General / Off-Topic The safest place
- Thread starter Robin of Spiritwood
- Start date
- Status
As this thing rolls on, it is beginning to look like the only people left working will be in critical services.
When we look at the governments in Europe, we can wonder if this slowness reaction was not made voluntarily ...
Soap is king.
Not really. Only those countries tragically familiar with such outbreaks were immediately on it. And these countries learned form when they were not. It is just very, very hard to wrap your head around all of this when you never experienced it. When I suggested closing the university almost a month ago people had to laugh, but I myself only brought it up due to what numbers suggested to me. I couldn't really picture the reality of it either, or fathom what it truly means as to the impact on daily life. And the leaders of each country already have a pile of very real issues to grapple with.
Last edited:
That seems an inevitability. The only questions are how you get to that situation and what happens with those who end up unemployed.
Little. That is why relatively few are stockpiling their favourite brand of almond milk compared with how many stockpile toilet paper. Our brains aren't made for such perspectives, we naturally gravitate to "the flu is worse!" or "the end times are upon us!".
I watched that WHO press conference, and you misunderstood Ms. v, Kerkhove . What she said comes down to, 3 different ways of processig the tests to get results are in practice at the moment, depending on the tech available to different Nations . One of them being processing them in Bulk ( machines who are able to process thousands of tests simultaneously ) .
Hoffmann-La Roche: Lieferung von Corona-Tests in die USA gestartet | Nau.ch
Der Pharmakonzern Hoffmann-La Roche hat das erste Paket mit Covid-19-Tests abgesandt. Geplant sind 400'000 Tests pro Woche.
www.nau.ch
Hoffmann La Roche started delivering tests to the USA; first shipment of 400.000 went out last week Friday . Acc. to the article, shipment of another 400.00 was in the works already as the article was written .
Good news .
A lot of people don't see the difference between a quite serious problem and an apocalypse. This tunnel vision leads to silly ideas.
Luckily most of us lives in democracies and ideas like that will not get implemented.
Democratic thinking may slow us down a bit at first when facing something like the Corona, but it saves us from a lot of crazy panic decisions.
Testing is starting to take off in the US, but it's going to take time to ramp up.
Just today a local press conference said they were testing half a dozen people a day here, which is will below the estimated rate of infection, and one of the handful of confirmed cases was two streets away from me.
Trying to eliminate the spread in perpetuity is a lost cause. At the very least it would require restrictions that are impractical, from both an economic and personal liberty perspective, to impose in the long term.
The idea should still be to reduce the number of new cases to a manageable level, not grind society to a halt with the perpetual implementation of draconian controls.
If an effective vaccine shows up in a miraculously short period of time and can be disseminated quickly enough, then maybe a plan of total containment could work, but I wouldn't gamble on that.
A practical effect on the function of the markets or the spread of the virus?
Most all trading can be done electronically, but the floor of the NYSE is still typically quite crowded...so limiting the people that can be there has more upsides than downsides.
Those better off are mostly going to miss out on a few creature comforts and have to get used to some social distancing, but plenty of people without so much in the way of luxuries now are going to find their livelihoods in jeopardy.
~28% of the population here is below the poverty line and can't afford almond milk in the best of times. Plenty more people work in areas that depend on the sort of activities that are being hit the hardest (not easy to prepare food for others, wait tables, clean buildings, or stock shelves from home) and are facing long stretches of unemployment that will send them into desperation.
Democracies are plenty capable of crazy panic decisions.
Just today a local press conference said they were testing half a dozen people a day here, which is will below the estimated rate of infection, and one of the handful of confirmed cases was two streets away from me.
Trying to eliminate the spread in perpetuity is a lost cause. At the very least it would require restrictions that are impractical, from both an economic and personal liberty perspective, to impose in the long term.
The idea should still be to reduce the number of new cases to a manageable level, not grind society to a halt with the perpetual implementation of draconian controls.
If an effective vaccine shows up in a miraculously short period of time and can be disseminated quickly enough, then maybe a plan of total containment could work, but I wouldn't gamble on that.
A practical effect on the function of the markets or the spread of the virus?
Most all trading can be done electronically, but the floor of the NYSE is still typically quite crowded...so limiting the people that can be there has more upsides than downsides.
Those better off are mostly going to miss out on a few creature comforts and have to get used to some social distancing, but plenty of people without so much in the way of luxuries now are going to find their livelihoods in jeopardy.
~28% of the population here is below the poverty line and can't afford almond milk in the best of times. Plenty more people work in areas that depend on the sort of activities that are being hit the hardest (not easy to prepare food for others, wait tables, clean buildings, or stock shelves from home) and are facing long stretches of unemployment that will send them into desperation.
Democracies are plenty capable of crazy panic decisions.
The question, of course, is whether the number of new cases can be reduced to a manageable level without draconian measures. So far most countries initially hoped for that, and then went with increasingly more drastic measures to get anywhere close to manageable levels. I have yet to see a single proper model suggesting sensible yet mild measures can do this.
I've been wondering about this. Do you know the legal aspects of this, as to which government has what authority? Can temporary social benefits and healthcare access be granted on the level of individual states? Is there some 'emergency situation' law that gives states temporarily more leeway in these matters? Or is this a federal affair that can only be decided from Washington? The whole idea of being 'one paycheck away from being homeless' was already a topic of debate before all this started, it seems this might become an issue for a large number of citizens sooner rather than later...
Sure. There are also cross-dressing neo-'s, cannibals who hate the color blue and you name it. Not entire sure why the opinion and response to this of such fringe groups should be of any relevance to anyone. When one is interested in how the 'environmentalist movement' at large looks at this, obviously it is the same as any other bunch of sane people; a catastrophe that we should tackle together.
With as unprepared as everyone has been, mild measures probably won't keep rates below the level where health services become swamped. However, the lines of what is strictly rational from an epidemiological perspective and what any given populace will be willing to tolerate are not likely to be the same, and there will need to be compromises. Pushing too hard on controls will lead to a backlash that will exacerbate problems.
I'm not a lawyer or legal historian, but I do know that federal, state, and local governments all have the authority to grant various forms of relief, with any legal conflicts generally being overruled by the larger government. Most US states and more local levels of government will be more limited than the federal government when it comes to bailouts and the like because the sort of central banking finagling needed to conjure huge amounts of capital, seemingly out of nowhere, is reserved for the feds. However, many States and local municipalities are already taking relief measure to ease financial burdens, at least in the short term.
Situations like the one you describe above worry me greatly. It can be tough enough to make ends meet with jobs like that when times are good.
I'm willing to bet that's true. I live in an well to do area in an affluent area of the world. Trying to remember my perspective on events is just that - my perspective.
@Phisto Sobanii ironically the Barron family did in fact lay in a rather massive supply of almond milk, cases of it that don't require refrigeration until they're opened. Not too much toilet paper, though: jasonbaron is a baby wipes man
Sorry man, I thought I'd edited that already to "some" which was my original intention, just mistyped
Waiting on announcements later but it's been reported the government have said there is "zero chance" of restrictions on travel in and out of London.
London could go into lockdown under tougher coronavirus measures
No 10 considers stricter containment steps as disease spreads rapidly in the capital
www.theguardian.com
- Status