Coronavirus Hysteria

[eliquid]

I'm not taking anything personal. As long as people treat others with respect, are civil, and make attempts at backing up their statements I'm happy to continue dialogue.

In regards to your quote, that's fine.. but I must then ask, how DO you form trusted opinions? If you trust literally no one, are you also a data scientist, statistician, or virologist? If so, kudos, please enlighten us.

But if you're not a modern day renaissance man, then you MUST be forming opinions and beliefs based off of something and I would wager $20 you are not launching full-blown FBI identity verification background checks on every piece of content you consume in your life. Or are you? <actually not sarcasm

So I think to answer your question, you have to know some back story.

Also, I might have this wrong in how I think you may be asking the question.. so just keep that in mind.

I only form trusted beliefs on things I care about. That's prob a given, but know that I care about very little enough to do full-blown research on. By saying that, I am not suggesting you care about a lot more than me and thus your day is filled with research or shortcuts. I am just setting up the environment here for understanding.

As far as the virologist question. No.

As far as data scientist or statistician, I do have a semi-background in this. I don't have a degree in it. But I do it enough to know a lot about both considering my background in general with marketing, large datasets, SERPWoo and a bit more. I know more than most general people about this, but prob not more than someone that does this as their sole career, IS VERY GOOD AT IT, and has done it the last 40 years. If I were to rate myself, I'm probably better than most entry level professionals who work in these fields.

You are right that I am not launching full-blown FBI investigations on the people writing the pieces I may read. But I feel like I do not need to either. What would it solve for me if I did?

If someone wrote a piece about how eating Mangos cures cancer and I checked that person's background and verified they DID live at X location, their real name was actually Y, they have 2 degrees from Yale in Z field, and they also did ABC.. that doesn't make what they wrote honest or truthful. The verification actually doesn't change the outcome of the article I am reading.

Could it raise the possibility of it being honest? For most general people, yes. But I also don't base my beliefs on what general people believe either ( group think ).

But if I have cancer, I'm not betting my life on eating Mangos all day and skipping out on my chemo, right? All because I verified this person's name and background. I'm also not betting my life on all these fake COVID-19 stats and scare tactics either just because XYZ person said something while holding up their Harvard degree for a news soundbite.

I care about and consume ( news/info ) very little.

At some point in life ( not saying you havent or you did something wrong.. not that at all ), you finally realize what is important in life and sometimes that also means you narrow down to just those things. I went through that stage and narrowed down what can consume my life. What I need to focus on.

When that happens, the need to research a ton of stuff vanishes. Because you are only focusing on very little to begin with that can even have that opportunity. Everything else, well just doesn't matter.

Combine that with what I said before:

You only need to know a few very basic things about life and humans, to know all you NEED to know.

I'll share one with you today.

1. Humans are flawed. All humans. Not just those without degrees or 100+ years of life experience. All humans. They lie, they manipulate, they influence, they mis-understand, they do things to others they don't intent and those other people take offense. Humans are also selfish.

This one thing by itself unhinges a lot.

When you know and understand basics like this, other things become very clear and a lot more doesn't have to "researched" to know.

Example. When the stats first came out about COVID-19 and how millions would die. I didn't need to research it or get a degree to verify it. I knew it was wrong based on #1 above.

So now I am layering different experiences and basic truths, along with only those things I care about and need to focus on. It's very free-ing mentally. Using mental models from experience and others ( potentially ) - https://fs.blog/mental-models/.

While these mental models act similar to shortcuts I mentioned before, they are based on my experience of things that are true. Things I don't have to rely on another person to tell me because humans can have agendas and lie. Stuff that just because you have degree or a job, doesn't equal true or false or mis-understanding or random ranges.

After all of that, if I need more information I look at data sets if I can get them and I look at how those data sets can be "not clean". What kind of information is missing ( in the data set and how the data was collected ). I ask a lot of questions to myself and map out whats not being told in the data, as in who could possibly have an agenda in all of this or where some data was collect inaccurately and doesn't tell the whole picture.

I'll give you a good example.

The general public was hit with lots of info about Navy ships and Army tent hospitals launching all across the US to battle the deadly COVID-19 virus. We just had to have these because hospitals were overflowing into the streets and they needed help.

It feed fear into the nation. Doctors, military, gov leaders all fed this to John Q Public on the news.

But then this pops up: - https://www.kuow.org/stories/washington-state-to-return-centurylink-field-hospital-to-feds ( Army field hospital for Covid-19 surge leaves Seattle after 9 days. It never saw a patient ).

This wasn't BFE, it was Seattle. This is just one example.

9 days and not 1 patient.

So where is the onus to prove whats right or wrong. The media and leaders and "authority figures" did all their actions with all their experts and degrees and set up emergency hospitals and navy ships to help these hospitals, but the hospitals don't need them. These emergency measures can not even get a patient.

So the onus now because me not fact checking the overflowing hospitals that "need help", but if these ships and tent city setups actually had a patient or not. If someone is lieing to me here because of an agenda or fable.

But this is where it stops. I don't care. It's not on my hot list/topic at the moment. It's not impacting my goals. It's not going to provide my kids a better future if I verify.

Why?

Because no matter if I verify and find out if true or false, we don't have a vaccine for it. Im gonna stay under "shelter in place" no matter if I verify. Knowing won't get me from $5m to $20m a year in my business. The FBI background checking would do nothing but waste my time and money and not really give me a truthful outcome.

Some things you just don't need to know. For everything else, don't take someone else's advice as they prob don't know either regardless of that degree or not. Find out on your own.

Have you ever been to Africa @eliquid?

Like physically been in the rain-forest and done your research on the flora and fauna to know it's real? Or do you accept that this continent in fact exist? Do you trust the generally accepted maps of the world, continents and the 7 seas?

Do you maybe trust that the photos from National Geographic are in fact real, and there exist such creatures as gorillas, lions, and chimpanzees ... or do you have to self-research it?

I have been many times in Africa, central, north, east, south. Would you believe me if I told you it's real?

At what point is something proven enough? Who is a good authority to speak "truth" to you? You don't trust doctors, lawyers?

The great thing about mankind, unlike other animals such as cats or fish, is that we can write down and pass along knowledge, so every person does not have to experience everything first hand to use this knowledge to better themselves and build upon it to research new concepts. Every doctor does not need to discover that not washing hands before surgery passes bacteria to the operation wound, because some doctor discovered and documented this - and now other doctors can "assume" it's true and go on researching more important new things.

Even intelligent animals such as monkeys and great apes make tools, but everything has to be taught first hand, they don't have the great encyclopedia of chimpanzee knowledge, so their growth from generation to generation is stagnant.

The great expansion of wealth and quality of life for normal people beyond royals and aristrocracy came with the accessibility of knowledge in books, and to learn beyond what's passed down from generation to generation by "show and tell".

Edit: this is not a personal attack, I'm just curious, I really struggle to see how your concept of self-research works. I.e. how do you know the deaths are fake? Because someone said it online? How do you know they are right? At what point is something proven right? In my personal opinion, something in the medical field by a doctor is more likely to be correct, because of their experience and training. They are not always right, but compared to "anyone else" - I trust them more.

How do you know that more people did not die, because the containment and precautions did work? Would you react differently if we did nothing and it turned out to be far worse? Is it acceptable to do too much, given the knowledge people had of the virus in January and December is not the knowledge we have now? What if it was worse? How bad would it have to be to warrant an economic setback? 2% deaths, 5%, 10%, 30%? Who decides when it's bad enough and how much economic loss is warranted vs how many deaths? Would you lose 100 000 to save 10 lives, 100 lives, 10 000 lives, 10% of the population? I don't know the answer personally.

For things that don't really matter, I can accept something that another person told me.

Do you have a uncle or grandfather that likes to tell tall tales? If you don't, do you know the general idea?

I had an uncle that loved to tell about the HUGE bass he caught and it slipped off his line every single time we went fishing. This monster bass that was basically un-catchable.

In the grand scheme of things, nothing about his story is important or matters. It's not life changing and wont't impact goals ( mine ).

But I don't need to be on his boat and jump into the lake to know there are HUGE bass in that lake. Or that the fish in the lake are actually BASS instead of bluegill. I don't need to experience this myself and research it to know there are fish in the lake, or that he went to that lake on the day he said.

I don't need to have secured a scholarship in "bass fishing" to know fish can come off a line once caught.

So I can have a belief ( somewhat ) or accept what he is saying without research on that, without doing it first hand like your chimp or animal example. It can be passed down verbally or written and I would be fine accepting certain parts of that story without need to research on my own.

Why? It's not important. What about it will actually impact my life or others? Right? Same with maps of oceans or certain plants in Africa. It's not something I need to care about. For most people day to day, same for them too.

Just like how I was taught in books handed down to me, that Christopher Columbus discovered America. I can accept it. It's not important actually and it doesn't impact me. Knowing this fact will not improve my life in anyway years to come. So I can accept it without researching it. Funny enough, this handed down history that I didn't research, proved to be untrue. So much for those "professionals" and scientists getting it right all those years.

But what if my uncle said, that specific BASS he is trying to catch has fatty oil that cures cancer? AND FOR ME TO BELIEVE HIM because he has a Phd in maritime biology and all I need to do is lose my job and shelter at home for him to tell me the secrets?

Yeah, Im not accepting that as truth. And I can verify his credentials, but it doesn't change the outcome or make it honest. I would have to research this on my own now.

Why? Because it impacts me directly. I gotta lose my job and shelter in place. Also my wife had a pre-cancerous tumor once, so that also sorta impacts me a bit. At this point, yeah I am going to research on my own.

If he had said it cures diabetes and I needed to give him $99 teach me to how to catch the same fish myself, I wouldn't need to research it because I don't care and diabetes doesn't impact me.

I don't disagree that under normal circumstances that a doctor giving medical advice would be possibly more accurate than someone on the street.

My concerns are on a whole other level and these aren't normal circumstances.

 

[CCarter]

We're at 22 million Americans now that have claimed unemployment in the last 4 weeks:

 

[bernard]

Where do you see travel 6-12 months from now?

I'm sure we will still travel, but I'm not sure we'll still do mass tourism. I also think business travel will go down a lot, since I'm quite sure, that analysis will prove business travellers to be "super infectious". Most meetings will be done on Zoom.

About mass tourism, I think we had reached a saturation point anyway. Most people hate having their cities taken over by hoards arriving every day.

It's quite likely that mandatory quarantine might be enforced if you travel to China or similar outbreak spots. Stay in for 14 days. Plays well into the politics of upcoming economic war against China.

 

[ToffeeLa]

Where do you see travel 6-12 months from now?

Travel is still going to exist in some form or another. So even now you can start to think about areas which might be more attractive...

Staycations (travel within your own country - will happen this summer in some places)
Accommodation where you control some of the variables (caravanning, camping, self-catering apartment)
Locations where you don't have lots of other tourists, which were not that badly affected and where you are less likely to meet visitors from 'risk zones'.

So see you all in our tents in the Tatras mountains, then?

 

[eliquid]

Where do you see travel 6-12 months from now?

People easily and quickly forget. History points us to that in general.

There will still be people wanting to cross off bucket lists and go on what "use to be normal" to them. Like mountains, national parks, beaches, etc.

I think the economy will do more damage than fears of social distancing and viruses. People just won't have the money and most will have racked their debt up where they can't dip into more debt to pay for the travel.

The places will be the same, but I think the amount of people at those places will be less due to economical reasons, than health reasons.

I see a lot more people driving than flying. More people packing a cooler than eating out at the "local joint". Hitting the Super 8 than the Hilton. All while they travel to the destination. I also think instead of 2 weeks, it will be 1 week. Instead of 1 week, maybe 4 days for the stay.

When you have no money really and can't access more debt, even the Super 8 can get expensive after a week so shorter stays will creep in as a trend.

.

 

[Philip J. Fry]

Where do you see travel 6-12 months from now?

I'm sure we will still travel, but I'm not sure we'll still do mass tourism. I also think business travel will go down a lot, since I'm quite sure, that analysis will prove business travellers to be "super infectious". Most meetings will be done on Zoom.

About mass tourism, I think we had reached a saturation point anyway. Most people hate having their cities taken over by hoards arriving every day.

It's quite likely that mandatory quarantine might be enforced if you travel to China or similar outbreak spots. Stay in for 14 days. Plays well into the politics of upcoming economic war against China.

From talk in the travel agency space, people don't expect any traveling until Q3 at the earliest. I'm guessing Q4.

I don't believe travel will pick up until Q4 2021, when the concert industry believes concerts will pick up.

As for the upcoming economic war against China, yeah, that's gonna be hard AF. The Belt and Road Initiative is going to give China more international power than it has before. Up and coming regions such as SE Asia and Africa are being developed by China and, once they're developed, that relationship is going to pay off greatly for China.

The US might not be the superpower of the future. It might be a 3 way tie between the EU, US, and China.

 

[Brit in Cambodi]

From talk in the travel agency space, people don't expect any traveling until Q3 at the earliest. I'm guessing Q4.

I don't believe travel will pick up until Q4 2021, when the concert industry believes concerts will pick up.

As for the upcoming economic war against China, yeah, that's gonna be hard AF. The Belt and Road Initiative is going to give China more international power than it has before. Up and coming regions such as SE Asia and Africa are being developed by China and, once they're developed, that relationship is going to pay off greatly for China.

The US might not be the superpower of the future. It might be a 3 way tie between the EU, US, and China.

Won't be the EU, the EU is crippled by its poorer eastern and southern states.

As for China yes they have got their tenticles in the Cambodian government and other poor SEA countries but if you talk to the Khmer on the street they loath the Chinese. The Chinese bring crime and just hire other Chinese not any of the locals. Same for Laos and other countries in the region. Also bear in mind that the Chinese are damming up the Mekong and its going to cause food shortages in countries further downstream. The Chinese aren't liked in many parts of Asia westerners are tolerated as they bring money and hire locals (and they can rip them off.)

More countries will shun globalisation after this China sending faulty tests and PPE has put a bad taste in the mouth of a lot of countries. There will be a push to produce more manufacturing at home. China doesn't innovate it steals its technology. There is a massive cultural difference which holds back China which is if you try and fail you will be mocked and ridiculed in China (and lose face) where as in the west failure is accepted as part of the journey to success.

I don't think to a certain extent this whole corona thing will weaken China to a certain degree.

 

[mj22]

Covid-19 Starter Kit, I dig that pink hat thing with the "built-in" face Shield, is pretty bitchin. LOLZ

 

[Jared]

Wow. Now here's something interesting . . .

There was a hot mic either before or after the White House daily coronavirus briefing, and it picked up an interesting conversation between Fox News' John Roberts and an unnamed man.

What in the hell is going on.

 

[Philip J. Fry]

Wow. Now here's something interesting . . .

There was a hot mic either before or after the White House daily coronavirus briefing, and it picked up an interesting conversation between Fox News' John Roberts and an unnamed man.

What in the hell is going on.

The video is disinformation to fool people into an anti-science and anti-public health world view. It is hosted on someone's personal YouTube account. There's no link to the raw video. The speaker is never seen in the video. We have no way of verifying that the video's audio is not added later.

Also, let's assume that the video is true. Why did the White House keep vaccines for themselves? I doubt the people who made the video would be able to answer that question. Did Donald Trump's administration secretly know about vaccines, vaccinated themselves and kept it away from the public? What a good president!

 

[NetZero]

Good video. He's not stating alternative facts, here is the study he is talking about. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-20/coronavirus-serology-testing-la-county

 

[Philip J. Fry]

Good video. He's not stating alternative facts, here is the study he is talking about. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-20/coronavirus-serology-testing-la-county

Oh, the part in the video where someone in the video said "Everybody here's been vaccinated anyway" was a joke. I thought that was the conspiracy that the video was referring to, that the White House had vaccines.

Good to hear that COVID-19 might just be a really contagious flu. Too early to confirm that, I'd like to see more tests to confirm it, before any policy changes are made. We are risking the lives of elderly people for our convenience here.

 

[Future State]

Massachussetts just put out a study that found 30% of their "random sample" aka people walking by on the street had antibodies for the virus.

San Francisco had a study that says there's possibly 55x more infections than we know about.

All three of these studies including the Los Angeles one above means the death rate is lower than the normal ass flu.

 

[eliquid]

We are risking the lives of elderly people for our convenience here.

Really? Elderly people die every year of lots of things.. like the Flu.

Influenza and pneumonia to be exact for ages 65 and older. Data from the CDC - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf

We don't turn our economy upside down over it or worry about them any other time. We've never cared in ANY year before to try to save elderly people.

In 2017, almost 49k deaths from it ON people aged 65 and older. View page 18 of the linked document.

There's only been 46,996 confirmed deaths in the US ( all ages ) for COVID-19.

Please tell me how we have worried about our elderly before to justify it now, when they have died from things like the Flu more than COVID-19 in years prior, years and years and years before?

.

 

[Philip J. Fry]

Really? Elderly people die every year of lots of things.. like the Flu.

Influenza and pneumonia to be exact for ages 65 and older. Data from the CDC - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf

We don't turn our economy upside down over it or worry about them any other time. We've never cared in ANY year before to try to save elderly people.

In 2017, almost 49k deaths from it ON people aged 65 and older. View page 18 of the linked document.

There's only been 46,996 confirmed deaths in the US ( all ages ) for COVID-19.

Please tell me how we have worried about our elderly before to justify it now, when they have died from things like the Flu more than COVID-19 in years prior, years and years and years before?

I know elderly people and they're afraid of COVID-19. Do you know any elderly people? What would they say? I'm not elderly; but, if I was on social security or retired, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care if the economy was upside down.

What's your view on the role of government? Should the government look out for the employed, prosperous, and rich? Or, should it look out for all of society?

Were you the only child or one of many? Did you like it when your parents played favorites?

 

[RickJordan]

I know elderly people and they're afraid of COVID-19. Do you know any elderly people? What would they say? I'm not elderly; but, if I was on social security or retired, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care if the economy was upside down.

What's your view on the role of government? Should the government look out for the employed, prosperous, and rich? Or, should it look out for all of society?

Were you the only child or one of many? Did you like it when your parents played favorites?

All this was missing was a, a hiss, something about fava beans, and “clariceeeee”.

 

[Philip J. Fry]

All this was missing was a, a hiss, something about fava beans, and “clariceeeee”.

Disorderliness does not lend to a stable society. Lifting the quarantine and having chaos is akin to a developing nation than a developed one. This isn't taking America to the greatness it was in the 50's, this is stagnation and a degradation of America's global status.

@eliquid We do care about the elderly. The Social Security Administration is an example of this.

 

[Jared]

The widespread nature of the virus and dramatically lowered fatality rate has been known for weeks for those of us paying attention. The media's mum on it because it's clear they've co-opted the outbreak as a political stunt meant to effect the upcoming election, but I digress.

There are multiple studies, and a few anecdotes, all pointing to the widespread distribution of the virus, and a subsequently massively lowered fatality rate. This is further supported with data from heavily-testing countries like Iceland, Luxembourg, and Norway, which show a sizeable percentage of those tested were positive.

Here's what I've got. I'm sure there are some studies I've overlooked, and new ones are coming out daily (New York is currently in the middle of what they're calling the largest antibodies study to date).

USC-LA County Study: Early Results of Antibody Testing Suggest Number of COVID-19 Infections Far Exceeds Number of Confirmed Cases in Los Angeles County - LACounty.gov

2.8-5.6% of the county's adult population has antibodies, which works out to 221,000-442,000 adults. The official total number of cases? 7,994.

Based on results of the first round of testing, the research team estimates that approximately 4.1% of the county's adult population has antibody to the virus. Adjusting this estimate for statistical margin of error implies about 2.8% to 5.6% of the county's adult population has antibody to the virus- which translates to approximately 221,000 to 442,000 adults in the county who have had the infection. That estimate is 28 to 55 times higher than the 7,994 confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported to the county by the time of the study in early April. The number of COVID-related deaths in the county has now surpassed 600.

CDC reviewing &#8216;stunning&#8217; universal testing results from Boston homeless shelter - Boston 25 News

397 people tested. 146 tested positive (36.7%). Zero (0%) showed symptoms.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now &#8220;actively looking into&#8221; results from universal COVID-19 testing at Pine Street Inn homeless shelter.

The broad-scale testing took place at the shelter in Boston's South End a week and a half ago because of a small cluster of cases there.

Of the 397 people tested, 146 people tested positive. Not a single one had any symptoms.

"It was like a double knockout punch. The number of positives was shocking, but the fact that 100 percent of the positives had no symptoms was equally shocking,&#8221; said Dr. Jim O&#8217;Connell, president of Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program, which provides medical care at the city&#8217;s shelters.

Universal Screening for SARS-CoV-2 in Women Admitted for Delivery - New England Journal of Medicine

I'll summarize this with the chart from the article (15.4% of 215 pregnant women tested positive):

Why a study showing that covid-19 is everywhere is good news - The Economist (Summary)
Using ILI surveillance to estimate state-specific case detection rates and forecast SARS-CoV-2 spread in the United States - medRxiv (Full Study)

The paper reckons that 7m Americans were infected from March 8th to 14th, and official data show 7,000 deaths three weeks later. The resulting fatality rate is 0.1%, similar to that of flu. That is amazingly low, just a tenth of some other estimates.

Coronavirus: Santa Clara County has had 50 to 85 times more cases than we knew about, Stanford estimates - The Mercury News

In a startling finding, new Stanford research reveals between 48,000 and 81,000 people in Santa Clara County alone may already have been infected by the coronavirus by early April &#8212; that&#8217;s 50 to 85 times more than the number of official cases at that date.

. . .

Stanford&#8217;s low-end estimate of Santa Clara County cases is nearly double the confirmed total &#8212; 28,000 &#8212; for the entire state of California. The study estimated 2.5% to 4.2% of residents here carry antibodies to the pathogen, a marker of past infection that suggests it may be safe for them to go back to work and school.

. . .

The research also implies that the death rate is far lower than believed. At the time of research, 39 county residents had died &#8212; a fatality rate, based on estimated infections, of only 0.12 to 0.2%. California&#8217;s assumed death rate, based only on confirmed cases, is 3%.

Nearly a third of 200 blood samples taken in Chelsea show exposure to coronavirus - The Boston Globe

200 residents tested. 64 have antibodies (32%).

Nearly one third of 200 Chelsea residents who gave a drop of blood to researchers on the street this week tested positive for antibodies linked to COVID-19, a startling indication of how widespread infections have been in the densely populated city.

Sixty-four residents who had a finger pricked in Bellingham Square on Tuesday and Wednesday had antibodies that the immune system makes to fight off the coronavirus, according to Massachusetts General Hospital physicians who ran the pilot study.

Roseland Hospital phlebotomist: 30% of those tested have coronavirus antibody - Chicago City Wire

A phlebotomist working at Roseland Community Hospital said Thursday that 30% to 50% of patients tested for the coronavirus have antibodies while only around 10% to 20% of those tested have the active virus.

Sumaya Owaynat, a phlebotomy technician, said she tests between 400 and 600 patients on an average day in the parking lot at Roseland Community Hospital. Drive-thru testing is from 9 a.m. to noon and 1 to 4 p.m. each day. However, the hospital has a limited number of tests they can give per day.

Owaynat said the number of patients coming through the testing center who appear to have already had coronavirus and gotten over it is far greater than those who currently have the disease.

 

[Jared]

 

[DanielS]

The Babylon Bee puts out gold every single day- love their sense of humour and creativity.

 

[Philip J. Fry]

The widespread nature of the virus and dramatically lowered fatality rate has been known for weeks for those of us paying attention. The media's mum on it because it's clear they've co-opted the outbreak as a political stunt meant to effect the upcoming election, but I digress.

Whatever. I listed to the news in both English and German. The German news is not in cahoots with the US media. They're saying that the US Government stole PPE that was destined for Germany in Thai airports. It's not a conspiracy, that we have COVID-19. It's only confirmation bias in certain members of the public.

 

[eliquid]

I know elderly people and they're afraid of COVID-19.

In general, with exceptions of people who live in reality, most everyone is afraid of COVID-19... not just the elderly.

Also, I know elderly who are afraid of credit cards, VCRs, tablets and phones, and if their stimulus checks will come. They are also afraid of the Flu, cancer, and respiratory diseases. People are afraid of a lot of things.

I see what you are saying, but it doesn't lend any credibility to anything. I don't see your point here as it doesn't advance your side of the debate/viewpoint.

Just because a group of people are scared of something, doesn't mean we all pay the price for it.

My wife is scared of mice. I don't make you put rat traps in your home all over the place when you don't have a mouse problem, do I?

Do you know any elderly people? What would they say? I'm not elderly; but, if I was on social security or retired, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care if the economy was upside down.

Sure. I know a lot of them. I don't know what they would say as I haven't polled them. However, I know just based on logic some would care, some would not. It's just math/stats on that.

However, I am sure many would care if they were on social security or a pension and those checks stopped coming, like many workers have been done recently with their jobs or businesses. I bet they would care then. It's easy not to care when you still get a check handed to you.

I wouldn't care about toilet paper until it stopped becoming available. When things are going right for you, its easy to not care. People only care when they get FOMO or when shit hits the fan for them.

What's your view on the role of government? Should the government look out for the employed, prosperous, and rich? Or, should it look out for all of society?

The government as it is right now is inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt. It should not have any business in "looking out" for anyone in the example you intend, meaning looking out for people when it comes to bailouts and checks and money. In other examples I could say yes, in this example.. no to any.

I could find examples when government should look out for people... but in this situation as you intend.. no

Were you the only child or one of many? Did you like it when your parents played favorites?

Have an older brother I met only 3 times, and I also have 2 younger brothers. Grew up in a step family.

While I can imagine families where parents played favorites for real, as you grow older you realize that many times some parents do what they can, when they can. That maybe it's not favorite playing. I can see how THIS could happen in other families, but since you are asking me directly I will speak on my example.

When I was 16, my parents didn't buy me a car. I bought my own. They had 0 money. It was run down and 30 years old and I had to pay for my own gas and insurance. When I was 18, my parents promised me to help afford me to go to college, but instead they told me to try community college first for 2 years to make sure I liked it.. so I did and 2 years later they told me they couldn't help me anyways. What a waste.... I paid for that 2 years on my own and all my books and everything else. Zero help.

My 2 younger brothers on the other hand.. both got newer cars ( within 10 years old ) when they turned 16. Both of them since have had at least 5 cars EACH since then that my parents gave them for free each time. One brother got his entire college paid for and the other has had at least $30k in legal fees paid for.

I could have said my parent played favorites right? I could have been mad and upset, right?

They got cars left and right each, and college and massive amounts of debt paid off.. I on the other hand had to scratch a living from nothing with not even as much as a school book paid for.

But 1 younger brother is 8 years younger than me, the other one is 16 years younger than me.

8 years can change a family dynamic. My parents didn't have money when I was 16 and 18. They did 8 years later and 8 years later after that. They have money now, but not then.

As a mature adult, I knew that the financial situation then, was not the same as 8 years later. My parents had money at X time, when they didn't at Y time.

That's not favoritism, it's just how life plays the cards handed to you, at the time you playing. You get multiple hands in the game as time goes on. The cards weren't there for me when I was 16, they were when my brothers were.

And this isn't all about money. Parents can play what seems favoritism in other ways, that are not really favoritism. It's just the situation at that time and place and under those conditions.

If my parents did play favorites, it paid off in my favor. I did get the favoritism in the end. Im the only one that hasn't needed a dime from them my whole life. I can pay my bills and Im not a heroin addict who got their kid taken away from them. I don't have to rely on my mom at 34 years old to supply me and my children supper at night.

Also at this time, my grandmother is doing her will and leaving her house/estate to 2 kids. There are 6 kids total. The other 4 are pissed off and saying grandma is playing favorites. Sounds reasonable to claim that, right?

But the 2 kids she is leaving her estate too are pretty much homeless and jobless and unmarried with no life or social skills. The other 4 own their own homes, cars, and are doing well and are married and from all other view points need no help money wise. So is this really favoritism, or making sure the ones that need help, actually get it while the others who don't need help don't snatch it away from the ones that do?

I am positive some families play favorites. I am smart enough to know that. However, again I don't see where this point adds to your debate/viewpoint though.

Disorderliness does not lend to a stable society. Lifting the quarantine and having chaos is akin to a developing nation than a developed one. This isn't taking America to the greatness it was in the 50's, this is stagnation and a degradation of America's global status.

Why do you think lifting the quarantine would cause chaos? We have no data on that. We have never seen this in our lifetime to know it will do that. This is pure assumption going on.

We don't live in a vacuum. We have no proof it would.

There is no evidence you have that we would be led to stagnation or degradation if we lift the quarantine.

In fact, we are right now at degradation when it comes to how the markets are doing. So being in quarantine has actually produced this already.

@eliquid We do care about the elderly. The Social Security Administration is an example of this.

Ok, you point out SSA. But you know what I meant.

We have never shut down the country or even put masks on our face before and stood 6 feet apart in any other time ( in our lifetimes ) for the elderly. You know what I was mentioning. Come on.

However you picked out the SSA instead as a counter.

Cool.

Social Security, depending on when you define it as a program, was actually a system developed for the poor, not the elderly. It was brought over from "poor laws" that have been around since ancient times. Granted one could make an argument that the elderly are poor, but this concept was not just for elderly.

If we then forward to the first SS program that resembles somewhat helping people in the US, that program was actually intended for disabled civil war veterans and widows and children of those vets who died in combat. Again, not elderly.

Past that, Social Security ( as we know officially as SS monthly benefits from the SSA ) did not come about until 1935 as lump sum payments ( 1940 ushered in monthly payments ). This is what was called "old age pension" and it only came about as a result of the Great Depression. But it's not actually for old age, it's actually for a lot of other things too that do not involve the elderly like disabled people and orphans, etc.

If America really cares about the elderly with SSA, why do you have to pay into it all your life to get it? Why are your benefits determined by what you worked and how much you made? If American really cared, you would not have had to pay into it most of your life ( or be married to someone who did ) and then get a check that is determined by what you paid in. They determine you benefits by the average of the highest amounts you made over ( i think ) 25 years.

If America cared, it would just cut a check to anyone aged 67 or older for the same amount given to everyone. Not based on what your average pay in was over X years ( or what your spouse did ).

But no, its a tax you already pay into ( you or your spouse ) and MAYBE get later if you don't die before your old enough. if you die, you get nothing... gee thanks! So really, it's money YOU PAID IN YOURSELF AS A SAVINGS ACCOUNT, except you don't get it unless you live to be 67 ( or 64 if taking early ) and you only get little chunks of each month. Hope you don't die anytime soon once you start getting it... that's a waste of all your money!

Also if America cared, why would politicians have robbed it left and right for so many years to feed into other programs? This is why it's a tax. it can be used for other "causes" as deemed fit.

We don't care about the elderly. It's a ploy to get you to mind your p's and q's and do as you're told playing on your heart strings. A cause to get you to rally behind and look the other way while you get pulled over the barrel.

.

 

[GNews]

Over 50% of the people who've had the virus .......... dont' know........

I am living in ground Zero of where this virus came in DR like 2 months ago.

If rumors are true............. this shit's def going to pick people off, out the blue, after it's laid dormant or asymptomatic for quite some time.

People are allegedly being taken out of the communities here and nearby, very discreetly. I dont belive this to be honest but people are whispering this. But again, I dont believe it.

And the sure truth. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE HAD IT HERE but...... they didn't have tests and the education is pretty terrible for the large majority. They were calling a big flu that randomly broke out, 'something like pneumonia'

I had a few people I know end up in the hospital, on respirators and 'shook' . No way possible it was a regular flu but again......... thing's aren't organized here at all. History does seem to be repeating the Spanish influenza however and not many will die in the Caribbean

However... the 2nd wave........... if anything like the Spanish Influenza.. will kill between 150k-200k people

 

[BCN]

Good post. I agree with a lot of it. Social security is interesting, and now I'm moving way off topic ... but I've been thinking a lot about this lately.

There are actually a few very valid points for having social security (and even universal basic income).

It's also more relevant than earlier.

Manual jobs are disappearing. I'm not talking about the whole A.I. is taking our jobs thing, but even simple jobs now require certain computer skills. Dealing with technology and computers is required for most jobs, even previously "simple" jobs.

Repairing a car now is way different than repairing cars 20 years ago. When you're in the military now, you deal with much more advanced technology, it's not just giving a person a gun anymore. There will always be manual jobs, just not enough, and still, intelligence is something people are born with.

Operating a computer, abstract problem solving, and learning multiple languages will take a certain intelligence, and more jobs are requiring these skills. Ideally, anyone that lost their job could just re-train for a new job, in something "hot" like coding - but it's not possible for many people. We're all at a forum for online marketing and building "online stuff", so chances are that most people in here are above average intelligence, and it may be hard to understand that many people don't even know how a computer works - or even have the cognition to learn how to use one.

So when the cutting point for employment increases, let's say in terms of IQ, a larger fraction of the population are unemployable. If average IQ is 100 (I have no clue, and I'm not saying IQ it the best measure), half will have an IQ below average. Though intelligence is an abstract measure, and hard to quantify, it's not something that can be trained beyond a certain point. Which has been fine for thousands of years - I guess.

Basically, more people are left behind as society progresses - but we all want progress.

For the same reasons, retirement, as we have it today, won't be around for many more years. Since jobs are less labor-intensive and people live longer, there is no reason why you should stop working at some arbitrary number like 62-67 years old.

From a cost point of view, it's cheaper to pay out money to poor people than the consequences of having more poor people. Paying some tax/contributions is a small cost to be able to have lower crime, a more educated population, and more stability, and you can make more money in the end in a society like that. To put out the fires afterward is much more expensive (prisons, crime prevention, hospital beds ..).

It attracts more business and build more wealth. Most people, even in high paying jobs in high tax countries, are barely paying their share. The bulk of the bill is paid by businesses and a few rich guys (really rich, not online money rich). But then again, they benefit by having a whole society full of consumers with purchasing power, with skills to fill the jobs they need.

It's easy to recoup the cost. Making money isn't that hard, and I'm sure it's probably harder in a poor country with no/low tax.

Basically, it's a cheap way of keeping stability in society - sort of an ante you have to pay to play the modern society business game. It seems unfair when you look at isolated cases, I think it's unfair too when people get free money and I don't, but it works well.

The systems: social security, taxes, education, and retirement haven't kept up with the dynamics of modern society though, so sooner or later it will have to change.

 

[GNews]

Even in those early days of public health, with limited scientific remedies, social distancing and masks were understood to help stem the tide of pandemic. In the town of Montrose, Colorado, as the Denver Post recounted, a health officer named Isaiah Knott warned his fellow citizens that "if you are sick and do not stay away from social gatherings, you have the heart of a hun," using a derogatory term for the Germans the US was fighting at the time. But superstition often overwhelmed science, as officials recommended that people avoid wearing tight shoes and recommended people have a "clean mouth, clean heart and clean clothes." Quack "cures" proliferated, peddling their wares to the gullible and the desperate, as we see today in all kinds of coronavirus scams and pseudo science. (Check out this Reality Check with all the sordid details)

the game don't stop

taken from:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/22/opinions/denver-1918-lesson-avlon/index.html