Rush Limbaugh: Economy Being Destroyed 'Under The Guise' Of Saving Lives

[GhostlyJoe]

Hillary called them Deplorables. I called them by their rightful names, Nazis.

“I wanted movement and not a calm course of existence. I wanted excitement and danger and the chance to sacrifice myself for my love.”
― Leo Tolstoy

 

[Phys251]

“Let me not pray to be sheltered from dangers,
but to be fearless in facing them.

Let me not beg for the stilling of my pain, but
for the heart to conquer it.”

Is that what a condemned Mayan said before they were thrown into the well? Asking for the millions of senior adults who you obviously have no problem letting die.

 

[Visbek]

Here you go.

lol

Do you not understand that model is based on exactly the kind of "bend the curve" policies that you're attacking?

Did you not bother to read the assumptions for that model?

• It assumes social distancing -- i.e. the kind of stuff you're completely pissed off about -- until the end of May 2020
-- People instructed to stay at home [that includes preventing large group meetings]
-- Educational facilities closed
-- Businesses closed except for essential services (e.g. supermarkets, pharmacies, clinics) and lifeline utilities
-- Rationing of supplies and requisitioning of facilities
-- Travel severely limited
-- Major reprioritisation of healthcare services

• It doesn't include a second wave in the fall

• It is deliberately optimistic about hospital beds, in order to help states/hospitals estimate what is needed

• Death estimates are rising -- e.g. on 3/25 it estimated 81,000 deaths; now it estimates 94,000 deaths.

• It is specifically a planning tool; different models have different assumptions and different results

Just look at those ranges!

lol

We did. You didn't.

The current range is 40,000 to 175,000 deaths -- and that's with two more months of strict controls, and without a possible second wave later in the year.

Keep watching it. The less we clamp down, the higher those numbers will go.

 

[Visbek]

They're not necessary.

lol

You can't cite a model based on super-strict controls to say "this is what will happen if we don't have controls." If you use the same model without those controls, it will likely predict anywhere from 1 to 2 million deaths.

I mean, if the worst-case in those projections happens, it's still going to be very, very ugly.

The worst case scenario is still based on all those strict controls!

You obviously don't understand the model. Go back and read it again.

But this lockdown is an economic time bomb. It took $2T in borrowing to buy us one month.

And again, doing nothing will be worse.

By the time we get to 10,000 deaths per day, a) no one will want to go to restaurants or work or Coachella or spend any money at all, b) tons of people are going to get fired, c) millions will be dead, and d) it will be far too late to stop the worst-case scenarios. And I mean the real "do-nothing" worst case scenarios.

I question the assumed authority to lock us all down like this, and I definitely question the wisdom of handing the reins over to wildly speculative projections.

Man, that would be so much more persuasive if you knew what you were talking about.

In case you missed it: There are national and statewide states of emergencies. This gives those governments broad powers. That's how emergencies work. Your desire for individual liberties does not change the facts that you refuse to accept.

 

[calamity]

Do you use spell check?

Do you mean was my computer built in the 21st century? :roll:

 

[JasperL]

They're not necessary. They're what we chose in pursuit of a desired outcome. Much of that outcome is still based on unknown factors and chance. That's reflected in the projection I linked.

I mean, if the worst-case in those projections happens, it's still going to be very, very ugly. If the best-case happens, it's basically the flu. Not shutting down for coronavirus is a risky choice, as the worst-case scenarios are truly devastating.

But this lockdown is an economic time bomb. It took $2T in borrowing to buy us one month.

There are big risks no matter what course of action we take. But I question the assumed authority to lock us all down like this, and I definitely question the wisdom of handing the reins over to wildly speculative projections.

Yes, but you're just claiming the projections are "wildly speculative" without evidence. If you just don't like what the numbers say because of what if forces with regard to public policy, that's fine, but it doesn't make the speculations suspect.

The do-nothing has a range of deaths of something like 2 million to 3 or 4 million. If you're a governor, and your state is part of that, and you can see your entire healthcare system collapsing under the weight of cases, what do you do? Dismiss the models and roll the dice? If not that, what's a better basis for making decisions?

 

[calamity]

They're not necessary. They're what we chose in pursuit of a desired outcome. Much of that outcome is still based on unknown factors and chance. That's reflected in the projection I linked.

I mean, if the worst-case in those projections happens, it's still going to be very, very ugly. If the best-case happens, it's basically the flu. Not shutting down for coronavirus is a risky choice, as the worst-case scenarios are truly devastating.

But this lockdown is an economic time bomb. It took $2T in borrowing to buy us one month.

There are big risks no matter what course of action we take. But I question the assumed authority to lock us all down like this, and I definitely question the wisdom of handing the reins over to wildly speculative projections.

No it's rather obvious. Look at how Florida leap-frogged over the states which did practice shelter in place and social distancing.

United States Coronavirus: 215,086 Cases and 5,110 Deaths - Worldometer

I'll lead you to water, but it's your choice to drink or drown.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Yes, true, but wouldn't more than 2/3's of the populace getting walloped with a pandemic have been financially worse? Not including the tremendous death count?

You are assuming 2/3 would get a serious case of the virus. That seems doubtful.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Yeah, like inflation is a real concern. :roll:

That's the lie you've been told and that you believe. The 2008 QE didn't cause inflation, so no problem keep running those printing presses.

We don't know when the inflation will start, but it will, and hyper-inflation isn't fun.

 

[grip]

You are assuming 2/3 would get a serious case of the virus. That seems doubtful.

Not serious but possibly enough to miss work.

 

[HIP56948]

rush is right. I don't know why trump is being such a coward on this. We're all thinking what rush is saying anyway. Was it really worth spending a 2+ trillion stimulus when in april the heat will kill the virus on its own anyway?

ouch!

 

[calamity]

Rush is right. I don't know why Trump is being such a coward on this. We're all thinking what Rush is saying anyway. Was it really worth spending a 2+ trillion stimulus when in April the heat will kill the virus on its own anyway?

The only thing April will kill is 100,000 people. And, most of them will be in Florida...Rush's home state.

 

[Visbek]

That's the lie you've been told and that you believe. The 2008 QE didn't cause inflation, so no problem keep running those printing presses.

We don't know when the inflation will start, but it will, and hyper-inflation isn't fun.

Thanks, but no thanks, for the "Economism" (i.e. an incomplete and cherry-picked understanding of economics recruited for ideological ends).

The economy is a lot more complicated than what you learned in 7th grade history class about Weimar Germany. For example, the people who shrieked that Fed policy after 2008 would cause "hyperinflation" have no explanation for why that didn't happen. Nor do they care to try, because they are driven not by an understanding of economics, but by the desire to delegitimize any government policy that might actually help people. Individuals and businesses were unwilling and/or unable to borrow. On top of that, no one wanted to lend either, resulting in freezes in the credit markets, which in turn made people even less willing to borrow. If the Fed hadn't taken action, we would have had a significant deflation, which would have further cut spending, inventory and hiring, and this would spiral like the Great Depression.

I.e. any inflationary pressures exerted by QE merely countered some of the deflationary impacts of the recession. This is why during a recession, central banks lower interest rates to encourage borrowing and lending, and keep money circulating; and during the good times, the central bank raises interest rates, in part to keep the economy from overheating, and also to ensure it can cut rates during the bad times. (This is why it was moronic for Trump to hammer on the Fed to lower already-low interest rates during the good times -- now the Fed can't have much impact, so now the government needs to rely on fiscal stimulus, which means borrowing mind-bogglingly large sums over and over again on bailouts and handouts.)

There's a bit more to it than that, but long story short: Central bankers won't cause a hyperinflation. They know what they're doing. You do not.

 

[Mach]

They are all coming out of the woodwork now. It would be a stunning sight to see if I hadn't been expecting it.

It's unreal. I could almost understand it when it was pure political games like Hillary's emails, pizzagate, birtherism. But it extends all the way to mass deaths doesn't it.

 

[Casper]

Rush Limbaugh: Economy Being Destroyed 'Under The Guise' Of Saving Lives

Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday suggested stay-at-home measures to protect people against the coronavirus pandemic were destroying the economy "under the guise" of saving lives. He also gave air to a conspiracy theory that Democrats and communists were plotting the downfall of capitalism.

"Are we just going to sit by and watch $22 trillion - that's the value, that's the sum total of the GDP, that's the U.S. economy - are we just going to sit by here and watch it evaporate?" the right-wing radio host said on "The Rush Limbaugh Show." "Because that's what we're doing, under the guise of not losing any unnecessary life - meaning we want to try to save as many lives as we can."

Now, I don't agree that this is some Democratic, socialist plot by any means, but the economy is getting tanked as a result. If the US GDP goes down by 50% and unemployment is up by 30% next month that's worse than Depression stats. Rush has nothing left to lose with his diagnosis, so he's flame-throwing for sure. But any truth or straight up horse****?

His doctors need to either decrease or increase his meds, whichever is fueling his delusions.

 

[bluesmoke]

First, you substantiate the claim that I have to have my rights restricted and stop working for my family and my future or "millions" will die. Prove that claim.

I'm not making any claim nor am I saying that "millions" will die in the way you depict. Nothing for me to prove. YOU'RE the one that made the claim, not me. If you want to run away from a debate responsibility of burden of proof when making a claim, or are maybe just too lazy to do the work of research to find support of your claim, you go right ahead. But your word is worthless.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I'm not making any claim nor am I saying that "millions" will die in the way you depict. Nothing for me to prove. YOU'RE the one that made the claim, not me. If you want to run away from a debate responsibility of burden of proof when making a claim, or are maybe just too lazy to do the work of research to find support of your claim, you go right ahead. But your word is worthless.

The clam your making is that shutdown is necessary. That keeping me in my home and tanking our economy is necessary for your safety. That's the claim that you can't prove. Which makes the rest this pointless. My argument is that you don't have enough information to prove my rights should be sidelined.

 

[bearpoker]

The only thing April will kill is 100,000 people. And, most of them will be in Florida...Rush's home state.

Trump needs to move the election up to August if he wants to win Florida.

 

[bluesmoke]

Actually, it's estimated that 7 million died of starvation during the Great Depression. But that was over a ten year period and during different times and circumstances.

You have absolutely no evidence to substantiate your claim.

 

[Visbek]

The clam your making is that shutdown is necessary. That keeping me in my home and tanking our economy is necessary for your safety. That's the claim that you can't prove.

Yes, actually, we can prove it. All you have to do is look at the numbers.







South Korea has only 10,000 cases; that is 1 per 5,000 people. The US currently has 1 case per 1400 people.

South Korea is now getting about 100 new confirmed cases per day -- and that's with rigorous, widespread testing. The US is confirming 26,000 new cases per day and rising -- and that's with spotty and slow testing.

This is just a quick glance, and at an early stage. It won't be long before states reluctant to enact controls (like Florida) or nations whose leaders continue to deride this as a flu (like Brazil) see the deadly consequences of those attitudes.

And of course, there's also reams of actual research on epidemiology, virology, and other relevant fields which make it clear that controls work.

Sorry not sorry, but yes we have more than enough information for the government to do what it can to stop the virus from uncontrollably spreading, and killing huge numbers of Americans.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Yes, actually, we can prove it. All you have to do is look at the numbers.

View attachment 67277016

View attachment 67277017

View attachment 67277019

South Korea has only 10,000 cases; that is 1 per 5,000 people. The US currently has 1 case per 1400 people.

South Korea is now getting about 100 new confirmed cases per day -- and that's with rigorous, widespread testing. The US is confirming 26,000 new cases per day and rising -- and that's with spotty and slow testing.

This is just a quick glance, and at an early stage. It won't be long before states reluctant to enact controls (like Florida) or nations whose leaders continue to deride this as a flu (like Brazil) see the deadly consequences of those attitudes.

And of course, there's also reams of actual research on epidemiology, virology, and other relevant fields which make it clear that controls work.

Sorry not sorry, but yes we have more than enough information for the government to do what it can to stop the virus from uncontrollably spreading, and killing huge numbers of Americans.

I never said that controls don't work. I said they're not necessary.

We can prevent all traffic deaths by razing our roads, but that's not necessary.

We can prevent all crime through 24-hour surveillance, but that's not necessary.

We can prevent coronavirus by shutting down all movement and commerce, but that's not necessary.

 

[Visbek]

I never said that controls don't work. I said they're not necessary.

Yeah, that's a difference without a distinction.

Without controls, the number of cases, and thus mortality rates, increase exponentially. Hospitals get slammed, patients who could be saved can't even get admitted, and thus more people die.

You touted a model based on strict controls to say "see how few people will die?" So either you believe that the exact same range of people will die with or without controls (i.e. the controls do nothing, and thus don't work) or you failed to understand that even the maximum predicted number of deaths in the range while controls were in place (i.e. you failed to understand the model). So which is it?

We can prevent all traffic deaths by razing our roads, but that's not necessary.

True... But that's not what we are doing.

We don't just build roads, and then let people do whatever they want on them. We regulate the cars allowed on the roads; we regulate the speeds on the roads; we regulate what side of the street you can drive on; we mandate seat belt usage and airbags; we mandate safety standards for cars; we prevent people from driving under the influence; we tell people when they can stop and go at intersections.... You're just so used to all of these regulations

We can prevent coronavirus by shutting down all movement and commerce, but that's not necessary.

True... But that's not what we are doing. Not even close.

There is no question that the economy is taking a hit, and it's going to hurt. But we're only shutting down work that is non-essential and can only be done in person. There is a huge amount of e-commerce going on right now, and a huge push to get everyone working from home.

Most importantly, this is not permanent. Hopefully, by the end of May or so, we will have enough rapid testing to relax some of the more onerous restrictions; and once there's a vaccine, we can go back to normal. I suggest you prepare for a long wait.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I never said that controls don't work. I said they're not necessary.

We can prevent all traffic deaths by razing our roads, but that's not necessary.

We can prevent all crime through 24-hour surveillance, but that's not necessary.

We can prevent coronavirus by shutting down all movement and commerce, but that's not necessary.

Do you have a better idea, or just think we ought to let the virus run its course?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Do you have a better idea, or just think we ought to let the virus run its course?

Yes! We should be prioritizing keeping things moving -- keeping stores open, going about life. I absolutely believe we should take this seriously, and while I don't love the public place shutdowns, school closings, events, etc., I can appreciate the desire and power to do so. The government has every right to close its operations, place limits on public areas, issue guidelines, divert resources, etc., etc., etc.

I draw the line at throwing millions out of work, threatening citizens with jail time if they leave their homes, and so many other absurdities taking place right now, not to mention those screaming that MORE should have been done SOONER, as if our rights, our livelihoods, our autonomy are easily discarded in times of heightened fear.

And let's be clear, this is not friggin' Ebola. It's bad. It's not THAT bad.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes! We should be prioritizing keeping things moving -- keeping stores open, going about life. I absolutely believe we should take this seriously, and while I don't love the public place shutdowns, school closings, events, etc., I can appreciate the desire and power to do so. The government has every right to close its operations, place limits on public areas, issue guidelines, divert resources, etc., etc., etc.

I draw the line at throwing millions out of work, threatening citizens with jail time if they leave their homes, and so many other absurdities taking place right now, not to mention those screaming that MORE should have been done SOONER, as if our rights, our livelihoods, our autonomy are easily discarded in times of heightened fear.

And let's be clear, this is not friggin' Ebola. It's bad. It's not THAT bad.

It's at least ten times as deadly as the flu, there is no vaccine, and no proven cure. If we did as you suggested, it's likely a significant percentage of the population would come down with the virus within a few weeks at most, and would overwhelm the health care system. If half of the population got the disease, and 1% of those died, then that would be roughly a million and a half deaths.

And, those estimates, both the number of infected and the percentage of deaths given an overwhelmed health care system, are pretty conservative.