All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Powerboy]

Yes a lot of people are still working right now but a whole lot of people are not, just take a look at the explosion in unemployment claims if you want to see the tsunami we're facing.

Every single restaurant in the city I live in is shut down (with some doing takeout), as is every barber shop, theater, sporting arena, museum, and school. The only businesses that are currently open are grocery stores and gas stations. There are millions of people who were laid off for the immediate future and will therefore be unable to pay their bills and mortgages. The proposed payouts by the federal govt. are at best a stop gap but are not a solution for the longer term.

This is a massive issue and ignoring it is just asking for disaster.

I'll repeat my earlier point: Either you provide a plan for bringing the economy back online (benchmarks regarding case numbers, provision of safety materials, focus on particular industries, etc.) in the huge swaths of the country where it's effectively been frozen or the people are going to start doing it themselves.

Absolutely. This situation is going to explode if it isn't dealt with realistically. People are going to soon start saying, "F*** this health crisis. I have rent and bills to pay. I'll take my chances and so will everyone else who isn't wealthy". Here, as Indianapolis prepares to go on lockdown, we are told the main thing the police will be doing is making sure that restaurants and other businesses are not defying the law by opening anyway because it will soon get to the point that it will either be "Defy the law en masse or be out on the street.

I'm glad I'm in the grocery business so I still have a job but this is going to hit the fan if they don't have a realistic plan for balancing health risk versus poverty.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I know it would please some of you, but no. He's trying to do the tight thing and help people. I still get Bernie 2020 campaign emails since certain I've worked for them. But this is about doing somethung Joe Biden and others aren't doing. Raising money to help people.

Is Sanders incapable of doing that when he's not running for president?

Bernie can run a campaign and a charity to help, much to the chagrin of a couple posters. He needs to stay in and keep pulling Biden. Who has had the worst responses ever to this crisis. But demands unity lol. ��

They're not separate things, Taz, a presidential campaign is not a charity. How is putting more people at risk for nothing helping? You'd be demanding unity had the positions been reversed with the candidates.

[TheDarman]

If you don't think economic considerations are going to start affecting public policy decisions then you're an idiot.

You can argue about how we go about doing this, which industries should be brought back on first, whether restrictions should be statewide or more localized, etc. but you're going to have to have an idea otherwise people will start doing it themselves.

People have bills to pay, they have businesses that they've built from the ground up that are going to begin failing after a few weeks of inactivity, they have family matters to address and you can only convince them to sit around hiding in their house for so long before they say "**** this".

Simply put, you either get ahead of these obvious issues or you're going to be swamped by them.

There are many reasons why the president is horribly irresponsible with pushing this line of thinking. I will lay them out here, but, before I do, I want to let Republicans on this forum know that I don’t blame them if they want to believe in the president and, at first glance, agree with the economic rationale for opening things back up. I even truly feel for the personal narratives of inconvenience. I, for one, love the movies more than any other pastime, even more than video games or sports. I want things to go back to normal as soon as possible. But there are a number of reasons why that can’t happen right now and why we must not be looking for such a quick definitive end to this crisis.

The first one is based off of pretty easy data: we haven’t peaked yet and turning our backs on social distancing are going to lead to another surge of cases. As long as cases go up, and we have an ever-higher number of people infected, we cannot expect that it will be safer by April 12th. Even if we can anticipate to be on the downward slope, which is incredibly unlikely, we are going to end up causing another surge and will peak our cases even higher than they were on track to under social distancing policies. Think about it this way, if an infected person was at home with three family members and only one goes out to a local Target store to get groceries and has fewer interactions there than usual, they might infect three or four more people. However, if the whole family is going out and interacting with even the same number of people each would result in an exponential increase in cases just from that own family alone. If we start this practice all over again, we are going to see a much larger peak.

The second reason this is a bad idea is that, even with social distancing policy, we are looking at hospital overload in many states. That means that we don’t have enough of the basics like ventilators and beds to go around to treat all the patients coming in. Postponing elective procedures and stopping medically unnecessary visits only go so far. When we hit hospital overload, doctors will be forced to choose who to care for and thus ration care based on who they think they have the best chance to help. That means more seniors and immunodeficient people will languish and suffer while younger people will receive care. Because of this we can’t expect the low mortality of South Korea—because they could assist older patients who had a comparatively smaller chance of survival and help them pull through. We would probably be looking at a higher mortality than even the WHO average and that would mean millions dead. And that might be the optimistic case. Currently, the federal government is struggling to meet the needs of states that have put in place more extreme policies to keep people away from one another, like New York. It’s doubtful that the government will be able to rise to the challenge of many states looking like New York and others still having even more cases and hospitalizations.

Thirdly, and probably most inherently problematic, it wouldn’t actually correct the trends that the president looks to want to correct. Sure, for a limited time some businesses might reopen and the economy might perform some marginal gains. The issue is what starts happening to the economy when widespread hospital overload occurs. There would be mass panic, hysteria, and markets would drop, likely even further than they did. At least under the current system, the government can work to address workers being out of work and businesses having to shutter with stimulus. However, when people CHOOSE to stay home and not to go out to work, school, and other places, we may end up with an economic quagmire that is far more difficult to solve. Part of the reason we might come out of this with a wounded, but ready to recover economy is because there is a level of trust in the government and its policies on it. They CAN act to correct a number of issues pointed out with rent, mortgages, bills, and more. They can either directly pay for these or just flat out stop the collection of them. But if the government starts to say that it is safe to go out and resume business as usual and it ends up making things even worse, there is no way to recoup that trust for when the government tries to say that it is ACTUALLY safe. This would likely prolong the economic impact of this crisis and lead to a prolonged recession and, perhaps, even a depression.

In short, hopefully the president will listen to the experts and reverse his course on this. It won’t accomplish what he thinks it will and it will make this health crisis infinitely more difficult to control. Just please stay home, wash your hands, and support businesses where and when you can and feel comfortable.

[XPac]

There are many reasons why this is horribly irresponsible. I will lay them out here, but, before I do, I want to let Republicans on this forum know that I don’t blame them if they want to believe in the president and, at first glance, agree with the economic rationale for opening things back up. I even truly feel for the personal narratives of inconvenience. I, for one, love the movies more than any other pastime, even more than video games or sports. I want things to go back to normal as soon as possible. But there are a number of reasons why that can’t happen right now and why we must not be looking for such a quick definitive end to this crisis.

The first one is based off of pretty easy data: we haven’t peaked yet and turning our backs on social distancing are going to lead to another surge of cases. As long as cases go up, and we have an ever-higher number of people infected, we cannot expect that it will be safer by April 12th. Even if we can anticipate to be on the downward slope, which is incredibly unlikely, we are going to end up causing another surge and will peak our cases even higher than they were on track to under social distancing policies. Think about it this way, if an infected person was at home with three family members and only one goes out to a local Target store to get groceries and has fewer interactions there than usual, they might infect three or four more people. However, if the whole family is going out and interacting with even the same number of people each would result in an exponential increase in cases just from that own family alone. If we start this practice all over again, we are going to see a much larger peak.

The second reason this is a bad idea is that, even with social distancing policy, we are looking at hospital overload in many states. That means that we don’t have enough of the basics like ventilators and beds to go around to treat all the patients coming in. Postponing elective procedures and stopping medically unnecessary visits only go so far. When we hit hospital overload, doctors will be forced to choose who to care for and thus ration care based on who they think they have the best chance to help. That means more seniors and immunodeficient people will languish and suffer while younger people will receive care. Because of this we can’t expect the low mortality of South Korea—because they could assist older patients who had a comparatively smaller chance of survival and help them pull through. We would probably be looking at a higher mortality than even the WHO average and that would mean millions dead. And that might be the optimistic case. Currently, the federal government is struggling to meet the needs of states that have put in place more extreme policies to keep people away from one another, like New York. It’s doubtful that the government will be able to rise to the challenge of many states looking like New York and others still having even more cases and hospitalizations.

Thirdly, and probably most inherently problematic, it wouldn’t actually correct the trends that the president looks to want to correct. Sure, for a limited time some businesses might reopen and the economy might perform some marginal gains. The issue is what starts happening to the economy when widespread hospital overload occurs. There would be mass panic, hysteria, and markets would drop, likely even further than they did. At least under the current system, the government can work to address workers being out of work and businesses having to shutter with stimulus. However, when people CHOOSE to stay home and not to go out to work, school, and other places, we may end up with an economic quagmire that is far more difficult to solve. Part of the reason we might come out of this with a wounded, but ready to recover economy is because there is a level of trust in the government and its policies on it. If the government starts to say that it is safe to go out and resume business as usual and it ends up making things even worse, there is no way to recoup that trust for when the government tries to say that it is ACTUALLY safe. This would likely prolong the economic impact of this crisis and lead to a prolonged recession and, perhaps, even a depression.

In short, hopefully the president will listen to the experts and reverse his course on this. It won’t accomplish what he thinks it will and it will make this health crisis infinitely more difficult to control. Just please stay home, wash your hands, and support businesses where and when you can and feel comfortable.

I think the thing to remember though is regardless of what the president says at a CERTAIN point business will likey start simply because they have to, if the shut down goes too long.

No one wants to get anyone sick... but likewise no one wants to live on the streets because they couldn't afford to keep their business open and pay the rent. There is a point where the risk reward will simply be too great REGARDLESS of what the president says. That point almost certainly isn't today or tommorow or next week... but a month from now, or maybe two and for a LOT of people primary concern likely will shift away from how crowded the hospitals might be. A lot of small business struggle keeping out of the red even under normal circumstances, let alone being forced to shut down for months at a time. A check from the government at that point is a band aid on a bullet wound.

I'm not even saying it's right or wrong for people to feel that way... I'm just saying what I think will happen. It will start up again, and neither the president nor the coronovirus can stuck it down indefinately. Hopefully it won't get to that point

[numberthirty]

Is Sanders incapable of doing that when he's not running for president?

...

Put simply...

He was successfully raising money to help people while running for President, before you even posted that. Since he is provably capable of doing both at the same time, the "Either"/"Or" cookie cutter that you seem intent on pushing down on it is a literal non-issue.

...

They're not separate things, Taz, a presidential campaign is not a charity. How is putting more people at risk for nothing helping? You'd be demanding unity had the positions been reversed with the candidates.

Again...

What you are on about is a literal non-issue.

[XPac]

Put simply...

He was successfully raising money to help people while running for President, before you even posted that. Since he is provably capable of doing both at the same time, the "Either"/"Or" cookie cutter that you seem intent on pushing down on it is a literal non-issue.



Again...

What you are on about is a literal non-issue.

It's an issue if one takes issue that he hasn't dropped out.

He's not going to win, and I think he knows it. The only potential good from him remaining in the race is if he can use that to raise money and awareness for the causes he believes in... but if he in theory can do that WITHOUT remaining in a race that he's not going to win anyways, then you can argue there's no reason for him not to drop out at this point .

[TheDarman]

I think the thing to remember though is regardless of what the president says at a CERTAIN point business will likey start simply because they have to, if the shut down goes too long.

No one wants to get anyone sick... but likewise no one wants to live on the streets because they couldn't afford to keep their business open and pay the rent. There is a point where the risk reward will simply be too great REGARDLESS of what the president says. That point almost certainly isn't today or tommorow or next week... but a month from now, or maybe two and for a LOT of people primary concern likely will shift away from how crowded the hospitals might be. A lot of small business struggle keeping out of the red even under normal circumstances, let alone being forced to shut down for months at a time. A check from the government at that point is a band aid on a bullet wound.

I'm not even saying it's right or wrong for people to feel that way... I'm just saying what I think will happen. It will start up again, and neither the president nor the coronovirus can stuck it down indefinately. Hopefully it won't get to that point

This is the precise reason we have a government though. You don’t want to just put a band aid on a bullet wound for these businesses. The government needs to step up, big time, and issue loans and grants to the businesses to keep them solvent until the crisis abates. This way you save lives and keep the economy on life support in the meantime. People can and will accept this so long as they don’t end up on the street. I don’t think we should take that for granted as an outcome of this shutdown—we should push our government to ensure people remain housed and fed. Past that, we will need to tough it out in the meantime to avoid this getting worse, both economically and health-wise.

[numberthirty]

It's an issue if one takes issue that he hasn't dropped out.

He's not going to win, and I think he knows it. The only potential good from him remaining in the race is if he can use that to raise money and awareness for the causes he believes in... but if he in theory can do that WITHOUT remaining in a race that he's not going to win anyways, then you can argue there's no reason for him not to drop out at this point .

Which has right around "Nothing..." to do with if he actually has to drop out to be able to do charitable work at the same time he is running.

He has already done it. Which means he is perfectly capable of doing it.

As for if he will win or not, folks were saying "Let The Voters Speak..." when Sanders had the delegate lead.

It's funny how quickly that is changing now that Sanders no longer has the delegate lead.

When Biden actually has the votes to get the nomination? Let's talk.

Otherwise, I see no reason not to let the process play out the way it was meant to. Sanders decides to drop out later tonight? Fine. If not, Biden needs to have the delegates to clinch the nomination.

[Gray Lensman]

This is the precise reason we have a government though. You don’t want to just put a band aid on a bullet wound for these businesses. The government needs to step up, big time, and issue loans and grants to the businesses to keep them solvent until the crisis abates. This way you save lives and keep the economy on life support in the meantime. People can and will accept this so long as they don’t end up on the street. I don’t think we should take that for granted as an outcome of this shutdown—we should push our government to ensure people remain housed and fed. Past that, we will need to tough it out in the meantime to avoid this getting worse, both economically and health-wise.

It really only becomes an issue if the government steps in to help businesses while throwing the people to the wayside. Like Midnight Mitch's plan.

[XPac]

Which has right around "Nothing..." to do with if he actually has to drop out to be able to do charitable work at the same time he is running.

He has already done it. Which means he is perfectly capable of doing it.

As for if he will win or not, folks were saying "Let The Voters Speak..." when Sanders had the delegate lead.

It's funny how quickly that is changing now that Sanders no longer has the delegate lead.

When Biden actually has the votes to get the nomination? Let's talk.

Otherwise, I see no reason not to let the process play out the way it was meant to. Sanders decides to drop out later tonight? Fine. If not, Biden needs to have the delegates to clinch the nomination.

There's a pretty big difference between saying other candidates should drop out when Sanders had a delegate lead, and right now. A lead this big essentially means it's over... and objectively speaking pretty much anyone if they are honest with themselves would say that regardless of what candidate they were supporting. At a certain point, the math tells you what you need to know.

As for reasons why he shouldn't drop and instead let the process play out... it's simply a matter of party unity. If Bernie doesn't give a dam, that's obviously his perogrative and the perogative of those supporting him. But that lack of unity is a valid concern for many, as it essentially makes Trumps re-election that much easier.

[numberthirty]

There's a pretty big difference between saying other candidates should drop out when Sanders had a delegate lead, and right now. A lead this big essentially means it's over... and objectively speaking pretty much anyone if they are honest with themselves would say that regardless of what candidate they were supporting. At a certain point, the math tells you what you need to know.

As for reasons why he shouldn't drop and instead let the process play out... it's simply a matter of party unity. If Bernie doesn't give a dam, that's obviously his perogrative and the perogative of those supporting him. But that lack of unity is a valid concern for many, as it essentially makes Trumps re-election that much easier.

You are right about that much...

Let's say any sort attempt to force the candidate that has been raising money for virus victims takes place.

How much party unity will there be then?

To me, the Party is probably going to lose some of the Sanders' base that leans toward being more doubtful of the Party. That's just reality. Making an actual attempt a losing more of them than that?

I just cannot see the logic there. It's what someone would do if they wanted to skip making Trump's second term more likely, and go right to making it closer to a certainty.

[TheDarman]

It really only becomes an issue if the government steps in to help businesses while throwing the people to the wayside. Like Midnight Mitch's plan.

This is exactly right. We need to pay attention and be careful about what we get when we ask for “stimulus”. But good stimulus will get us to where we need to be while we get tests out and wait for the cases to get back into a range where hospitals can reasonably deal with those who need help.

[Steel Inquisitor]

You are right about that much...

Let's say any sort attempt to force the candidate that has been raising money for virus victims takes place.

How much party unity will there be then?

Nobody is forcing Sanders to do anything, candidates have to drop out voluntarily. Unity requires both groups to back the other and until further notice Biden has this. The only reason this is going on is due to Sanders stubbornness. He's not a graceful loser.

To me, the Party is probably going to lose some of the Sanders' base that leans toward being more doubtful of the Party. That's just reality. Making an actual attempt a losing more of them than that?

That'll happen, anyway. Sanders isn't "losing," he's lost. Past tense.

I just cannot see the logic there. It's what someone would do if they wanted to skip making Trump's second term more likely, and go right to making it closer to a certainty.

You can see the logic plain as day, admitting it's merit puts a blow to your argument that Sanders must stay in the race when we both know he doesn't have to when 1) he's lost and 2) he can raise money without running for president. Sanders stying in is playing into Trump's hand by continuing the in-fighting, burning resources which should be shifted to the general, and making unity harder when he finally concedes at the last moment. Also, it stops putting more people at risk during a pandemic when they don't have to. He's the reason this is continuing, not Biden.

[numberthirty]

Nobody is forcing Sanders to do anything, candidates have to drop out voluntarily. Unity requires both groups to back the other and until further notice Biden has this. The only reason this is going on is due to Sanders stubbornness. He's not a graceful loser.

...

When Biden actually had the delegates to lock up the nomination, we'll have something to discuss.

Otherwise?

Sanders hasn't even taken this as far as Clinton did when she lost the nomination to Obama.

...



That'll happen, anyway. Sanders isn't "losing," he's lost. Past tense.


...

Since the nomination would require Biden to actually have the delegates to lock it up? You are simply incorrect.

...

You can see the logic plain as day, admitting it's merit puts a blow to your argument that Sanders must stay in the race when we both know he doesn't have to when 1) he's lost and 2) he can raise money without running for president. Sanders stying in is playing into Trump's hand by continuing the in-fighting, burning resources which should be shifted to the general, and making unity harder when he finally concedes at the last moment. Also, it stops putting more people at risk during a pandemic when they don't have to. He's the reason this is continuing, not Biden.

No one has made the argument that he "Must..." stay in the race.

That said, he is easily accomplishing raising the money for virus victims while staying in the race.

So...

There's just not really much of an argument there. The fact that he has raised the money points clearly to that he does not need to leave the race to accomplish that end. He has already done it.

[Tendrin]

Apologies if this was posted earlier but... oh WBE-EEEEEE....

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/03/tex...rtion-clinics/

n Tuesday, Kathaleen Wall, a member of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee and a candidate for Texas’ 22nd Congressional District, suggested that coronavirus will save more people than it kills this week — because abortion clinics in the state of Texas have been closed.