts towards government-based solutions over the next 2-3 months.

Abrams was definitely going to be the Sanders pick.  That said, unless Loeffler and Perdue are both brought down by insider trading charges, along with Burr (unlikely again!), Georgia isn’t quite competitive on a national basis.

From the Biden perspective, he already has a huge leg up on African American engagement compared to HRC in 2016.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tray said:

I am laughing at all the people that whined about Bernie's socialist agenda but now want government to bail out their business or pay them unemployment. The rationale for helping a low income person who cannot make ends meet  is not much different than the rationale for bailing out businesses when they need help.

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

Klobuchar is just as likely, IMO.  Minnesota is in play.   At one point, some were pushing Kasich, just like Lieberman in 2000, with the idea of securing the Heartland and Rust Belt states that will largely decide the election. 

Warren, depending on how far the pendulum shifts towards government-based solutions over the next 2-3 months.

Abrams was definitely going to be the Sanders pick.  That said, unless Loeffler and Perdue are both brought down by insider trading charges, along with Burr (unlikely again!), Georgia isn’t quite competitive on a national basis.

From the Biden perspective, he already has a huge leg up on African American engagement compared to HRC in 2016.

Nobody was pushing Kasich ever, and you'd be referring to the Lieberman idea in 2008, Lieberman was a democrat along with Gore in 2000.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have a controversial topic for the group, that will likely irritate many on here, but I'm going to ask it anyway (and I personally don't know my answer but I'm also glad I'm not an individual who has to debate what is the best decision for the ultimate greater good).  But what would ultimately do the country the greatest good...the massive stimulus package put out as we hunker down and shelter in place while waiting for a vaccine (and potentially repeatedly do this over the course of the next 12-18 months) or going forward as is, while putting a heavy requirement on more at-risk groups to self-quarantine (and obviously that also means those who know those at-risk members, also need to do their part in distancing) and instead investing all of that money to address/tackle other large fundamental challenges (leave that up to the group).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

So I have a controversial topic for the group, that will likely irritate many on here, but I'm going to ask it anyway (and I personally don't know my answer but I'm also glad I'm not an individual who has to debate what is the best decision for the ultimate greater good).  But what would ultimately do the country the greatest good...the massive stimulus package put out as we hunker down and shelter in place while waiting for a vaccine (and potentially repeatedly do this over the course of the next 12-18 months) or going forward as is, while putting a heavy requirement on more at-risk groups to self-quarantine (and obviously that also means those who know those at-risk members, also need to do their part in distancing) and instead investing all of that money to address/tackle other large fundamental challenges (leave that up to the group).

 

How do the super-quarantined 25% of society get food? How do we get to the pharmacy? 

How do you deal with the huge numbers of seemingly healthier people who still come down with severe cases? You still dramatically overwhelm the hospitals. 

How do businesses deal with the huge numbers of people out of work for weeks/months who came down with severe cases of the illness?

Are you ok with hundreds of thousands of deaths because it's not millions?

What about the 30 year old with cancer who can't get a hospital bed for the next 6 months? Or the 40 year old who has a heart attack? Bad timing, shame?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

How do the super-quarantined 25% of society get food? How do we get to the pharmacy? 

How do you deal with the huge numbers of seemingly healthier people who still come down with severe cases? You still dramatically overwhelm the hospitals. 

How do businesses deal with the huge numbers of people out of work for weeks/months who came down with severe cases of the illness?

Are you ok with hundreds of thousands of deaths because it's not millions?

My point is, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths because of this (or maybe more, I don't know), but 9M people globally die of starvation each year (not sure how true that  stat is as I didn't do a deep dive...just a quick google popped that up). My fundamental point is, every single day the entire world is already making those types of choices (cruel or not...that is the reality) and there is a finite amount of resources in the world...the question is are we as efficient in how we leverage those resources to get the absolute best bang for our buck on social wellness, etc.  

I'm not arguing one for another, but lets not pretend that these conversations are as easy and cut and dry as everyone on a message board or various talking heads make them to be.  What if we did end up in a great depression as a result of this.  Would the impacts of poverty and long term depression counter the decisions made today.  Those are all things that I'm thankful I don't have to decide upon, but lets be real, those making the decisions at the top need to consider each scenario and ultimately pick what they believe is right. 

And I won't lie, this is the exact situation (where a leader at the top has to make a difficult decision, one in which both answers aren't good...he's basically forced to pick the best of multiple bad situations) which drove me to completely abandon my party 3 years ago.  By and large, I'm a believer that politicians don't do a damn thing and they are generally worthless and despicable (and that goes for both sides of the aisle) who are only out for themselves. There are exceptions to this, but in general, our country is going to be great because of the strength of our people and the free will society we live in.  The exception to this rule to me is in situations of epic disaster and that is when leadership matters most and well, the scary part is, as far as I'm concerned, we have an individual who has absolutely no leadership and unifying capabilities at all and is too easily swayed by the latest talking pundit he sees on foxnews (who say what they do...not because they believe in it...but because those absurd things drive ratings).  As trump moved crazier...so did many talking heads...and I guarantee the biggest reason they did was because it drove ratings and fattened their pockets.    

I also go back, I am fairly certain that not any of us have anywhere near all of the facts the people close to the vest are using to drive these decisions so we are all making to some extent wild ass guesses, but the alarming part is is, we have individuals (Fauci for example) who have worked in various regimes who are extremely well respected and who will focus purely on data (vs. party affiliation) who apparently seem to be pushed aside as of late.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

My point is, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths because of this (maybe not millions), but 9M people globally die of starvation each year (not sure how true that  stat is as I didn't do a deep dive). My fundamental point is, every single day the entire world is already making those types of choices (cruel or not...that is the reality) and there is a finite amount of resources in the world...the question is are we as efficient in how we leverage those resources to get the absolute best bang for our buck on social wellness, etc.  

I'm not arguing one for another, but lets not pretend that these conversations are as easy and cut and dry as everyone on a message board or various talking heads make them to be.  What if we did end up in a great depression as a result of this.  Would the impacts of poverty and long term depression counter the decisions made today.  Those are all things that I'm thankful I don't have to decide upon, but lets be real, those making the decisions at the top need to. 

And I won't lie, it is this excact situation (where a leader at the top has to make a difficult decision, one in which both answers aren't good...he's basically forced to pick the best of multiple bad situations) which drove me to completely abandon my party.  By and large, I'm a believer that politicians don't do a damn thing and they are generally worthless and despicable (and that goes for both sides of the aisle) who are only out for themselves. There are exceptions to this, but in general, our country is going to be great because of the strength of our people and the free will society we live in.  The exception to this rule to me is in situations of epic disaster and that is when leadership matters most and well, the scary part is, as far as I'm concerned, we have an individual who has absolutely no leadership and unifying capabilities at all and is too easily swayed by the latest hot topic.  

I also go back, I am fairly certain that not any of us have anywhere near all of the facts the people close to the vest are using to drive these decisions so we are all making to some extent wild ass guesses, but the alarming part is is, we have individuals (Fauci for example) who have worked in various regimes who are extremely well respected and who will focus purely on data (vs. party affiliation) who apparently seem to be pushed aside as of late.  

1. It's not just the deaths of the elderly and the high risk population. There are plenty of "low-risk" people who die, so yes if you could somehow do what you're suggesting, you still kill hundreds of thousands this year rather than millions

2. It's not just the deaths. You are asking 10-20 million people or something like that to come down with very severe illnesses that hospitalize them for weeks, put them in medical care for weeks, kill extras because of the ventilators, there's not enough doctors trained in this country to do what you're proposing even if you could build enough hospitals quick enough. You can do that if the ill are in the tens of thousands, not tens of millions. This is why I mentioned the cancer patient. This is why I mentioned a person with a heart attack. How many heart attacks are there each year in this country? What does a heart attack victim do if the hospitals are full? They die.

3. There's no feasible way to do it, as if you let it burn through the 200 million "so-called healthy people" with a 0.2% chance of dying or whatever, then those people are going to go talk to their parents. They're going to buy food at the same grocery store as the others. They're going to the doctor. They're going to the pharmacy. You can't just say "Oh I'm sorry you can't go get your chemo drugs, you might die there's a virus" - the things that make them high risk will also kill them. 

4. You seem to think that there's some strategy here that avoids a "great depression" but what you just proposed is a great depression. 10-20 million people out of work for weeks at a time while they're ill. Health care bills in the tens of thousands of dollars for each of them. Hundreds of thousands of supposedly healthy people dead. And 1/3 of the population somehow permanently quarantined for a year. This is another great depression. 

5. Frankly, if you gave me the choice, I would live off my savings for a year and say *bleep* you to your plan even if I was 100% healthy. So even if another 25% of the population revolts against this plan, now you've got 1/2 of the population either sick or refusing to participate or under your mandatory quarantine.

6. Please note that the "extremely well respected" people you are referring to think that every version of what you're saying is horrifying and unworkable.  

There is 1 setup out there to avoid your feared depression that has been proposed. It is "shut everything down right now immediately". Beat the peak down, as we have seen at least 4 countries do including China. Then, extremely aggressive testing and tracing - as we should have been doing in February when the government was frittering. It can work, it can get some things back to semi-normal. That's the only thing people have come up with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

1. It's not just the deaths of the elderly and the high risk population. There are plenty of "low-risk" people who die, so yes if you could somehow do what you're suggesting, you still kill hundreds of thousands this year rather than millions

2. It's not just the deaths. You are asking 10-20 million people or something like that to come down with very severe illnesses that hospitalize them for weeks, put them in medical care for weeks, kill extras because of the ventilators, there's not enough doctors trained in this country to do what you're proposing even if you could build enough hospitals quick enough. You can do that if the ill are in the tens of thousands, not tens of millions. This is why I mentioned the cancer patient. This is why I mentioned a person with a heart attack. How many heart attacks are there each year in this country? What does a heart attack victim do if the hospitals are full? They die.

3. There's no feasible way to do it, as if you let it burn through the 200 million "so-called healthy people" with a 0.2% chance of dying or whatever, then those people are going to go talk to their parents. They're going to buy food at the same grocery store as the others. They're going to the doctor. They're going to the pharmacy. You can't just say "Oh I'm sorry you can't go get your chemo drugs, you might die there's a virus" - the things that make them high risk will also kill them. 

4. You seem to think that there's some strategy here that avoids a "great depression" but what you just proposed is a great depression. 10-20 million people out of work for weeks at a time while they're ill. Health care bills in the tens of thousands of dollars for each of them. Hundreds of thousands of supposedly healthy people dead. And 1/3 of the population somehow permanently quarantined for a year. This is another great depression. 

5. Frankly, if you gave me the choice, I would live off my savings for a year and say *bleep* you to your plan even if I was 100% healthy. So even if another 25% of the population revolts against this plan, now you've got 1/2 of the population either sick or refusing to participate or under your mandatory quarantine.

6. Please note that the "extremely well respected" people you are referring to think that every version of what you're saying is horrifying and unworkable.  

There is 1 setup out there to avoid your feared depression that has been proposed. It is "shut everything down right now immediately". Beat the peak down, as we have seen at least 4 countries do including China. Then, extremely aggressive testing and tracing - as we should have been doing in February when the government was frittering. It can work, it can get some things back to semi-normal. That's the only thing people have come up with.

I am not saying that is my proposal but to ignore the fact that the discussions I outlay aren't taking place and being looked at by the advanced medical community would be absurd . Even you are posting articles indicating potential likelihood that this likely is a 2 year journey and very well might still get to the point where all of the above happens (but just in a different timing and sequence).   Everything isn't as black and white as any of us would like. 

By the way. My personal view is we should have locked everything down 2 weeks ago and I personally have been doing exactly that. The problem is, the longer we play in between, I think we end up with the worse possible outcome.  I think as a society we should just hit the pause button across the globe, with exception of truly essential processes, and knock the shit out of this entire bug.  Than just aggressively test and manage but you can do it with precision (i.e,. if my neighborhood/city was impacted...we'd quickly be isolated for a bit until it was put out).  And after this...lets all be a lot smarter cause for worse things than COVID could hit us and this just proves how not ready we are for a global pandemic.  

I also think there is a lot of data people likely need to better understand out of China, Italy, Spain, US etc. Right now inferences and educated hypothesis are being made. To assume otherwise is not realistic.  And I don't believe a lot of reports on the counts (at all). The only report I believe is Deaths/Hospitalizations. Its the one data point you really can't fake.  In fact, I would go as far as to say only good news could come up in terms of counts, because the only direction they could be off is if the historical bad flu that was being experienced this year across the globe (not necessarily in deaths, but in volumes) was being over-reported as the flu.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chisoxfn said:

So I have a controversial topic for the group, that will likely irritate many on here, but I'm going to ask it anyway (and I personally don't know my answer but I'm also glad I'm not an individual who has to debate what is the best decision for the ultimate greater good).  But what would ultimately do the country the greatest good...the massive stimulus package put out as we hunker down and shelter in place while waiting for a vaccine (and potentially repeatedly do this over the course of the next 12-18 months) or going forward as is, while putting a heavy requirement on more at-risk groups to self-quarantine (and obviously that also means those who know those at-risk members, also need to do their part in distancing) and instead investing all of that money to address/tackle other large fundamental challenges (leave that up to the group).

 

The virus is merely a symptom of a system that has been breaking over time via gig work and everyone becoming a fake contractor.

A symptom of a system with a horrible wealth gap between middle management and the top. A symptom of middle class stagnation over 3 decades. 

American taxpayers just spent another $6000 to get $1200 in return and a bunch of corporate bailouts. Corporations get propped up while people are shamed for not saving months of savings when they dont get paid enough.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The virus is merely a symptom of a system that has been breaking over time via gig work and everyone becoming a fake contractor.

A symptom of a system with a horrible wealth gap between middle management and the top. A symptom of middle class stagnation over 3 decades. 

American taxpayers just spent another $6000 to get $1200 in return and a bunch of corporate bailouts. Corporations get propped up while people are shamed for not saving months of savings when they dont get paid enough.

https://eand.co/the-week-the-world-as-we-know-it-came-to-an-end-eddc365498b7

 

96-0 vote on stimulus bill, btw.
 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/politics/stimulus-coronavirus-jobs-economy-trump-congress/index.htmlFear drives $2 trillion economic rescue bid -- and sparks calls for the next one

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

My point is, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths because of this (or maybe more, I don't know), but 9M people globally die of starvation each year (not sure how true that  stat is as I didn't do a deep dive...just a quick google popped that up). My fundamental point is, every single day the entire world is already making those types of choices (cruel or not...that is the reality) and there is a finite amount of resources in the world...the question is are we as efficient in how we leverage those resources to get the absolute best bang for our buck on social wellness, etc.  

I'm not arguing one for another, but lets not pretend that these conversations are as easy and cut and dry as everyone on a message board or various talking heads make them to be.  What if we did end up in a great depression as a result of this.  Would the impacts of poverty and long term depression counter the decisions made today.  Those are all things that I'm thankful I don't have to decide upon, but lets be real, those making the decisions at the top need to consider each scenario and ultimately pick what they believe is right. 

And I won't lie, this is the exact situation (where a leader at the top has to make a difficult decision, one in which both answers aren't good...he's basically forced to pick the best of multiple bad situations) which drove me to completely abandon my party 3 years ago.  By and large, I'm a believer that politicians don't do a damn thing and they are generally worthless and despicable (and that goes for both sides of the aisle) who are only out for themselves. There are exceptions to this, but in general, our country is going to be great because of the strength of our people and the free will society we live in.  The exception to this rule to me is in situations of epic disaster and that is when leadership matters most and well, the scary part is, as far as I'm concerned, we have an individual who has absolutely no leadership and unifying capabilities at all and is too easily swayed by the latest talking pundit he sees on foxnews (who say what they do...not because they believe in it...but because those absurd things drive ratings).  As trump moved crazier...so did many talking heads...and I guarantee the biggest reason they did was because it drove ratings and fattened their pockets.    

I also go back, I am fairly certain that not any of us have anywhere near all of the facts the people close to the vest are using to drive these decisions so we are all making to some extent wild ass guesses, but the alarming part is is, we have individuals (Fauci for example) who have worked in various regimes who are extremely well respected and who will focus purely on data (vs. party affiliation) who apparently seem to be pushed aside as of late.  

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/03/26/dr-anthony-fauci-cautious-optimism-coronavirus-spread-vaccine-bts-cpt-vpx.cnn
 

The argument here (from Dr. Fauci)  is that we’re already seeing evidence of the spread in the southern hemisphere of the globe, meaning as they go into fall and eventually winter that it just starts recirculating around the globe perpetually until a vaccine is developed.

It's also well documented that sunlight, fresh air and exercise are essential if someone has been infected - the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic made this very clear.

Btw, working with our president probably does feel closer to a regime than an administration...

 

On Monday, WHO counted more than 334,000 total cases globally.

Dr Harris said “but in fact the outbreak is accelerating very rapidly and the case numbers we received overnight will put that up considerably”.

“We are not helpless bystanders,” said WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, noting that it took 67 days to reach 100,000 cases worldwide but just four days to go from 200,000 to 300,000.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

So I have a controversial topic for the group, that will likely irritate many on here, but I'm going to ask it anyway (and I personally don't know my answer but I'm also glad I'm not an individual who has to debate what is the best decision for the ultimate greater good). 

Last time this was said, in regards to you, it turned into a penis thread.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×