Death projections are down from 90k to 80k now to 60k

[ttwtt78640]

This would seem to not give anyone a dime until the end of the quarter.

I never claimed this $1200 "stimulus check" was the only way to handle the economic support people need. In fact, I have been highly critical of the administration focusing on giving money to corporations instead of people.

Hmm... because we had no way for states to process UI claims or the federal government to offer PPP "grants" any faster. BTW, those "coming soon" $1,200 checks were not exactly sent out in time to allow folks to pay their normal bills or with any attempt to see who needed them more than others. Congress critters had to have time to propose and debate all manner of pork.

 

[Kreton]

That (bolded above) assertion is based on what, exactly? The only thing changed is the model prediction - while COVID-19 death numbers continue to increase.

Looked at another way, it cost $2.2T (so far) to (allegedly) save 10K to 60K lives.

With no measures, the death toll would be millions. Not 10K. The 10K-60K is the difference between last week and now.

2.2 Trillion to save millions of lives AND those lives being lost would have resulted in panic, looting and who knows what else.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There is a 3rd alternative, which is early and aggressive testing. Finding the contacts of all who tested positive and tracing the contacts of all those etc. That's what South Korea did and that's how they avoided a shutdown. Unfortunately, the window for that has passed since the Federal Government didn't act. Now we are left with lock downs as the only viable alternative to doing nothing. If you know of an additional alternative, I'd love to hear it.

There are still no travel bans/restrictions for COVID-19 "hot spots" inside the US. How many have 'escaped' from NYC and headed off to go 'visit' folks in other much safer (until they arrived?) places? If folks can (are told to?) work from home, then that home can be almost anywhere.

 

[bearpoker]

The key point here, is that Trump - through his agencies - offers "guidance", which then most of the states & localities follow to reasonable degree. That's how we enacted the current shut-down. Unless money is involved, Congress need not be. Unless the President's guidance is not followed, which is generally not the case.

Since Trump refuses to play a leadership role, he can't actually order any lock down. Had he been in possession of a large stockpile of masks, ventilators and other critical supplies, he could have said "lock down or we won't include you in the distribution of supplies". That alternative is long past and Trump never wanted the responsibility anyway.

 

[ttwtt78640]

With no measures, the death toll would be millions. Not 10K. The 10K-60K is the difference between last week and now.

2.2 Trillion to save millions of lives AND those lives being lost would have resulted in panic, looting and who knows what else.

Why do folks insist that the only options were to have done what we did or to have done nothing at all?

 

[apdst]

I got a feeling there is going to be a partisan fight on fast we go back to work. I am hearing 18 months from the likes of Ezekiel Emanuel. No way in hell we do that without a knock down drag out fight.

If the Democrats take the Senate and the White House, we'll have to fight a civil war to get out from under their lockdown.

 

[PirateMk1]

If the Democrats take the Senate and the White House, we'll have to fight a civil war to get out from under their lockdown.

Lets hope that does not come to pass. Wars are ****ty deals all the way around.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Since Trump refuses to play a leadership role, he can't actually order any lock down. Had he been in possession of a large stockpile of masks, ventilators and other critical supplies, he could have said "lock down or we won't include you in the distribution of supplies". That alternative is long past and Trump never wanted the responsibility anyway.

To be fair, the one time Trump threatened to lock down a hotspot, the governor of the state called it "war".

 

[apdst]

Lets hope that does not come to pass. Wars are ****ty deals all the way around.

I agree. I got better things to do that to get all up in a boogaloo...lol

 

[bearpoker]

There are still no travel bans/restrictions for COVID-19 "hot spots" inside the US. How many have 'escaped' from NYC and headed off to go 'visit' folks in other much safer (until they arrived?) places? If folks can (are told to?) work from home, then that home can be almost anywhere.

I agree that travel banns would help but I'm not sure how effective they might be. Commercial travel could and should be banned but private cars on the back roads would be an easy run around. Such a measure would be a nightmare to enforce. Besides, this is simply an enlargement of the stay-at-home strategy. Not a new alternative.

What would be good is a publicity campaign discouraging travel.

 

[bearpoker]

If the Democrats take the Senate and the White House, we'll have to fight a civil war to get out from under their lockdown.

Didn't you hear? Republicans are fine with an election during a lock down. Look at Wisconsin. I wonder if they're hoping all those Democrats die before the General.

 

[Deuce]

I agree with you. The choice at*the federal level was whether to concentrate on treating ever increasing COVID-19 casualties or trying to reduce them by taking the most effective measures to do so. As you noted, testing was not considered as urgent as finding and moving around PPE and other medical care supplies - a function that*could have been done without nearly as much federal involvement. The business shutdown, stay at home and "social distancing" unfunded mandates were all done at the state and local level and required no federal involvement.

Ok, but the shutdowns are the reason the economy tanked. That's where the 2.2 trillion dollars you were complaining about is going.

 

[Deuce]

Why do folks insist that the only options were to have done what we did or to have done nothing at all?

You still have yet to propose a single solution that effectively slows the spread of the virus that also does not tank the economy. (which is important because you complained about the "costing trillions" part) One that doesn't require tens of millions of test kits we never had, anyway.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ok, but the shutdowns are the reason the economy tanked. That's where the 2.2 trillion dollars you were complaining about is going.

That $2.2T was simply a starting point and was done in respose to a 15 day shutdown, now extended to 45 days and who knows for how much longer (and thus more expensive) after that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You still have yet to propose a single solution that effectively slows the spread of the virus that also does not tank the economy. (which is important because you complained about the "costing trillions" part) One that doesn't require tens of millions of test kits we never had, anyway.

Yep, if you keep that off the table it gets very hard to do anything different with contagious and non-contagious people. Carry on as we are and we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Kreton]

Why do folks insist that the only options were to have done what we did or to have done nothing at all?

I don't think that is true.

Many people wanted us to do more sooner. Some think we still aren't doing enough.

What is your opinion of what other option should have been used instead?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't think that is true.

Many people wanted us to do more sooner. Some think we still aren't doing enough.

What is your opinion of what other option should have been used instead?

Then why did you say "With no measures..."?

 

[3leftsdoo]

Which doesn't even equal one 2017/2018 Flu season(80,000 deaths)

Anytime people might get sick or die any time ever again from any cause, we need to shut the country down.

Especially if the Democrats don't like a Republican president.

What's a few trillion & massive unemployment & enormous pain to the People in order to advance a criminal political agenda?

Just ask Quid Pro Joe.

:donkeyfla

 

[Slavister]

After reading your op I've decide that there must be a lucrative cottage industry in alarmist flip-flop rationalizing. Not 24 hours ago, when I posted that the pandemic would turn out no worse than a season of really bad flu, every kitchen sink within reach was tossed my way...so many it was impossible to answer them all.

And you deserved it too. Claiming this is like a flu is ridiculous. People shut down not just the US but the whole world and still it's more deadly than the flu.

None the less, the alarmists on the left echo'd the same thing: "it's all bunk, we don't know how many more have really died, you can't trust models, we don't know how many people are truly infected, the IHME model assumes 'full compliance' ....".

Taking these one by one
- Yes, number of deaths is clearly UNDERstated. A lot of dead people have not been getting CV19 tests.
- I never said you can't trust models - you just have to understand that thanks to Trump's failure in testing, we have limited data and thus models will have large ranges and be subject to change. Yet, they are better than having no models at all. Plus they can rely on data from other countries for some parts of the models (i.e. rate of spread, etc.)
- Yes, we clearly have no idea how many people are infected. If true infection death rate is 0.66%-1% as per some studies, that means we HAD 1.2-1.8 million people infected 2-8 weeks ago.
- I never claimed or heard anyone else claim that "the IHME model assumes 'full compliance'". If someone did, don't lump me in with them.

at this time it is IMPOSSIBLE to know how effective formal state mandated social distancing is or how much credit should be given to it causing the failure of alarmist predictions.

There are a lot of examples throughout the world that have this settled.

For all the ones that failed on testing (including USA), the earlier the lockdown, the better the curve (and yes, this assume similar population density). This is true at country levels. This is true at State levels (Washington vs NY). This is true at city levels (SF vs LA).

I understand you need to pretend like lockdowns are useless and we'll never know if we needed them but somehow, with exception of countries that had done testing and tracking done well, a LOT of countries, including those that resisted this, have come around to the same conclusion and decided to shut down their economies. Why do you think that is?

the Imperial college report said that mass gatherings of a few hours were not a problem

Link?

 

[Deuce]

Yep, if you keep that off the table it gets very hard to do anything different with contagious and non-contagious people. Carry on as we are and we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

I didn't take that off the table. The test kits weren't available. If we hypothetically had tens of millions of extra kits from the beginning, yes, there were a lot more options.

 

[apdst]

Didn't you hear? Republicans are fine with an election during a lock down. Look at Wisconsin. I wonder if they're hoping all those Democrats die before the General.

If y'all get your wish and a million people die, most of them will be Democrat voters.

 

[Kreton]

Then why did you say "With no measures..."?

Because you said we spent 2.2 trillion to save 10K lives. That isn't true. That 2.2 trillion was not for 10K lives.

What measures would you have preferred?

 

[Deuce]

If y'all get your wish and a million people die, most of them will be Democrat voters.

Why are you literally demanding Donald Trump murder people in the street?

 

[apdst]

Why are you literally demanding Donald Trump murder people in the street?

Why do you lie so much? :lamo

 

[Deuce]

Why do you lie so much? :lamo

Oh I'm sorry I thought we were playing that game where we make up motivations for the other guys.