12 ms·

As the joke goes, a trillion here a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about some real money! But in seriousness, the next week is a critical time i

by gdubs 7y ago

As the joke goes, a trillion here a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about some real money! But in seriousness, the next week is a critical time in the world. I remember sitting in an airport when news of Lehman Brothers collapse was flashing on the TV screens. I'm reminded of that time. We learned later about how Hank Paulson got down on one knee and begged Nancy Pelosi to go along with is plan to save the economy. In retelling of that period, it's clear that the world's top economists felt we were perilously close to a full-blown disaster – trucks not bringing goods into cities, things grinding to a halt, etc. Remember that when you see bold proposals in the coming days. As I've commented over the past few weeks, I think we've missed critical steps in fighting coronavirus. The lack of testing will maybe turn out to be one of the biggest scandals of my lifetime. My personal belief is that – at least in the United States – we did everything we could to prevent a short-term economic slowdown and instead we're on the verge of something much longer, much deeper. But if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now. We blew the past few weeks. We can't afford to blow any more. We really do need to come together, globally, but particularly here in the US to try and agree on the right next steps. We need to act boldly, now.

tw04 7y ago
>But if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now. You say that like both parties are trying to deny testing and are refusing to provide the social safety net for workers to stay home when they're sick. This is very much not a "both sides" discussion. This is: the GOP needs to stop trying to pretend like nothing is wrong and actually DO SOMETHING to prevent this from becoming an even bigger disaster. Ahh, the old cowardly downvote without comment because you don't like the reality of the situation that there is one party that's very much to blame. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/487258-senate-republicans-poised-to-reject-house-coronavirus-relief-bill https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/487258-senate-republican...
- altec3 7y ago
  I think what gdubs was trying to get across is that sure, there are problems, people to blame, etc. but now is not the time. We have to get our act together and handle the situation. We can't have petty fighting betweeen parties. Now is the time to unite and act. We can fight, argue and point fingers once this is all behind us.
  - aaomidi 7y ago
    They're literally blocking COVID emergency budget bills getting passed in the Senate This is time to fall in line or be thrown out of your job.
    - breakyerself 7y ago
      Why don't Republicans need to fall in line when Democrats pass much needed relief for coronavirus?
      - wonderwonder 7y ago
        That's who he is talking about, the republicans are blocking it.
    - fragmede 7y ago
      At least one bill is being blocked because it doesn't have language prohibiting the money to be used for abortion. The money would be used to fight Covid-19 pandemic, but for some reason, it's critical that the money in no way go to abortion. https://www.salon.com/2020/03/12/gop-delays-coronavirus-bill-in-part-over-complaints-that-it-doesnt-bar-federal-funds-for-abortion/ https://www.salon.com/2020/03/12/gop-delays-coronavirus-bill...
  - standardUser 7y ago
    Now is the time for leadership. If leadership is lacking, we don't star singing Kumbaya and offering platitudes about "unity" in the face of malpractice, we loudly and firmly demand better leadership.
  - wonderwonder 7y ago
    You are right. Unfortunately we need good strong leadership focused on protecting not just numbers on a candlestick chart but actual real people. Our current president has proven completely incapable of that and should immediately step aside. I am no fan of Pence but he at least likely capable of listening to experts and following their recommendations. The markets reaction to last night Oval office speech is reason enough to prove the nation has lost confidence in its current occupant.
- tic_tac 7y ago
  You can't just conjure the necessary tests up from nothing. Japan has also had problems with testing. No one is trying to "deny testing". It is a work in progress and is indeed ramping up.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    The FDA had a ban on tests outside of the CDC's tiny supply for a long time. That's whats being referred to by "denying testing." Not a political issue so much as a typical bureaucratic slowdown with very real consequences.
    - tic_tac 7y ago
      The comment I replied to was saying that the lack of testing was indeed a political issue with one side at fault.
      - inferiorhuman 7y ago
        It is insofar as the FDA and CDC are controlled by the president and both agencies could make emergency exceptions. On a phone call the day after the C.D.C. and F.D.A. had told Dr. Chu to stop, officials relented, but only partially, the researchers recalled. They would allow the study’s laboratories to test cases and report the results only in future samples. They would need to use a new consent form that explicitly mentioned that results of the coronavirus tests might be shared with the local health department. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-delays.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-de...
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Could be a political issue as well. The deep state within CDC and FDA is likely sabotaging the first response. I see no other explanation for why, 2 months after things started blowing up in China, we _still_ don't have widespread testing in what I thought was the most technologically advanced country in the world, and moreover, are _refusing to import the working solution_. Heads should most definitely roll for this after things subside.
- allovernow 7y ago
  >Ahh, the old cowardly downvote without comment because you don't like the reality of the situation that there is one party that's very much to blame People are probably downvoting silently this time because explaining to you that you're obliviously consuming propaganda is one step deeper into flamewar territory which is unpopular on HN (and against the rules). Case in point? Media reports that bill forcing employers to provide sick leave failed to pass because of evil Republicans. What you won't see on the news is the nuance that such a bill can't be passed without possibly bankrupting small businesses. That's just one example. The administration shut down the border early on and was enthusiastically rewarded with accusations of sinophobia. All politicians play this game. The US government institution has been rotting for decades, and yes, it really is a "both sides" issue when one side is so blinded by hatred that they refuse to acknowledge positive decisions. There are literally almost as many people on the Republican side blindly dismissing everything Democrats do. Remember, Trump only lost the popular vote by 3%. Now is not the time for partisan idiocy.
  - tw04 7y ago
    >Case in point? Media reports that bill forcing employers to provide sick leave failed to pass because of evil Republicans. What you won't see on the news is the nuance that such a bill can't be passed without possibly bankrupting small businesses. The bill literally includes the funding to pay for sick leave. That's why it's a FUNDING bill - I think you're confused about who is being mislead by propaganda. Meanwhile, the GOP is trying to insert language about abortion into the bill because...?
    - malandrew 7y ago
      The full text has not yet been published on congress.gov to verify who is paying and I can't find the full text elsewhere. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3415/all-info?r=3&s=5 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/341... https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6150?s=3&r=64 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6150... However, the press release from Murray and DeLauro makes it sound like businesses are paying: https://www.help.senate.gov/ranking/newsroom/press/coronavirus-murray-delauro-introduce-new-emergency-paid-sick-days-legislation https://www.help.senate.gov/ranking/newsroom/press/coronavir... If you have a primary source that shows that government, not businesses, are paying for the costs of sick leave as it relates to S.3415 and HR.6150, please share it. I also can't find a single search result that includes the term abortion as it relates to either S.3415 or HR.6150.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  If you actually listen to the hearing today you will realize that this is a systemic issue with the US healthcare system not something any politician can do much about. The US is not built that way the CDC can't just fix it. That's the power and weakness of our system compared to other countries. Here the leaders of CDC explains the problem in a nutshell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxC9Q99il1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxC9Q99il1Q
- paulmd 7y ago
  Also: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/486559-trump-fake-news-media-democrats-working-to-inflame-the-coronavirus https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/486559-trump-fak... https://theweek.com/speedreads/901405/seattle-lab-uncovered-washingtons-coronavirus-outbreak-only-after-defying-federal-regulators https://theweek.com/speedreads/901405/seattle-lab-uncovered-... https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/anthony-fauci-donald-trump-coronavirus-claims https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/anthony-fauci-donald... https://thehill.com/homenews/house/487014-trump-officials-cut-testimony-short-at-coronavirus-hearing https://thehill.com/homenews/house/487014-trump-officials-cu... Yes, the administration bears a huge amount of responsibility for sandbagging and obstructing the initial response, mis-informing the public, ignoring their own subject experts, etc. Fresh Air did a great long-form report today summarizing the ways the administration has obstructed and worsened the crisis. No transcript yet but it's worth a listen. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/12/814881355/white-house-knew-coronavirus-would-be-a-major-threat-but-response-fell-short https://www.npr.org/2020/03/12/814881355/white-house-knew-co... (<3 Terry Gross, she's a wonderful interviewer who is fantastic at asking insightful and probing questions while being incredibly kind and gentle. Probably the single most informative show on the air, for whatever topic she covers.)
  - kulahan 7y ago
    For what it's worth, the transcript is now live. Direct link: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/814881355 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/814881355
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  I think you allowed yourself to become overwhelmed with emotions. Both groups, and that is despite news that some of their own are infected, are playing games. It is silly to pretend it is just GOP. edit: spelling
  - breakyerself 7y ago
    Republicans are playing games to get bailouts for corporations. Democrats are playing games to get people healthcare and paid sick leave.
  - ChuckMcM 7y ago
    I think it is a bit more nuanced than that. My experience in large enterprises are that there are two kinds of "politics" that get played. In one form, the leadership makes moves or take actions that benefit themselves but also help the company. Often that is called out as "leadership." In the other form, the leadership makes moves or take actions that benefit themselves but hurts the company. That form is called "politics." You can see examples all around of this. For example a CEO that buys another company, the result of which is hitting a milestone that triggers a big bonus for them but saddles the company with a bunch of debt and expense that drags down its productivity. That is bad. Versus the same example where the CEO buys another company and the combination results both in them getting a bonus as well as the combined company doing better than the sum of the individual companies. That is good. So I agree with you that both parties are playing games, the differentiator for me is what is the ratio of benefit to the country vs benefit to the party/individual from the game being played? If that ration is 1:1 or greater I see it as a positive thing rather than a negative thing.
    - mamon 7y ago
      >> For example a CEO that buys another company, the result of which is hitting a milestone that triggers a big bonus for them but saddles the company with a bunch of debt and expense that drags down its productivity. That is bad. Versus the same example where the CEO buys another company and the combination results both in them getting a bonus as well as the combined company doing better than the sum of the individual companies. That is good. Mergers are always risky. CEO can do all the analysis possible but can't know for sure if combined company will do better or worse than individual parts. That part of the job is called "taking calculated risks".
- malandrew 7y ago
  Lamar Alexander was not against providing this support. He blocked it based on how it was going to be paid for. It's very much a partisan issue because the Democrats want companies to foot the bill. The GOP thinks that if Washington DC thinks companies should do something then Washington DC should foot the bill. Neither side disagrees that people should have this support. All the Democrats had to do is introduce the same bill and divert funding from other congressional discretionary spending and the bill would have passed. It could pass today if they made this change. Honestly, Lamar Alexander is right here. Companies are already going to be hurting financially enough as it is. Making them provide something new and foot the bill is just kicking companies while they are down and just going to worsen the fallout in this recession. Forcing them to fund this will contribute to phenomena like Chapter 11 bankruptcy for some companies and for others it will force them to lay off more staff. There's no justification for Congress to increase the costs to companies while the Fed simultaneously injects $1.5T. That's just counterproductive when you're trying to help stabilize the economy. I honestly don't understand why the Democrats are so consistently anti-business in so many things they do. "After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world." (Calvin Coolidge)
  - ShroudedNight 7y ago
    As a non-American that's somewhat ignorant of the current states of the US legislative houses on this matter, could someone provide some context as to why the comment directly parent to $self is being maligned?
    - undersuit 7y ago
      I downvoted because I disagree with the way they are arguing. The gp's(grandposter) comment uses the word companies. Which companies? Well we're talking about the US and health care so it has gotta be the health insurance companies? No, the bill Lamar disagreed with was to make employer's provide sick time to their employees. Also, pp(parentposter) is what I use. OP is reserved for poster of the content.
- Alex3917 7y ago
  > the GOP needs to stop trying to pretend like nothing is wrong and actually DO SOMETHING to prevent this from becoming an even bigger disaster. The DNC and the Democratic media have literally spent the last several months lying about Medicare for All.
- roenxi 7y ago
  If the system is reliant on the legislative branch to respond to a crisis then there is no doubt that it will fail. Large voting bodies are no good at all in times of crisis.
  - trymas 7y ago
    I guess OP meant that this ignorance is systematic and long term. Current pandemic just very clearly shows how ridiculous it is not to provide a social safety net.
- zaptheimpaler 7y ago
  Slight tangent, but the excessive focus on tests is misguided. The tests give us more data but make little difference unless they are used to rapidly trace outbreaks and quarantine entire areas, which just has not happened. And with something this viral, its only a matter of time before it spreads everywhere. The focus needs to be on slowing the spread and treatment. The treatment is about supporting the body while it fights the virus, and highly dependent on how & where the virus manifests. Some need oxygen therapy, some need antivirals, some even need lung transplants. In cases where the virus affects other organs, totally different treatment applies. The resource constraint there is general medical capacity - doctors, beds, ICUs, oxygen support, and probably a hundred other things.
  - spaced-out 7y ago
    >Slight tangent, but the excessive focus on tests is misguided. The issue with our lack of testing is that we have no idea what we're dealing with, which is a big part of why the market's freaking out. If we had been ramping up testing months ago, when it was already a massive disruption in China and should have been clear that it was only a matter of time before it got to the US, then we would have a lot more information now. This is why we need competent administrators running things like the CDC, the DoE, Homeland Security etc..., not political hacks.
    - deckard1 7y ago
      > This is why we need competent administrators running things The GOP has a conflict of interest here. They don't want to give evidence that government can work. Their goal is to break government and then go "see, government doesn't work!" It's a splendid position to take, because anything that comes up you simply shrug and wipe your hands clean. You're not responsible for anything. While we all sit and ponder whether we're all going to die and if the economy will disappear overnight, let's all just remember the travesty that is Puerto Rico. If that's not enough, then kids in concentration camps. Oh? People care now because it impacts their little world? "No time for politics" says the people actively breaking the world.
    - zaptheimpaler 7y ago
- divbzero 7y ago
  Regardless, now is the time to put aside partisanship and face the problem before us. There will be plenty of time for retrospection, after we get through this together.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  Yes, the response from GOP leadership has been bad. No argument. However you are making (in my opinion) a very bad assumption that the other party who couldn't put up a healthcare website for millions (billions?) and as far as I know has never effectively done _anything_ would have performed any better. It's certainly not the time for partisan finger pointing and haymaking. That is simply stupid. However you are correct, we do need to look at causes and how we can do better. Maybe in general the incompetence of the federal government at responding to emergencies should be looked at. And perhaps putting too much responsibility in the hands of very old people who's entire careers and have been bullshit lip flapping instead of performance and career game of thrones do-nothing bureaucrats isn't a good idea in time of crisis and we need to be prepared next time.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
I don't think anyone is being partisan and tribal for the hell of it. Before last night, Trump's concern re: coronavirus was myopically focused on the economy. Now we're shutting the borders, as if we don't have upwards of a thousand cases here already. And as a sibling comment notes, it seems like Senate Republicans are poised to veto the coronavirus bill that's passed the House. It's not "partisan and tribal" to criticize this administration and the GOP for their failure to respond. If they were doing a good job here, it would be one thing. But they're not, and for that we need to hold them accountable.
chrisco255 7y ago
This disease didn't exist 4 months ago and you're calling it a scandal that they can't process billions of tests in that short time frame? It's also not enough to be tested just once as there have been many false negatives. Scaling that up is an immense challenge. It was also exacerbated by the fact that China wouldn't allow our researchers into the country to study the disease. Meanwhile they've already reached stage 1 clinical trials for a vaccine in just 2 months. Fastest turnaround time ever for any clinical trial of a vaccine, ever.
- saati 7y ago
  The US doesn't have billions of people, just checking the ones coming from the countries where it's present would have been enough, other countries managed to do it.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    They did that weeks ago. Where have you been? They shut down travel from China a month ago. Which countries managed to contain this thing, by the way? Because I see tens of thousands of cases in Europe and Asia and the Middle East, by the way.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Taiwan and Singapore appear to be containing it thus far. China, too, if you can trust their numbers, and South Korea's look positive after a big starting spike. Each of these countries took early (except for China, but they shut down Wuhan with fewer cases than the US has now), aggressive steps that should be considered a model for others.
      - chrisco255 7y ago
        South Korea has 8,000 active cases, over 114 today alone. Singapore has a population of 5.8M. They've got 178 cases. The U.S. has a population of 320M with 1338 cases. That means their infection rate is nearly 10x higher than the U.S. Meanwhile, we are taking action. Shutting down European travel, Chinese travel, cancelling schools, cancelling NBA season, NHL season, etc, etc...We are taking aggressive steps.
hef19898 7y ago
> The lack of testing will maybe turn out to be one of the biggest scandals of my lifetime. If I had to choose one thing that should change right now, it is this. Aggressive testing of everyone, starting with contact persons, persons travelling from high risk areas and then basically everyone. Would allow a much better understanding of the situation and make any measures way more effective. Other than that, the measures taken seem reasonable based on the situation when they ware taken (for expectations, refer to testing).
- aembleton 7y ago
  How accurate are these tests?
- kylebenzle 7y ago
  What is the argument against testing everyone? If it lasts 2 days on surfaces, it seems like a matter of when not if you get it. Best we can do is "flatten the curve" by isolating people as much as possible. Realistically, all the hand washing and testing does next to nothing in terms of modifying behaviour.
  - hef19898 7y ago
    Testing would allow to be way more aggressive where it matters. Also reaction time could be quicker. Could be so, that once a certain number of people are infected, full quarantine measures will be taken anyway. So on could just jump to these measures right away. Which would leave increased transparency as the main benefit. Would still be worth it, even if actual countermeasures don't necessarily change.
- wonderwonder 7y ago
  Except we can't test everyone as many people will not want to get tested. Hourly workers without paid sick leave will not get tested if a positive result means they have to not get paid for 14+ days. They cant afford it. Not going to work means their kids don't eat. So they go to work sick and everyone else around them gets it. The poor without insurance also cannot afford the test or treatment. Testing is important but providing real benefits to those that are potentially infected will incentivize them to get tested. Otherwise we are going to struggle with getting this contained.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Accujack 7y ago
I'm sure you'll get partisan political comments, but you're correct. I will note that I don't agree with "we" doing anything... our government is rather thoroughly insulated from the will of the citizens of the US by its own design. The dysfunction in our government is due to years of slow decay that have culminated in the present situation. This crisis will hopefully force enough people to realize the problem exists and its scope that we can finally take steps to correct the issue. Electing a different party won't help, because we still have the electoral college, voter suppression, unlimited corporate donations, the spoils system, seniority in the legislature, and partisan judges on the supreme court. The Democrats are Corrupt and the GOP is corrupt. The two party system and first past the post have to go. We need to amend the constitution to avoid the situation recurring in the future. People are about to die because our president is a fool, and the fact that he's still in charge is the fault of all of us who voted or didn't vote over the past half century. In all honesty, I don't see anything in the government changing for this crisis... they can't change. Lots of people are going to get sick and die, and hopefully in the aftermath people will finally be angry enough to repair our country. Assuming there are enough of us left.
- atomi 7y ago
  We can start by not having a president that continues to peddle disinformation in a time of national crisis. I don't remember any other president in my lifetime being this factually incorrect this many times. Also as a matter of fact both sides are not at the same level in terms of corruption (number of criminal indictments and convictions) in modern white house administrations.
  - izzydata 7y ago
    I agree, but corruption doesn't necessarily imply illegal. A lot of these people could be involved in setting the rules that they then place themselves above of. That's corruption, but not illegal.
- simonebrunozzi 7y ago
  > People are about to die because our president is a fool, and the fact that he's still in charge is the fault of all of us who voted or didn't vote over the past half century. This point of view is sobering. I am tired of people thinking that replacing a politician with another would solve every problem.
lowdose 7y ago
If you must compare the two, the virus is actually killing people. All those economists, bankers were lying and if we know anything today is that we shouldn't have let them off the hook so easily with the whole bailout. Maybe a lot of people are so skeptical today about the virus because of the crisis fear mongering in 2008.
vkou 7y ago
> But if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now. We are in the middle of a problem exacerbated by politics, that will require political decisions to solve. When politicians are doing nothing, or making the problem worse, this is not the time to shrug our shoulders, and be apolitical. Political decisions have consequences.
polote 7y ago
> The lack of testing will maybe turn out to be one of the biggest scandals of my lifetime. Testing more people is not going to change anything, this virus is so easy to transmit that we should take for granted that we will catch it anyway. What we can do instead is realize that we are facing something big and protect vulnerable people from it by asking them to stay at home and create a system to send them food safely, it is almost useless to prevent healthy and young people to work as it will just block the economy/transportation/health work/everything
- jerry1979 7y ago
  I think testing might be important to epidemiologists and public policy makers. It's probably why Dr. Fauci at the CDC was saying he is in favor of proactive testing.
zaroth 7y ago
I'm sorry, I simply don't understand the thought process here... Question 1) Is the spread inevitable, or can we achieve containment? Question 2) If it can't be contained, and worldwide spread is inevitable, approximately how many new cases per day do you want to see for the next 6 months? I would say the answer to #1 is that spread is absolutely inevitable. There are way too many vectors, and it is way too virulent. I'd go further and say that I believe tens if not hundreds of millions of people have already been infected and will never have serious illness, but such a claim is really besides the point. I would say the answer to #2 is; just so many as you don't run out of ventilators. And absolutely start setting up rows of ventilators in dedicated facilities in major cities. So to those saying we should have done more, sooner... I ask, to what end? Follow through on the hypothetical "done more sooner" scenario. Worldometer says the US has 1,518 active cases, of which 10 are serious. So 10 people in the country are in an ICU for COVID-19 right now? "Test everyone!" To what end? You don't need to test people in order to know if they need an ICU. The ICUs are not full - and you don't need more testing to tell you that. The main benefit to more testing would be that people who are self-quarantining due to potential exposure could maybe stop self-quarantining earlier. That's a fairly marginal benefit. This isn't a situation where the world is going to shut down until a vaccine is available and administered to a billion people. This is a situation where the vast majority of people have mild symptoms, then herd immunity, and then will very much need to get back to work in order to buy groceries and pay their mortgage.
- chasd00 7y ago
  yeah at this point it seems reasonable to me that increasing ICU capacity is going to become top priority soon. We missed the boat on testing and containment. We should continue to educate and modify behavior to lesson rate of injection and also increase ICU capacity to handle the inevitable severe cases.
- troyvit 7y ago
  > I would say the answer to #1 is that spread is absolutely inevitable. The WHO disagrees: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mission-briefing-on-covid-19---12-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-... > "Test everyone!" To what end? You don't need to test people in order to know if they need an ICU. The ICUs are not full - and you don't need more testing to tell you that. The main benefit to more testing would be that people who are self-quarantining due to potential exposure could maybe stop self-quarantining earlier. That's a fairly marginal benefit. Germany was ahead of the curve testing people and as a result (so far) they are weathering the virus much better than most other countries (including the US): https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-10/germany-and-coronavirus https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-10/german... It's not all about the testing for them but in the article they do count it as a key reason why they are doing well so far.
sequoia 7y ago
- We need to unite and overcome tribalist instincts - The GOP (the current ruling party) bears a majority of the blame for the recent screw ups (though _both_ parties are to blame for the decades-long problems with the healthcare system) Both things are true.
- fragmede 7y ago
  The Democrats tried to give us healthcare and the GOP has systematically dismantled it as best they could. I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect, but one of these things is not like the other.
sg47 7y ago
"But if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now" - Completely agree. I think GOP should ask Trump to step down and have someone responsible in charge.
dntbnmpls 7y ago
> it's clear that the world's top economists felt we were perilously close to a full-blown disaster – trucks not bringing goods into cities, things grinding to a halt, etc. The same top economists who didn't see the financial crisis coming? More like the top economists hired/backed by bankers felt that bankers would lose a lot of money and made the excuse of bread lines to dupe congress. > But if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now. No. I prefer the partisanship. It's when the government is united that you know bad things is going to happen. Everytime there is an illegal war, the government unites. Everytime the american people gets screwed over, it's always the united government. And the same messaging is used "if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now." But then again, the partisanship is just for show anyways. They all work for the same masters. > We need to act boldly, now. Like what? Give more money to bankers and wall street? Like last time? Every time there is a fear mongering event - 9/11, Financial Crisis, Red Scare, etc, it's the american public that loses more rights/privileges and the elites/government/state that gets more control.
daxorid 7y ago
> We blew the past few weeks No, "we" didn't blow anything. Plenty of us have been preparing for this for well over a month. And now, you want taxpayers, savers, the conscientious, and the prepared to bail out the people who were buying TSLA at $800 and selling VIX with a 10-handle with a pandemic on our doorstep, all while name-calling those of us who bothered to read the research "crazy"? No, let them all blow up. They deserve to soak in their margin calls.

by gdubs 7y ago

tw04 7y ago

>But if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now. You say that like both parties are trying to deny testing and are refusing to provide the social safety net for workers to stay home when they're sick. This is very much not a "both sides" discussion. This is: the GOP needs to stop trying to pretend like nothing is wrong and actually DO SOMETHING to prevent this from becoming an even bigger disaster. Ahh, the old cowardly downvote without comment because you don't like the reality of the situation that there is one party that's very much to blame. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/487258-senate-republicans-poised-to-reject-house-coronavirus-relief-bill https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/487258-senate-republican...

altec3 7y ago
I think what gdubs was trying to get across is that sure, there are problems, people to blame, etc. but now is not the time. We have to get our act together and handle the situation. We can't have petty fighting betweeen parties. Now is the time to unite and act. We can fight, argue and point fingers once this is all behind us.
- aaomidi 7y ago
  They're literally blocking COVID emergency budget bills getting passed in the Senate This is time to fall in line or be thrown out of your job.
  - breakyerself 7y ago
    Why don't Republicans need to fall in line when Democrats pass much needed relief for coronavirus?
    - wonderwonder 7y ago
      That's who he is talking about, the republicans are blocking it.
  - fragmede 7y ago
    At least one bill is being blocked because it doesn't have language prohibiting the money to be used for abortion. The money would be used to fight Covid-19 pandemic, but for some reason, it's critical that the money in no way go to abortion. https://www.salon.com/2020/03/12/gop-delays-coronavirus-bill-in-part-over-complaints-that-it-doesnt-bar-federal-funds-for-abortion/ https://www.salon.com/2020/03/12/gop-delays-coronavirus-bill...
- standardUser 7y ago
  Now is the time for leadership. If leadership is lacking, we don't star singing Kumbaya and offering platitudes about "unity" in the face of malpractice, we loudly and firmly demand better leadership.
- wonderwonder 7y ago
  You are right. Unfortunately we need good strong leadership focused on protecting not just numbers on a candlestick chart but actual real people. Our current president has proven completely incapable of that and should immediately step aside. I am no fan of Pence but he at least likely capable of listening to experts and following their recommendations. The markets reaction to last night Oval office speech is reason enough to prove the nation has lost confidence in its current occupant.
tic_tac 7y ago
You can't just conjure the necessary tests up from nothing. Japan has also had problems with testing. No one is trying to "deny testing". It is a work in progress and is indeed ramping up.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  The FDA had a ban on tests outside of the CDC's tiny supply for a long time. That's whats being referred to by "denying testing." Not a political issue so much as a typical bureaucratic slowdown with very real consequences.
  - tic_tac 7y ago
    The comment I replied to was saying that the lack of testing was indeed a political issue with one side at fault.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      It is insofar as the FDA and CDC are controlled by the president and both agencies could make emergency exceptions. On a phone call the day after the C.D.C. and F.D.A. had told Dr. Chu to stop, officials relented, but only partially, the researchers recalled. They would allow the study’s laboratories to test cases and report the results only in future samples. They would need to use a new consent form that explicitly mentioned that results of the coronavirus tests might be shared with the local health department. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-delays.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-de...
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Could be a political issue as well. The deep state within CDC and FDA is likely sabotaging the first response. I see no other explanation for why, 2 months after things started blowing up in China, we _still_ don't have widespread testing in what I thought was the most technologically advanced country in the world, and moreover, are _refusing to import the working solution_. Heads should most definitely roll for this after things subside.
allovernow 7y ago
>Ahh, the old cowardly downvote without comment because you don't like the reality of the situation that there is one party that's very much to blame People are probably downvoting silently this time because explaining to you that you're obliviously consuming propaganda is one step deeper into flamewar territory which is unpopular on HN (and against the rules). Case in point? Media reports that bill forcing employers to provide sick leave failed to pass because of evil Republicans. What you won't see on the news is the nuance that such a bill can't be passed without possibly bankrupting small businesses. That's just one example. The administration shut down the border early on and was enthusiastically rewarded with accusations of sinophobia. All politicians play this game. The US government institution has been rotting for decades, and yes, it really is a "both sides" issue when one side is so blinded by hatred that they refuse to acknowledge positive decisions. There are literally almost as many people on the Republican side blindly dismissing everything Democrats do. Remember, Trump only lost the popular vote by 3%. Now is not the time for partisan idiocy.
- tw04 7y ago
  >Case in point? Media reports that bill forcing employers to provide sick leave failed to pass because of evil Republicans. What you won't see on the news is the nuance that such a bill can't be passed without possibly bankrupting small businesses. The bill literally includes the funding to pay for sick leave. That's why it's a FUNDING bill - I think you're confused about who is being mislead by propaganda. Meanwhile, the GOP is trying to insert language about abortion into the bill because...?
  - malandrew 7y ago
    The full text has not yet been published on congress.gov to verify who is paying and I can't find the full text elsewhere. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3415/all-info?r=3&s=5 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/341... https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6150?s=3&r=64 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6150... However, the press release from Murray and DeLauro makes it sound like businesses are paying: https://www.help.senate.gov/ranking/newsroom/press/coronavirus-murray-delauro-introduce-new-emergency-paid-sick-days-legislation https://www.help.senate.gov/ranking/newsroom/press/coronavir... If you have a primary source that shows that government, not businesses, are paying for the costs of sick leave as it relates to S.3415 and HR.6150, please share it. I also can't find a single search result that includes the term abortion as it relates to either S.3415 or HR.6150.
ThomPete 7y ago
If you actually listen to the hearing today you will realize that this is a systemic issue with the US healthcare system not something any politician can do much about. The US is not built that way the CDC can't just fix it. That's the power and weakness of our system compared to other countries. Here the leaders of CDC explains the problem in a nutshell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxC9Q99il1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxC9Q99il1Q
paulmd 7y ago
Also: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/486559-trump-fake-news-media-democrats-working-to-inflame-the-coronavirus https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/486559-trump-fak... https://theweek.com/speedreads/901405/seattle-lab-uncovered-washingtons-coronavirus-outbreak-only-after-defying-federal-regulators https://theweek.com/speedreads/901405/seattle-lab-uncovered-... https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/anthony-fauci-donald-trump-coronavirus-claims https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/anthony-fauci-donald... https://thehill.com/homenews/house/487014-trump-officials-cut-testimony-short-at-coronavirus-hearing https://thehill.com/homenews/house/487014-trump-officials-cu... Yes, the administration bears a huge amount of responsibility for sandbagging and obstructing the initial response, mis-informing the public, ignoring their own subject experts, etc. Fresh Air did a great long-form report today summarizing the ways the administration has obstructed and worsened the crisis. No transcript yet but it's worth a listen. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/12/814881355/white-house-knew-coronavirus-would-be-a-major-threat-but-response-fell-short https://www.npr.org/2020/03/12/814881355/white-house-knew-co... (<3 Terry Gross, she's a wonderful interviewer who is fantastic at asking insightful and probing questions while being incredibly kind and gentle. Probably the single most informative show on the air, for whatever topic she covers.)
- kulahan 7y ago
  For what it's worth, the transcript is now live. Direct link: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/814881355 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/814881355
A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
I think you allowed yourself to become overwhelmed with emotions. Both groups, and that is despite news that some of their own are infected, are playing games. It is silly to pretend it is just GOP. edit: spelling
- breakyerself 7y ago
  Republicans are playing games to get bailouts for corporations. Democrats are playing games to get people healthcare and paid sick leave.
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  I think it is a bit more nuanced than that. My experience in large enterprises are that there are two kinds of "politics" that get played. In one form, the leadership makes moves or take actions that benefit themselves but also help the company. Often that is called out as "leadership." In the other form, the leadership makes moves or take actions that benefit themselves but hurts the company. That form is called "politics." You can see examples all around of this. For example a CEO that buys another company, the result of which is hitting a milestone that triggers a big bonus for them but saddles the company with a bunch of debt and expense that drags down its productivity. That is bad. Versus the same example where the CEO buys another company and the combination results both in them getting a bonus as well as the combined company doing better than the sum of the individual companies. That is good. So I agree with you that both parties are playing games, the differentiator for me is what is the ratio of benefit to the country vs benefit to the party/individual from the game being played? If that ration is 1:1 or greater I see it as a positive thing rather than a negative thing.
  - mamon 7y ago
    >> For example a CEO that buys another company, the result of which is hitting a milestone that triggers a big bonus for them but saddles the company with a bunch of debt and expense that drags down its productivity. That is bad. Versus the same example where the CEO buys another company and the combination results both in them getting a bonus as well as the combined company doing better than the sum of the individual companies. That is good. Mergers are always risky. CEO can do all the analysis possible but can't know for sure if combined company will do better or worse than individual parts. That part of the job is called "taking calculated risks".
malandrew 7y ago
Lamar Alexander was not against providing this support. He blocked it based on how it was going to be paid for. It's very much a partisan issue because the Democrats want companies to foot the bill. The GOP thinks that if Washington DC thinks companies should do something then Washington DC should foot the bill. Neither side disagrees that people should have this support. All the Democrats had to do is introduce the same bill and divert funding from other congressional discretionary spending and the bill would have passed. It could pass today if they made this change. Honestly, Lamar Alexander is right here. Companies are already going to be hurting financially enough as it is. Making them provide something new and foot the bill is just kicking companies while they are down and just going to worsen the fallout in this recession. Forcing them to fund this will contribute to phenomena like Chapter 11 bankruptcy for some companies and for others it will force them to lay off more staff. There's no justification for Congress to increase the costs to companies while the Fed simultaneously injects $1.5T. That's just counterproductive when you're trying to help stabilize the economy. I honestly don't understand why the Democrats are so consistently anti-business in so many things they do. "After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world." (Calvin Coolidge)
- ShroudedNight 7y ago
  As a non-American that's somewhat ignorant of the current states of the US legislative houses on this matter, could someone provide some context as to why the comment directly parent to $self is being maligned?
  - undersuit 7y ago
    I downvoted because I disagree with the way they are arguing. The gp's(grandposter) comment uses the word companies. Which companies? Well we're talking about the US and health care so it has gotta be the health insurance companies? No, the bill Lamar disagreed with was to make employer's provide sick time to their employees. Also, pp(parentposter) is what I use. OP is reserved for poster of the content.
Alex3917 7y ago
> the GOP needs to stop trying to pretend like nothing is wrong and actually DO SOMETHING to prevent this from becoming an even bigger disaster. The DNC and the Democratic media have literally spent the last several months lying about Medicare for All.
roenxi 7y ago
If the system is reliant on the legislative branch to respond to a crisis then there is no doubt that it will fail. Large voting bodies are no good at all in times of crisis.
- trymas 7y ago
  I guess OP meant that this ignorance is systematic and long term. Current pandemic just very clearly shows how ridiculous it is not to provide a social safety net.
zaptheimpaler 7y ago
Slight tangent, but the excessive focus on tests is misguided. The tests give us more data but make little difference unless they are used to rapidly trace outbreaks and quarantine entire areas, which just has not happened. And with something this viral, its only a matter of time before it spreads everywhere. The focus needs to be on slowing the spread and treatment. The treatment is about supporting the body while it fights the virus, and highly dependent on how & where the virus manifests. Some need oxygen therapy, some need antivirals, some even need lung transplants. In cases where the virus affects other organs, totally different treatment applies. The resource constraint there is general medical capacity - doctors, beds, ICUs, oxygen support, and probably a hundred other things.
- spaced-out 7y ago
  >Slight tangent, but the excessive focus on tests is misguided. The issue with our lack of testing is that we have no idea what we're dealing with, which is a big part of why the market's freaking out. If we had been ramping up testing months ago, when it was already a massive disruption in China and should have been clear that it was only a matter of time before it got to the US, then we would have a lot more information now. This is why we need competent administrators running things like the CDC, the DoE, Homeland Security etc..., not political hacks.
  - deckard1 7y ago
    > This is why we need competent administrators running things The GOP has a conflict of interest here. They don't want to give evidence that government can work. Their goal is to break government and then go "see, government doesn't work!" It's a splendid position to take, because anything that comes up you simply shrug and wipe your hands clean. You're not responsible for anything. While we all sit and ponder whether we're all going to die and if the economy will disappear overnight, let's all just remember the travesty that is Puerto Rico. If that's not enough, then kids in concentration camps. Oh? People care now because it impacts their little world? "No time for politics" says the people actively breaking the world.
  - zaptheimpaler 7y ago
divbzero 7y ago
Regardless, now is the time to put aside partisanship and face the problem before us. There will be plenty of time for retrospection, after we get through this together.
mythrwy 7y ago
Yes, the response from GOP leadership has been bad. No argument. However you are making (in my opinion) a very bad assumption that the other party who couldn't put up a healthcare website for millions (billions?) and as far as I know has never effectively done _anything_ would have performed any better. It's certainly not the time for partisan finger pointing and haymaking. That is simply stupid. However you are correct, we do need to look at causes and how we can do better. Maybe in general the incompetence of the federal government at responding to emergencies should be looked at. And perhaps putting too much responsibility in the hands of very old people who's entire careers and have been bullshit lip flapping instead of performance and career game of thrones do-nothing bureaucrats isn't a good idea in time of crisis and we need to be prepared next time.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

I don't think anyone is being partisan and tribal for the hell of it. Before last night, Trump's concern re: coronavirus was myopically focused on the economy. Now we're shutting the borders, as if we don't have upwards of a thousand cases here already. And as a sibling comment notes, it seems like Senate Republicans are poised to veto the coronavirus bill that's passed the House. It's not "partisan and tribal" to criticize this administration and the GOP for their failure to respond. If they were doing a good job here, it would be one thing. But they're not, and for that we need to hold them accountable.

chrisco255 7y ago

This disease didn't exist 4 months ago and you're calling it a scandal that they can't process billions of tests in that short time frame? It's also not enough to be tested just once as there have been many false negatives. Scaling that up is an immense challenge. It was also exacerbated by the fact that China wouldn't allow our researchers into the country to study the disease. Meanwhile they've already reached stage 1 clinical trials for a vaccine in just 2 months. Fastest turnaround time ever for any clinical trial of a vaccine, ever.

saati 7y ago
The US doesn't have billions of people, just checking the ones coming from the countries where it's present would have been enough, other countries managed to do it.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  They did that weeks ago. Where have you been? They shut down travel from China a month ago. Which countries managed to contain this thing, by the way? Because I see tens of thousands of cases in Europe and Asia and the Middle East, by the way.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Taiwan and Singapore appear to be containing it thus far. China, too, if you can trust their numbers, and South Korea's look positive after a big starting spike. Each of these countries took early (except for China, but they shut down Wuhan with fewer cases than the US has now), aggressive steps that should be considered a model for others.
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      South Korea has 8,000 active cases, over 114 today alone. Singapore has a population of 5.8M. They've got 178 cases. The U.S. has a population of 320M with 1338 cases. That means their infection rate is nearly 10x higher than the U.S. Meanwhile, we are taking action. Shutting down European travel, Chinese travel, cancelling schools, cancelling NBA season, NHL season, etc, etc...We are taking aggressive steps.

hef19898 7y ago

> The lack of testing will maybe turn out to be one of the biggest scandals of my lifetime. If I had to choose one thing that should change right now, it is this. Aggressive testing of everyone, starting with contact persons, persons travelling from high risk areas and then basically everyone. Would allow a much better understanding of the situation and make any measures way more effective. Other than that, the measures taken seem reasonable based on the situation when they ware taken (for expectations, refer to testing).

aembleton 7y ago
How accurate are these tests?
kylebenzle 7y ago
What is the argument against testing everyone? If it lasts 2 days on surfaces, it seems like a matter of when not if you get it. Best we can do is "flatten the curve" by isolating people as much as possible. Realistically, all the hand washing and testing does next to nothing in terms of modifying behaviour.
- hef19898 7y ago
  Testing would allow to be way more aggressive where it matters. Also reaction time could be quicker. Could be so, that once a certain number of people are infected, full quarantine measures will be taken anyway. So on could just jump to these measures right away. Which would leave increased transparency as the main benefit. Would still be worth it, even if actual countermeasures don't necessarily change.
wonderwonder 7y ago
Except we can't test everyone as many people will not want to get tested. Hourly workers without paid sick leave will not get tested if a positive result means they have to not get paid for 14+ days. They cant afford it. Not going to work means their kids don't eat. So they go to work sick and everyone else around them gets it. The poor without insurance also cannot afford the test or treatment. Testing is important but providing real benefits to those that are potentially infected will incentivize them to get tested. Otherwise we are going to struggle with getting this contained.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Accujack 7y ago

I'm sure you'll get partisan political comments, but you're correct. I will note that I don't agree with "we" doing anything... our government is rather thoroughly insulated from the will of the citizens of the US by its own design. The dysfunction in our government is due to years of slow decay that have culminated in the present situation. This crisis will hopefully force enough people to realize the problem exists and its scope that we can finally take steps to correct the issue. Electing a different party won't help, because we still have the electoral college, voter suppression, unlimited corporate donations, the spoils system, seniority in the legislature, and partisan judges on the supreme court. The Democrats are Corrupt and the GOP is corrupt. The two party system and first past the post have to go. We need to amend the constitution to avoid the situation recurring in the future. People are about to die because our president is a fool, and the fact that he's still in charge is the fault of all of us who voted or didn't vote over the past half century. In all honesty, I don't see anything in the government changing for this crisis... they can't change. Lots of people are going to get sick and die, and hopefully in the aftermath people will finally be angry enough to repair our country. Assuming there are enough of us left.

atomi 7y ago
We can start by not having a president that continues to peddle disinformation in a time of national crisis. I don't remember any other president in my lifetime being this factually incorrect this many times. Also as a matter of fact both sides are not at the same level in terms of corruption (number of criminal indictments and convictions) in modern white house administrations.
- izzydata 7y ago
  I agree, but corruption doesn't necessarily imply illegal. A lot of these people could be involved in setting the rules that they then place themselves above of. That's corruption, but not illegal.
simonebrunozzi 7y ago
> People are about to die because our president is a fool, and the fact that he's still in charge is the fault of all of us who voted or didn't vote over the past half century. This point of view is sobering. I am tired of people thinking that replacing a politician with another would solve every problem.

lowdose 7y ago

If you must compare the two, the virus is actually killing people. All those economists, bankers were lying and if we know anything today is that we shouldn't have let them off the hook so easily with the whole bailout. Maybe a lot of people are so skeptical today about the virus because of the crisis fear mongering in 2008.

vkou 7y ago

> But if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now. We are in the middle of a problem exacerbated by politics, that will require political decisions to solve. When politicians are doing nothing, or making the problem worse, this is not the time to shrug our shoulders, and be apolitical. Political decisions have consequences.

polote 7y ago

> The lack of testing will maybe turn out to be one of the biggest scandals of my lifetime. Testing more people is not going to change anything, this virus is so easy to transmit that we should take for granted that we will catch it anyway. What we can do instead is realize that we are facing something big and protect vulnerable people from it by asking them to stay at home and create a system to send them food safely, it is almost useless to prevent healthy and young people to work as it will just block the economy/transportation/health work/everything

jerry1979 7y ago
I think testing might be important to epidemiologists and public policy makers. It's probably why Dr. Fauci at the CDC was saying he is in favor of proactive testing.

zaroth 7y ago

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand the thought process here... Question 1) Is the spread inevitable, or can we achieve containment? Question 2) If it can't be contained, and worldwide spread is inevitable, approximately how many new cases per day do you want to see for the next 6 months? I would say the answer to #1 is that spread is absolutely inevitable. There are way too many vectors, and it is way too virulent. I'd go further and say that I believe tens if not hundreds of millions of people have already been infected and will never have serious illness, but such a claim is really besides the point. I would say the answer to #2 is; just so many as you don't run out of ventilators. And absolutely start setting up rows of ventilators in dedicated facilities in major cities. So to those saying we should have done more, sooner... I ask, to what end? Follow through on the hypothetical "done more sooner" scenario. Worldometer says the US has 1,518 active cases, of which 10 are serious. So 10 people in the country are in an ICU for COVID-19 right now? "Test everyone!" To what end? You don't need to test people in order to know if they need an ICU. The ICUs are not full - and you don't need more testing to tell you that. The main benefit to more testing would be that people who are self-quarantining due to potential exposure could maybe stop self-quarantining earlier. That's a fairly marginal benefit. This isn't a situation where the world is going to shut down until a vaccine is available and administered to a billion people. This is a situation where the vast majority of people have mild symptoms, then herd immunity, and then will very much need to get back to work in order to buy groceries and pay their mortgage.

chasd00 7y ago
yeah at this point it seems reasonable to me that increasing ICU capacity is going to become top priority soon. We missed the boat on testing and containment. We should continue to educate and modify behavior to lesson rate of injection and also increase ICU capacity to handle the inevitable severe cases.
troyvit 7y ago
> I would say the answer to #1 is that spread is absolutely inevitable. The WHO disagrees: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mission-briefing-on-covid-19---12-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-... > "Test everyone!" To what end? You don't need to test people in order to know if they need an ICU. The ICUs are not full - and you don't need more testing to tell you that. The main benefit to more testing would be that people who are self-quarantining due to potential exposure could maybe stop self-quarantining earlier. That's a fairly marginal benefit. Germany was ahead of the curve testing people and as a result (so far) they are weathering the virus much better than most other countries (including the US): https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-10/germany-and-coronavirus https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-10/german... It's not all about the testing for them but in the article they do count it as a key reason why they are doing well so far.

sequoia 7y ago

- We need to unite and overcome tribalist instincts - The GOP (the current ruling party) bears a majority of the blame for the recent screw ups (though _both_ parties are to blame for the decades-long problems with the healthcare system) Both things are true.

fragmede 7y ago
The Democrats tried to give us healthcare and the GOP has systematically dismantled it as best they could. I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect, but one of these things is not like the other.

sg47 7y ago

"But if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now" - Completely agree. I think GOP should ask Trump to step down and have someone responsible in charge.

dntbnmpls 7y ago

> it's clear that the world's top economists felt we were perilously close to a full-blown disaster – trucks not bringing goods into cities, things grinding to a halt, etc. The same top economists who didn't see the financial crisis coming? More like the top economists hired/backed by bankers felt that bankers would lose a lot of money and made the excuse of bread lines to dupe congress. > But if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now. No. I prefer the partisanship. It's when the government is united that you know bad things is going to happen. Everytime there is an illegal war, the government unites. Everytime the american people gets screwed over, it's always the united government. And the same messaging is used "if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now." But then again, the partisanship is just for show anyways. They all work for the same masters. > We need to act boldly, now. Like what? Give more money to bankers and wall street? Like last time? Every time there is a fear mongering event - 9/11, Financial Crisis, Red Scare, etc, it's the american public that loses more rights/privileges and the elites/government/state that gets more control.

daxorid 7y ago

> We blew the past few weeks No, "we" didn't blow anything. Plenty of us have been preparing for this for well over a month. And now, you want taxpayers, savers, the conscientious, and the prepared to bail out the people who were buying TSLA at $800 and selling VIX with a 10-handle with a pandemic on our doorstep, all while name-calling those of us who bothered to read the research "crazy"? No, let them all blow up. They deserve to soak in their margin calls.