5 ms·

We’re already seeing record lines at food banks across the country[0], and some are already warning of food shortages. We’re already seeing the negative effects

We’re already seeing record lines at food banks across the country[0], and some are already warning of food shortages. We’re already seeing the negative effects, our society just doesn’t want to pay attention to what’s happening to the poor. We’re at serious risk for community starvation not seen since the Great Depression. 0: https://www.motherjones.com/food/2020/04/these-photos-show-the-staggering-food-bank-lines-across-america/ https://www.motherjones.com/food/2020/04/these-photos-show-t...

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Food banks are stressed right now, but I'd bet they can hold out for the month or two it's expected to take to get (mostly) everyone back to work.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  It’s so hard to see that happening though, and if it doesn’t, we’re in trouble. We still don’t have scalable testing in the US, which is absolutely vital to reopening the economy safely. Without that, we risk losing all of the progress we’ve made flattening the curve. Then all of these businesses have to open back up and hope they’re able to generate income quickly enough to stay afloat, which isn’t a guarantee. There are also a growing number of experts saying that we’ll be in flux for the rest of 2020 unless we establish that survivors can’t be reinfected, which hasn’t been confirmed yet. Even if some areas are able to open up early, the economy will continue to suffer to its global nature. We’re just in no way able to say it’s going to be normal in 2 months.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    > Without that, we risk losing all of the progress we’ve made flattening the curve. I personally believe that the worst could be done in many places. New York was too slow to institute controls and stopped just short of catastrophe. But, it's likely (based on extrapolation from serological data elsewhere), that 15% of people in NYC are immune and 20% will be soon. A disease with an Rt of, say, 1.8 is still scary and still requires controls and distancing, but it's a whole different ballgames from one with an Rt of 2.5. (-0.5 Rt for reduced susceptibility, -0.2 Rt for seasonal effects, say). > There are also a growing number of experts saying that we’ll be in flux for the rest of 2020 unless we establish that survivors can’t be reinfected, which hasn’t been confirmed yet. The case reports we have and clinical experience suggest reinfection is very rare. The bigger question is lasting immunity. Will most people be totally protected for 3 years like with a typical cold coronavirus? Or can we expect more like the 5+ years seen with SARS-CoV-1? And even if people become susceptible again, will the disease be less severe? I also believe that in the long run, 2019-nCoV will become "just another" endemic common cold virus, and will kill small numbers of people every year just like the other endemic respiratory coronaviruses (229E, OC43 etc) do. I bet those would be pretty fearsome introduced into an immunologically naive population. Which really sucks-- say, 10% more severe respiratory illness forever is not good. But I think it's the path we're on unless we get a truly terrific vaccine, and I don't think we can bet on that.
    - the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
      There is no way that 15% of NY had the virus.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        I said 15% of New York City, and now we have the data -- no preprint yet, but... https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/23/842818125/coronavirus-has-infected-a-fifth-of-new-york-city-testing-suggests https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
      - therealcamino 7y ago
        One recent report: Two hospitals in NYC did universal screening of 215 pregnant women admitted for delivery between March 22 and April 4th. 15.4% tested positive. Most of those testing positive (87.9%) had no symptoms at the time they were admitted. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316
        yread 7y ago
        Pregnant women go to hospitals for the antenatal appointments a lot though. And hospitals are full of the virus. You would expect pregnant women to be more likely to be infected than general population
        therealcamino 7y ago
        Without other data I'm not sure I find that convincing. In the US, a lot of obstetrical care takes place at offices away from hospitals.
        mlyle 7y ago
        Less so in NYC, but I agree. In any case, I think the interesting things are: A) the share of infected people who will never have symptoms, and B) the share of infected people that have minor symptoms and will not be diagnosed. There's reason to believe that both A and B are significant. If they reach 90%-- which there's reason to believe they likely do-- it means that with a 1.5% cumulative case count you have more like 15% of the population having been exposed.
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  I visited four food banks to offer them food over the last two weeks. Three of them were completely out of food. Only one of them had an abundance of food. On aggregate, food banks may be stressed, just like on aggregate the measure we use to determine economic fortune may be down only 3%. In reality, this means there are lots of individuals literally starving and making $0. Those people are going to struggle to hold out for however long it takes. A month or two may be true in aggregate. For many, simultaneously, their jobs will never return.
tofflos 7y ago
The pictures are both dramatic and strange. Why are there so many people with cars that need food assistance?
- save_ferris 7y ago
  Because public transit is a joke for most Americans. It’s simply not possible to have a job without a car in the vast majority of America.
  - thesumofall 7y ago
    But those don’t look like cheap cars. No one is perfect, but still it looks like some people set the wrong priorities between saving money and buying status symbols
    - DSingularity 7y ago
      That’s definitely true, but can you blame them? They’ve been psychologically assaulted and bombarded from all digital directions to buy those symbols. It’s not like Facebook and YouTube are showing ads that encourage people to save their money.
      - piva00 7y ago
        This goes way back than Facebook and YouTube though, I recommend watching Adam Curtis' "The Century of the Self" [0] if you haven't yet and are interested in how we ended up with modern consumerism. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
      - ls612 7y ago
        Yes I can. People still have the ability to make choices for themselves. Facebook Ads aren’t mind control, people still have free will.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
cylinder 7y ago
and there's no reason this has to happen. the same way we can print money to hand out to companies we can print money and buy food with it and give it out to hungry people WITHOUT causing inflation.
- vanniv 7y ago
  that doesn't, however, create more food -- and the current problem is really that food is starting to run out, as production has fallen by 20% at the same time as supply disruptions have caused another 20% to spoil at the source

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

Food banks are stressed right now, but I'd bet they can hold out for the month or two it's expected to take to get (mostly) everyone back to work.

save_ferris 7y ago
It’s so hard to see that happening though, and if it doesn’t, we’re in trouble. We still don’t have scalable testing in the US, which is absolutely vital to reopening the economy safely. Without that, we risk losing all of the progress we’ve made flattening the curve. Then all of these businesses have to open back up and hope they’re able to generate income quickly enough to stay afloat, which isn’t a guarantee. There are also a growing number of experts saying that we’ll be in flux for the rest of 2020 unless we establish that survivors can’t be reinfected, which hasn’t been confirmed yet. Even if some areas are able to open up early, the economy will continue to suffer to its global nature. We’re just in no way able to say it’s going to be normal in 2 months.
- mlyle 7y ago
  > Without that, we risk losing all of the progress we’ve made flattening the curve. I personally believe that the worst could be done in many places. New York was too slow to institute controls and stopped just short of catastrophe. But, it's likely (based on extrapolation from serological data elsewhere), that 15% of people in NYC are immune and 20% will be soon. A disease with an Rt of, say, 1.8 is still scary and still requires controls and distancing, but it's a whole different ballgames from one with an Rt of 2.5. (-0.5 Rt for reduced susceptibility, -0.2 Rt for seasonal effects, say). > There are also a growing number of experts saying that we’ll be in flux for the rest of 2020 unless we establish that survivors can’t be reinfected, which hasn’t been confirmed yet. The case reports we have and clinical experience suggest reinfection is very rare. The bigger question is lasting immunity. Will most people be totally protected for 3 years like with a typical cold coronavirus? Or can we expect more like the 5+ years seen with SARS-CoV-1? And even if people become susceptible again, will the disease be less severe? I also believe that in the long run, 2019-nCoV will become "just another" endemic common cold virus, and will kill small numbers of people every year just like the other endemic respiratory coronaviruses (229E, OC43 etc) do. I bet those would be pretty fearsome introduced into an immunologically naive population. Which really sucks-- say, 10% more severe respiratory illness forever is not good. But I think it's the path we're on unless we get a truly terrific vaccine, and I don't think we can bet on that.
  - the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
    There is no way that 15% of NY had the virus.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      I said 15% of New York City, and now we have the data -- no preprint yet, but... https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/23/842818125/coronavirus-has-infected-a-fifth-of-new-york-city-testing-suggests https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
    - therealcamino 7y ago
      One recent report: Two hospitals in NYC did universal screening of 215 pregnant women admitted for delivery between March 22 and April 4th. 15.4% tested positive. Most of those testing positive (87.9%) had no symptoms at the time they were admitted. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316
      - yread 7y ago
        Pregnant women go to hospitals for the antenatal appointments a lot though. And hospitals are full of the virus. You would expect pregnant women to be more likely to be infected than general population
        therealcamino 7y ago
        Without other data I'm not sure I find that convincing. In the US, a lot of obstetrical care takes place at offices away from hospitals.
        mlyle 7y ago
        Less so in NYC, but I agree. In any case, I think the interesting things are: A) the share of infected people who will never have symptoms, and B) the share of infected people that have minor symptoms and will not be diagnosed. There's reason to believe that both A and B are significant. If they reach 90%-- which there's reason to believe they likely do-- it means that with a 1.5% cumulative case count you have more like 15% of the population having been exposed.
oarsinsync 7y ago
I visited four food banks to offer them food over the last two weeks. Three of them were completely out of food. Only one of them had an abundance of food. On aggregate, food banks may be stressed, just like on aggregate the measure we use to determine economic fortune may be down only 3%. In reality, this means there are lots of individuals literally starving and making $0. Those people are going to struggle to hold out for however long it takes. A month or two may be true in aggregate. For many, simultaneously, their jobs will never return.

tofflos 7y ago

The pictures are both dramatic and strange. Why are there so many people with cars that need food assistance?

save_ferris 7y ago
Because public transit is a joke for most Americans. It’s simply not possible to have a job without a car in the vast majority of America.
- thesumofall 7y ago
  But those don’t look like cheap cars. No one is perfect, but still it looks like some people set the wrong priorities between saving money and buying status symbols
  - DSingularity 7y ago
    That’s definitely true, but can you blame them? They’ve been psychologically assaulted and bombarded from all digital directions to buy those symbols. It’s not like Facebook and YouTube are showing ads that encourage people to save their money.
    - piva00 7y ago
      This goes way back than Facebook and YouTube though, I recommend watching Adam Curtis' "The Century of the Self" [0] if you haven't yet and are interested in how we ended up with modern consumerism. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
    - ls612 7y ago
      Yes I can. People still have the ability to make choices for themselves. Facebook Ads aren’t mind control, people still have free will.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

cylinder 7y ago

and there's no reason this has to happen. the same way we can print money to hand out to companies we can print money and buy food with it and give it out to hungry people WITHOUT causing inflation.

vanniv 7y ago
that doesn't, however, create more food -- and the current problem is really that food is starting to run out, as production has fallen by 20% at the same time as supply disruptions have caused another 20% to spoil at the source