6 ms·

I'm cynical enough at this point to wonder whether the states will add these terrible losses to the COVID-19-related statistics to advocate for stricter and lon

I'm cynical enough at this point to wonder whether the states will add these terrible losses to the COVID-19-related statistics to advocate for stricter and longer lock-downs.

mrow84 6y ago
What do you think motivates states to want stricter and longer lock-downs?
- kukx 6y ago
  I guess some vocal voters may actually prefer free money, than going to a tedious work and politicians pander to them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    Crazy to think someone would prefer unemployment to being coughed on by a jet ski salesman while waiting tables at a cheesecake factory.
    - kukx 6y ago
      I am not sure, if it is agreement or disagreement with my observation. And while I assume some people may genuinely be scared of the infection... It is hard not to notice that while the lockdown started the beaches were flooded with people. And I will not blame someone flipping burgers for preferring free money to their job. Having a low paid, boring job I would definitively prefer the free money and the free time. And I would probably even actively support the status quo. But it is nonetheless in the long term very harmful to the society and to the economic perspectives of normal people. The free money will be paid for in the years to come and it will be a long lasting burden. Maybe there will be some technological revolution, a great advancement in productivity that will help us mitigate this cost. But if not, the future looks painful.
      - ianleeclark 6y ago
        > But it is nonetheless in the long term very harmful to the society and to the economic perspectives of normal people. Why is it harmful to the economic prospects of people? Our economy literally relies on consumption. High rates of consumption. > The free money will be paid for in the years to come and it will be a long lasting burden. First thing: I reject the notion of "free money." It is money that is borrowed by people at time of crisis. Government works for the people, in theory, so it is the people borrowing the money from their descendants in order to weather a storm today without having a complete collapse. Secondly literally everything in our economy runs on debt. The idea is you outgrow your debt. If you want to have the whole "abolishing capitalism" conversation, that's a big suggestion to say the least, but the two ideas you're suggesting are either criminal or history defining: 1.) Just let all the poors die 2.) We have nothing to lose but our chains > But if not, the future looks painful. Were a sovereign nation we can literally just write it off.
        kukx 6y ago
        Well exactly, it is a borrowed money and everyone will have to pay it back in some way, for example through taxation or more likely via inflation (things will get more expensive, so people will be able to afford less). The weakest, poorest will experience the problem the most, but it will affect everyone. As I mentioned, maybe there will be some great advancement in productivity and it will not be as severe. But it is a gamble and not a wise strategy for the nation. The debt can be written off. But it will have consequences. It means no more living on debt, because no lender will be willing to lend anymore. It will be very bad for the economy, at least in the short term (who knows how many years). However, it may lead to a more sound economy in the long term, assuming the capitalism survives.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Wanting the damn virus to die out and accepting that getting it spreading again will cause a longer pandemic. They expect patience to be rewarded by it staying gone like countries who did it right and are opening up borders selectively.
yingw787 6y ago
Aren't states prematurely lifting lockdowns to horrific infection increases due to budgetary concerns?
- fragmede 6y ago
  I think so. Individual states don't control federal monetary policy, so the failure to pass additional stimulus packages so far means that state governments are in a precarious financial state, much like many of us are, personally, and any corporations we're involved with. Even in states with with the political will to continue benefits packages that would allow people to continue not working in service of public health, aren't able to afford to do so.
nxc18 6y ago
States have been chomping at the bit to end their lockdowns. The fact that cases are spiking again is precisely because states were too eager to end their lockdowns. China had a brutal lockdown early and thanks to that they are now largely back in business. Anti-lockdown sentiment early on is precisely the reason the US has had to prolong its suffering. The reason long lockdowns are happening is because we can’t muster strict.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > had a brutal lockdown early and thanks to that they are now largely back in business Wait, that doesn't make sense - are you saying that they locked down long enough that everybody who had the virus "lost it" (either by getting healthy or dying)? That doesn't sound very plausible given what we know about epidemiology. The lockdown was sold here as a way to "flatten the curve": everybody who would have gotten it will still get it, but not all at once, so the hospitals won't be overwhelmed. Is anybody claiming that China's lockdown actually eradicated the virus within its borders entirely?
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    > The lockdown was sold here as a way to "flatten the curve": everybody who would have gotten it will still get it, but not all at once, so the hospitals won't be overwhelmed. The lockdown was intended to do two things, not one: 1. What you say, reduce the rate of spread. The popular "flatten the curve" thing, which, when grossly simplified, suggests that if 1 million people were going to get it it was inevitable, but we could spread it out over months instead of weeks. 2. Reduce the total number of people exposed and thus reduce the total number who would eventually get it. The disease is not inevitable for anyone, it is not inevitable that 70% of the population (picking an arbitrary figure here) would get the disease. It is inevitable that it was going to spread, and with proper controls that spread could be changed both in rate and total number infected.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Entirely? No. Nobody (I think) is claiming that. But if you lock down so that each infected person, on average, infects less than one new person, and you do it long enough, then yes, you can completely eliminate the virus that way. And yes, that is perfectly consistent with what we know about epidemiology. The cure may literally be worse than the disease, but we could do that. But there comes a point where the number of cases is small enough that you use testing and contact tracing to do the rest.
Jtsummers 6y ago
I'm a bit confused by this. By my reading of the reopenings and behavior of state governments, many, if not most, state governments want to reopen. They're struggling financially since people aren't working or visiting the states to provide tax revenue. Most of my teacher friends have been in calls with their district administration where cutbacks (either in personnel or across the board pay cuts) have been discussed seriously. At this point, states want shorter lock downs and the ones that have reinstituted (partially or in whole) the previous lock down orders have done so because of rising case numbers (largely due, it seems, to people behaving as if there were no reason to continue social distancing or wearing masks). Which state governments do you think want to continue the shutdowns and cripple their economies?
- travisporter 6y ago
  I'd wager parent believes it's Democratic state governments/officials. Why is it that anyone arguing online believes the world is either communist or pure capitalist, and nothing in between. I'm glad we don't live there. OK, rant over.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dylan604 6y ago
What are you on about? States are not reporting accurate numbers because they're wanting to re-open. I'm cynical in thinking that these numbers won't get reported as COVID related deaths for the simple reason the virus wasn't the cause of death even though they are results of the overall effect of the pandemic.
modriano 6y ago
We haven't had real lockdowns anywhere. We've had please-stay-home recommendations. If we had a sufficiently strict lockdown early on, we could have brought transmission down to near 0, identified all new cases (and quarantined them away from the healthy population), set up strict testing at every border/airport, and been basically back to normal in 2 months, like China was. These deaths of despair are just another consequence of the Trump administration's total failure to grab the bull by the horns and come up with a plan. Trump's refusal to act forced state and city governments to figure out how to handle this, which created a major conflict of interests. State and city governments are largely funded by sales taxes, so shutting down bars/restaurants/retail/events/etc takes a crucial funding source away from state/city govts, but to stop transmission of the virus, those businesses can't be open. State/city govts can't print money like the Federal govt, and the GOP Senators are refusing to provide funds to state/city govts, which lead to the current explosion in case counts, which will just keep this going longer. TL,DR: we absolutely need stricter management of this, or it will drag on forever.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  China isn't any more back to normal than the US is, despite the relative absence of the virus there.
foogazi 6y ago
Do you think states (or cities) WANT to lock down their population or impose curfews ? What gives you that idea?

I'm cynical enough at this point to wonder whether the states will add these terrible losses to the COVID-19-related statistics to advocate for stricter and longer lock-downs.

mrow84 6y ago

What do you think motivates states to want stricter and longer lock-downs?

kukx 6y ago
I guess some vocal voters may actually prefer free money, than going to a tedious work and politicians pander to them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  Crazy to think someone would prefer unemployment to being coughed on by a jet ski salesman while waiting tables at a cheesecake factory.
  - kukx 6y ago
    I am not sure, if it is agreement or disagreement with my observation. And while I assume some people may genuinely be scared of the infection... It is hard not to notice that while the lockdown started the beaches were flooded with people. And I will not blame someone flipping burgers for preferring free money to their job. Having a low paid, boring job I would definitively prefer the free money and the free time. And I would probably even actively support the status quo. But it is nonetheless in the long term very harmful to the society and to the economic perspectives of normal people. The free money will be paid for in the years to come and it will be a long lasting burden. Maybe there will be some technological revolution, a great advancement in productivity that will help us mitigate this cost. But if not, the future looks painful.
    - ianleeclark 6y ago
      > But it is nonetheless in the long term very harmful to the society and to the economic perspectives of normal people. Why is it harmful to the economic prospects of people? Our economy literally relies on consumption. High rates of consumption. > The free money will be paid for in the years to come and it will be a long lasting burden. First thing: I reject the notion of "free money." It is money that is borrowed by people at time of crisis. Government works for the people, in theory, so it is the people borrowing the money from their descendants in order to weather a storm today without having a complete collapse. Secondly literally everything in our economy runs on debt. The idea is you outgrow your debt. If you want to have the whole "abolishing capitalism" conversation, that's a big suggestion to say the least, but the two ideas you're suggesting are either criminal or history defining: 1.) Just let all the poors die 2.) We have nothing to lose but our chains > But if not, the future looks painful. Were a sovereign nation we can literally just write it off.
      - kukx 6y ago
        Well exactly, it is a borrowed money and everyone will have to pay it back in some way, for example through taxation or more likely via inflation (things will get more expensive, so people will be able to afford less). The weakest, poorest will experience the problem the most, but it will affect everyone. As I mentioned, maybe there will be some great advancement in productivity and it will not be as severe. But it is a gamble and not a wise strategy for the nation. The debt can be written off. But it will have consequences. It means no more living on debt, because no lender will be willing to lend anymore. It will be very bad for the economy, at least in the short term (who knows how many years). However, it may lead to a more sound economy in the long term, assuming the capitalism survives.
Nasrudith 6y ago
Wanting the damn virus to die out and accepting that getting it spreading again will cause a longer pandemic. They expect patience to be rewarded by it staying gone like countries who did it right and are opening up borders selectively.

yingw787 6y ago

Aren't states prematurely lifting lockdowns to horrific infection increases due to budgetary concerns?

fragmede 6y ago
I think so. Individual states don't control federal monetary policy, so the failure to pass additional stimulus packages so far means that state governments are in a precarious financial state, much like many of us are, personally, and any corporations we're involved with. Even in states with with the political will to continue benefits packages that would allow people to continue not working in service of public health, aren't able to afford to do so.

nxc18 6y ago

States have been chomping at the bit to end their lockdowns. The fact that cases are spiking again is precisely because states were too eager to end their lockdowns. China had a brutal lockdown early and thanks to that they are now largely back in business. Anti-lockdown sentiment early on is precisely the reason the US has had to prolong its suffering. The reason long lockdowns are happening is because we can’t muster strict.

commandlinefan 6y ago
> had a brutal lockdown early and thanks to that they are now largely back in business Wait, that doesn't make sense - are you saying that they locked down long enough that everybody who had the virus "lost it" (either by getting healthy or dying)? That doesn't sound very plausible given what we know about epidemiology. The lockdown was sold here as a way to "flatten the curve": everybody who would have gotten it will still get it, but not all at once, so the hospitals won't be overwhelmed. Is anybody claiming that China's lockdown actually eradicated the virus within its borders entirely?
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  > The lockdown was sold here as a way to "flatten the curve": everybody who would have gotten it will still get it, but not all at once, so the hospitals won't be overwhelmed. The lockdown was intended to do two things, not one: 1. What you say, reduce the rate of spread. The popular "flatten the curve" thing, which, when grossly simplified, suggests that if 1 million people were going to get it it was inevitable, but we could spread it out over months instead of weeks. 2. Reduce the total number of people exposed and thus reduce the total number who would eventually get it. The disease is not inevitable for anyone, it is not inevitable that 70% of the population (picking an arbitrary figure here) would get the disease. It is inevitable that it was going to spread, and with proper controls that spread could be changed both in rate and total number infected.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Entirely? No. Nobody (I think) is claiming that. But if you lock down so that each infected person, on average, infects less than one new person, and you do it long enough, then yes, you can completely eliminate the virus that way. And yes, that is perfectly consistent with what we know about epidemiology. The cure may literally be worse than the disease, but we could do that. But there comes a point where the number of cases is small enough that you use testing and contact tracing to do the rest.

Jtsummers 6y ago

I'm a bit confused by this. By my reading of the reopenings and behavior of state governments, many, if not most, state governments want to reopen. They're struggling financially since people aren't working or visiting the states to provide tax revenue. Most of my teacher friends have been in calls with their district administration where cutbacks (either in personnel or across the board pay cuts) have been discussed seriously. At this point, states want shorter lock downs and the ones that have reinstituted (partially or in whole) the previous lock down orders have done so because of rising case numbers (largely due, it seems, to people behaving as if there were no reason to continue social distancing or wearing masks). Which state governments do you think want to continue the shutdowns and cripple their economies?

travisporter 6y ago
I'd wager parent believes it's Democratic state governments/officials. Why is it that anyone arguing online believes the world is either communist or pure capitalist, and nothing in between. I'm glad we don't live there. OK, rant over.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dylan604 6y ago

What are you on about? States are not reporting accurate numbers because they're wanting to re-open. I'm cynical in thinking that these numbers won't get reported as COVID related deaths for the simple reason the virus wasn't the cause of death even though they are results of the overall effect of the pandemic.

modriano 6y ago

We haven't had real lockdowns anywhere. We've had please-stay-home recommendations. If we had a sufficiently strict lockdown early on, we could have brought transmission down to near 0, identified all new cases (and quarantined them away from the healthy population), set up strict testing at every border/airport, and been basically back to normal in 2 months, like China was. These deaths of despair are just another consequence of the Trump administration's total failure to grab the bull by the horns and come up with a plan. Trump's refusal to act forced state and city governments to figure out how to handle this, which created a major conflict of interests. State and city governments are largely funded by sales taxes, so shutting down bars/restaurants/retail/events/etc takes a crucial funding source away from state/city govts, but to stop transmission of the virus, those businesses can't be open. State/city govts can't print money like the Federal govt, and the GOP Senators are refusing to provide funds to state/city govts, which lead to the current explosion in case counts, which will just keep this going longer. TL,DR: we absolutely need stricter management of this, or it will drag on forever.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
China isn't any more back to normal than the US is, despite the relative absence of the virus there.

foogazi 6y ago

Do you think states (or cities) WANT to lock down their population or impose curfews ? What gives you that idea?