The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Denizen Decerno
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Bold Brian or Callous Kemp? Mostly the latter, though it depends on who you’re asking. If it’s people who voted for the Georgia governor, there’s an elevated chance for the former, but the odds are still long. The following graph shows the percentages of Americans who believe it will be safe to fire things back up by the first week of May. Those who answered “not sure”, comprising 18% of the response, are excluded:

Demographically, the divide is more partisan than it is anything else.

While unsure if it’s now safe–whatever that means, exactly–to begin the process of a return to normalcy, I still support the idea of a state or a few giving it a shot, with important caveats.

Most importantly, anyone uncomfortable with no longer sheltering in place should not be compelled in any way to go back out and about. The two congressional relief bills require most businesses to provide leave for employees affected by coronavirus–including what is already covered by the Family Medical Leave Act and added to that responsibilities for looking after children under the age of 18–and an additional $600 a week in unemployment benefits such that many service sector workers will be taking a pay cut if they elect to go back to work now.

Those at high risk like the elderly and people with potential comorbidity conditions such as obesity or respiratory ailments should stay in for the time being. Social distancing, the wearing of face masks, and limited occupancy standards should all be strongly encouraged if not mandated.

The best guinea pigs are voluntary ones, especially if eagerly so. And a substantial minority of Americans undoubtedly are.

The impending econoclysm will be far worse than most people realize. Its effects will reverberate through the economy in the form of lower living standards for many years to come. The sooner the country is able to get back on its feet, the better.

 
Hide 60 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Time to start going back, with continuing quarantine for high risk groups and precautions such as masks for everyone else.

  2. … an additional $600 a week in unemployment benefits such that many service sector workers will be taking a pay cut if they elect to go back to work now.

    Holy Moley! I just heard about that a couple of days back. Yeah, that’s no incentive at all to go back to work, even when work does open up again. What’s the number, 23,000,000 on unemployment now? With even just a small amount of normal unemployment money, that’s easily $3,500 a month. That makes it an $75 to $90 BILLION monthly burn rate, or a cool TRILLION a year.

    Who’s gonna be the poor bastard to break it to people that it’s time to cut off this money borrowed from their future? I said it before, and I’ll say it now, this Kung Flu is the Socialists’ 9/11.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I suspect the opposite. I think we are in the seminal stages of what will become some sort of UBI.
  3. … not mandated.

    AGREED!

    ;-}

  4. Exactly how was the question framed? I suspect that a very large number of people would be in favour of a gradual re-opening of the economy.

    The impending econoclysm will be far worse than most people realize.

    I suspect that you’re right.

    But the US has handled the whole crisis so badly that you may be left with no good options. A much earlier response could have pretty much avoided the crisis. It’s a self-inflicted injury.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It asked respondents when they thought it would be safe to open the national economy and gave them different time frames to choose from--now, in two weeks, in a month, etc.
  5. Safety is very far from the only human value.

  6. On the topic of econoclysm, Captain Capitalism has a few thoughts.

    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-coronavirus-economic-revolution.html

    TLDR: Most education is now functionally free for those with the motivation to go find it (who are the ones you want educated anyway). All office work should now be done remotely. All unused office buildings converted to housing. Price of housing drops, everybody saves time and money from no more commuting, everybody has more spare money to spend from not wasting it on college indoctrination, economy is turbocharged and we zoom forward into a glorious future.

    He is absolutely correct that the commuter bullshit needs to stop, and should have stopped long ago. The only reason it hasn’t is management types (middle and upper) who are stuck on micromanagement and don’t know how to make sure things get done otherwise.

    If I was in the job market right now – or at any time in the next few years – I’d be doing as many interviews as possible and then once they make me an offer explain that “oh, by the way, I’ll be working remotely, and if you’re not on board with that you can bump the salary you’re offering me by 50%”.

    • Replies: @Anon
    I've worked for a large part of my career in a remote environment. What you're saying is unrealistic.

    1) A large number of people, who are reasonably productive in the office, have zero productivity in a remote setting. Some of it is them getting demoralized from isolation. Some of it is them dealing with constant distractions (either online or dealing with in-home small children).

    2) People work harder when they see other people working, much in the same way they workout harder at a gym, as opposed to their own garage.

    3) A remote environment is a promotion killer. If two people are vying for a job, and one is non-remote, they are pretty much guaranteed to get the job.

  7. It’s time for the elderly and those in poor health to stay in (if they choose) and everyone else get back to paying their payroll taxes.

    We have an abundant supply of elderly and obese, an ample supply of Negroes and way too many prisoners.

  8. If I was in the job market right now – or at any time in the next few years – I’d be doing as many interviews as possible and then once they make me an offer explain that “oh, by the way, I’ll be working remotely, and if you’re not on board with that you can bump the salary you’re offering me by 50%”.

    Dementedly unrealistic summary of current circumstances and potential developments topped off with a childish power-fantasy.

    Yet Unz commenters are constantly letting us know that they are the creme de la creme.

  9. Please, be more specific. What’s unrealistic? What is inaccurate in the characterization of present-day office work? What is impossible about the possibilities Clarey outlines? When I say physical presence is required only due to micromanagement, that’s based entirely on in-person observations over the past 20 years – observations of the behavior of the people setting policies, and of the productivity of team members working remotely, and of my own. And remote-working tech has gotten significantly better over that time.

    As for the power fantasy – it’s only a fantasy if you can’t pull it off. It’s completely doable when you get around to negotiating salary and the like; the trick is always to get them to name a number first. That’s when they’re psychologically committed; they’ve decided they really want you. You can do a lot with that. And I’m not the only person I’ve seen getting serious about this sort of thing.

    Everything I wrote is based on direct personal experience in corporate America.

  10. Two observations:

    The blacks love the extra handouts

    Democrats love the wedge issue.

  11. Normally when someone receives unemployment there is a requirement they go out to look for a job. This requirement was lifted because Democrats in Congress argued you didn’t want people out job hunting during an epidemic. So the result of this is that the $600 weekly federal benefits on top of the average $250 state benefits means many people make more being unemployed than employed. The median wage in this country is $700 per week so over half of all workers qualify for this.

    Even if we wanted to, we won’t be able to open most things up until July when this benefit ends. Businesses can’t open if they can’t get workers and who is going to take an income cut to start working, especially if they have a fear that this disease will still be around, when they could just stay home and relax instead?

    The requirement to look for a job could be reinstated when the lock downs end but there will be many people arguing that anyone uncomfortable going back shouldn’t be forced to. So if there is no requirement to go back most workers won’t go back and there will be worker shortages. You may even see worker shortages in essential businesses like grocery stores if they have to compete with newly re-opened businesses for workers.

    The Democrats in Congress saw this program as a way to reward their low income supporters and gain political support. The Republicans in Congress knew this was a bad idea but wanted their big business bailouts so they did a trade with the Democrats. So the Republicans let one bad program get passed so they could get their bad program passed too.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    As I alluded to earlier, if we were to conjure up a scenario as to how some sort of UBI became a permanent fixture, could we come up with a better one than this?
  12. The impending econoclysm will be far worse than most people realize. Its effects will reverberate through the economy in the form of lower living standards for many years to come. The sooner the country is able to get back on its feet, the better.

    I agree 1000%

    The negative repercussions caused by the retarded* policy decisions will be far worse than the original problem.

    *Assuming the decisions are attributable to incompetence and not evil intent.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "Assuming the decisions are attributable to incompetence and not evil intent."

    Nope, it's definitely evil intent.

    Not only is it evil intent, it's (((evil intent))).

    Suddenly, the decision to impeach Trump in January over patently made-up nonsense becomes clearer.

    Let's say you are a Democratic strategist with the minimal ability to think at least five moves ahead. Your job is to destroy Trump, but you failed with your made-up nonsense Russia collusion fiasco. You're casting about for solutions. What did you see back in December?

    A) Trump has survived Russiagate coup attempt;
    B) Economy and jobs market humming nicely;
    C) Stock market/Dow at year-long high;

    C and D are the entire basis of Trump's re-election bid, since he has done zero on immigration or any other America First planks. So, the best way to destroy Trump is to tank the economy. Who cares if hundreds of millions suffer? They're only meaningless goyim, they're like earthworms, they don't really feel pain.

    What else do you see?

    D) Big Trouble brewing in China: deadly virus which could easily spread Stateside via globalism.

    If the virus spreads to America, it will destroy the economy, either through mass death or through severe lockdown disruptions. It almost doesn't matter which, either will do. But Trump can avert a pandemic by taking decisive actions in Jan and Feb while there is still time. So... how to cock-block/hamstring Trump politically, so we get virus, get recession, then blame Trump?

    IMPEACHMENT! BINGO!

    Any excuse will do, and doesn't matter if it fails in the Senate (Ukrainegate was both ludicrous and guaranteed to fail). The bogus impeachment just has to last long enough to gum up the entire government and keep Trump distracted until it's too late, and the virus has a beach-head. Then the economy crashes and we blame Trump for not taking early action, which of course he could not do,me cause impeachment.

    Sounds paranoid, right?

    And yet it is exactly what happened, as a matter of record.

  13. Once we crossed the Rubicon of negative interest rates, we were in a monetary Bizarro World where markets can no longer function. The strange phenomena we’ve seen recently, such as negative oil prices and welfare being worth more than work, are direct consequences of this market manipulation. Now there are also massive culls of pork and chicken, which is tantamount to saying that the price of meat has gone negative too.

    The price of oil, meat, and labor are all dropping because we have massively overproduced due to to the flood of cheap credit. All this bad debt and misallocated capital will have to be liquidated before true market prices can return. There are two ways we could go about this. One, we could just “let her rip” and endure a very painful depression but emerge into a new world in a few years’ time. Two, we could write off debts, cancel mortgages and rents, and spray around QE for the little people.

    The government is likely to pursue a course that is the worst of both worlds. They will try to maintain price support while bailing out the big boys and tossing crumbs to normal people. The inevitable workout will stretch on for 2 decades and cause immeasurably more pain than just letting it run its course.

    Just like corona.

  14. @Adam Smith

    The impending econoclysm will be far worse than most people realize. Its effects will reverberate through the economy in the form of lower living standards for many years to come. The sooner the country is able to get back on its feet, the better.
     
    I agree 1000%

    The negative repercussions caused by the retarded* policy decisions will be far worse than the original problem.

    *Assuming the decisions are attributable to incompetence and not evil intent.

    “Assuming the decisions are attributable to incompetence and not evil intent.”

    Nope, it’s definitely evil intent.

    Not only is it evil intent, it’s (((evil intent))).

    Suddenly, the decision to impeach Trump in January over patently made-up nonsense becomes clearer.

    Let’s say you are a Democratic strategist with the minimal ability to think at least five moves ahead. Your job is to destroy Trump, but you failed with your made-up nonsense Russia collusion fiasco. You’re casting about for solutions. What did you see back in December?

    A) Trump has survived Russiagate coup attempt;
    B) Economy and jobs market humming nicely;
    C) Stock market/Dow at year-long high;

    C and D are the entire basis of Trump’s re-election bid, since he has done zero on immigration or any other America First planks. So, the best way to destroy Trump is to tank the economy. Who cares if hundreds of millions suffer? They’re only meaningless goyim, they’re like earthworms, they don’t really feel pain.

    What else do you see?

    D) Big Trouble brewing in China: deadly virus which could easily spread Stateside via globalism.

    If the virus spreads to America, it will destroy the economy, either through mass death or through severe lockdown disruptions. It almost doesn’t matter which, either will do. But Trump can avert a pandemic by taking decisive actions in Jan and Feb while there is still time. So… how to cock-block/hamstring Trump politically, so we get virus, get recession, then blame Trump?

    IMPEACHMENT! BINGO!

    Any excuse will do, and doesn’t matter if it fails in the Senate (Ukrainegate was both ludicrous and guaranteed to fail). The bogus impeachment just has to last long enough to gum up the entire government and keep Trump distracted until it’s too late, and the virus has a beach-head. Then the economy crashes and we blame Trump for not taking early action, which of course he could not do,me cause impeachment.

    Sounds paranoid, right?

    And yet it is exactly what happened, as a matter of record.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Thanks: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Sounds paranoid, right?
     
    Yes, but only because I know how retarded most lefties are, GToD. They can only think about one move ahead. The best they could do initially was play the xenophobe card when the President wanted to cut off the China travel earlier. Then, they got their Media branch to go forget that whole thing. They've just lucked out with this Infotainment Panic-Fest, and they won't let a crisis go to waste.

    Sure, they are glad the economy is tanking with good timing here. You give them a lot of credit for thinking that I don't think they have the capacity for.

    Yes, you're paranoid, and yes, they are out to get you

  15. On the subject of what “it’s time for” perhaps this plague will motivate better management of the two principal covid preexisting comorbidities. Finally there is a study that quantifies the hazard ratios of various pre-existing conditions. Hypertension and obesity come in first at about 50% each. I once read that hypertension is treatable about 60% of the time with cavalier management or about 90% of the time using a combination of medications with conscientious empiric follow up. Obesity is also treatable but the medical management is not, sorry doc, parking in the farthest parking space and using the stairs.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Obesity is also treatable but the medical management is not, sorry doc, parking in the farthest parking space and using the stairs.

    What about banning Big Gulps?

    NYC could have avoided this fate if the courts had upheld his soda ban.
    , @Jay Fink
    Obesity in the U.S is more than a health issue, it is ingrained in our culture now as something that is socially acceptable, especially in the lower classes. Once the taboo was lifted it will be difficult to control again, no matter what the health consequences are.
  16. Anon[749] • Disclaimer says:
    @vok3
    On the topic of econoclysm, Captain Capitalism has a few thoughts.

    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-coronavirus-economic-revolution.html

    TLDR: Most education is now functionally free for those with the motivation to go find it (who are the ones you want educated anyway). All office work should now be done remotely. All unused office buildings converted to housing. Price of housing drops, everybody saves time and money from no more commuting, everybody has more spare money to spend from not wasting it on college indoctrination, economy is turbocharged and we zoom forward into a glorious future.

    He is absolutely correct that the commuter bullshit needs to stop, and should have stopped long ago. The only reason it hasn't is management types (middle and upper) who are stuck on micromanagement and don't know how to make sure things get done otherwise.

    If I was in the job market right now - or at any time in the next few years - I'd be doing as many interviews as possible and then once they make me an offer explain that "oh, by the way, I'll be working remotely, and if you're not on board with that you can bump the salary you're offering me by 50%".

    I’ve worked for a large part of my career in a remote environment. What you’re saying is unrealistic.

    1) A large number of people, who are reasonably productive in the office, have zero productivity in a remote setting. Some of it is them getting demoralized from isolation. Some of it is them dealing with constant distractions (either online or dealing with in-home small children).

    2) People work harder when they see other people working, much in the same way they workout harder at a gym, as opposed to their own garage.

    3) A remote environment is a promotion killer. If two people are vying for a job, and one is non-remote, they are pretty much guaranteed to get the job.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  17. Hispanics – 21% [higher than all others]

    Reminds me of a week or two ago when the Gov. of South Dakota caught hell from the Boston Globe and others for an open state policy (regarding the pandemic) after a big packing house employing lots of illegals became an epicenter for the virus in the upper Midwest. Wasn’t the packing house’s fault for hiring illegals or avoiding new procedures…wasn’t the illegals’ fault for ignoring hygiene recommendations…it was the governor’s fault.

    South Dakota is a pretty sparsely populated state and only has 900 confirmed active cases (12oo recovered) with 10 deaths (of the United States’ 850,000 active cases and 55,000 deaths thus far) , but that low number probably would’ve been half that amount if the illegal immigrant industry wasn’t as strong as it is in the Midwest.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  18. As the Atlas comment breaks up, I cannot but help but go back to my own conspiracy theories. The leadership , got wind of the Atlas more than a year ago, thought it was going to smash into our solar system (note that atlas was predicted to be just 23 million miles for our solar star and half the size of the sun) and corona virus was the ruse in preparation — now as it breaks up everyone is chatting about returning to some semblance of normal

    laugh as good as any other spider woven conspiracies thus far posited.

  19. During my evening strolls begun long before the word of corona arrived one thongs absolutely clear — the use of marijuana should be and remain illegal. I can for an entire 1/4 mile and have the air inundated with that gagging odor. The contention that its use is private and harmless to anyone not smoking is entirely false. It us to be that maybe I would have to wade through several yards in certain neighborhoods around certain houses . . . but lately it is as if entire neighborhoods are consume with by the residue. A health risk no question.

    I find that I keep my social distance not out fear of the virus . . .

  20. @SafeNow
    On the subject of what “it’s time for” perhaps this plague will motivate better management of the two principal covid preexisting comorbidities. Finally there is a study that quantifies the hazard ratios of various pre-existing conditions. Hypertension and obesity come in first at about 50% each. I once read that hypertension is treatable about 60% of the time with cavalier management or about 90% of the time using a combination of medications with conscientious empiric follow up. Obesity is also treatable but the medical management is not, sorry doc, parking in the farthest parking space and using the stairs.

    Obesity is also treatable but the medical management is not, sorry doc, parking in the farthest parking space and using the stairs.

    What about banning Big Gulps?

    NYC could have avoided this fate if the courts had upheld his soda ban.

  21. The welfare state is seducing people who have never had experience with it before. I am friends with a Chinese-American man who is collecting unemployment with the $600 weekly bonus. He always had a strong work ethic and never took a government handout before. At first he thought the lockdowns were a bad overreaction. He wanted to go back to work. Then the unemployment plus bonus started rolling in and he completely changed his tune. He now thinks for the safety of all everything should remain closed for as long as possible.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  22. @SafeNow
    On the subject of what “it’s time for” perhaps this plague will motivate better management of the two principal covid preexisting comorbidities. Finally there is a study that quantifies the hazard ratios of various pre-existing conditions. Hypertension and obesity come in first at about 50% each. I once read that hypertension is treatable about 60% of the time with cavalier management or about 90% of the time using a combination of medications with conscientious empiric follow up. Obesity is also treatable but the medical management is not, sorry doc, parking in the farthest parking space and using the stairs.

    Obesity in the U.S is more than a health issue, it is ingrained in our culture now as something that is socially acceptable, especially in the lower classes. Once the taboo was lifted it will be difficult to control again, no matter what the health consequences are.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    Defining deviancy downward. All kinds of attitudes and behaviors that were unacceptable in 1950 are acceptable today. Attitudes and behaviors that were unheard of in 1950 are increasingly common.

    People go on disability for weight-related medical issues and are kept alive with taxpayer-funded medication and surgery. They're in effect rewarded for their self-indulgence.

  23. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "Assuming the decisions are attributable to incompetence and not evil intent."

    Nope, it's definitely evil intent.

    Not only is it evil intent, it's (((evil intent))).

    Suddenly, the decision to impeach Trump in January over patently made-up nonsense becomes clearer.

    Let's say you are a Democratic strategist with the minimal ability to think at least five moves ahead. Your job is to destroy Trump, but you failed with your made-up nonsense Russia collusion fiasco. You're casting about for solutions. What did you see back in December?

    A) Trump has survived Russiagate coup attempt;
    B) Economy and jobs market humming nicely;
    C) Stock market/Dow at year-long high;

    C and D are the entire basis of Trump's re-election bid, since he has done zero on immigration or any other America First planks. So, the best way to destroy Trump is to tank the economy. Who cares if hundreds of millions suffer? They're only meaningless goyim, they're like earthworms, they don't really feel pain.

    What else do you see?

    D) Big Trouble brewing in China: deadly virus which could easily spread Stateside via globalism.

    If the virus spreads to America, it will destroy the economy, either through mass death or through severe lockdown disruptions. It almost doesn't matter which, either will do. But Trump can avert a pandemic by taking decisive actions in Jan and Feb while there is still time. So... how to cock-block/hamstring Trump politically, so we get virus, get recession, then blame Trump?

    IMPEACHMENT! BINGO!

    Any excuse will do, and doesn't matter if it fails in the Senate (Ukrainegate was both ludicrous and guaranteed to fail). The bogus impeachment just has to last long enough to gum up the entire government and keep Trump distracted until it's too late, and the virus has a beach-head. Then the economy crashes and we blame Trump for not taking early action, which of course he could not do,me cause impeachment.

    Sounds paranoid, right?

    And yet it is exactly what happened, as a matter of record.

    Sounds paranoid, right?

    Yes, but only because I know how retarded most lefties are, GToD. They can only think about one move ahead. The best they could do initially was play the xenophobe card when the President wanted to cut off the China travel earlier. Then, they got their Media branch to go forget that whole thing. They’ve just lucked out with this Infotainment Panic-Fest, and they won’t let a crisis go to waste.

    Sure, they are glad the economy is tanking with good timing here. You give them a lot of credit for thinking that I don’t think they have the capacity for.

    Yes, you’re paranoid, and yes, they are out to get you

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I guess Ron Unz doesn't want to hear from a hoaxer, but I just learned that this new version of iPadOS does not let you use the 5-minute EDIT window.

    I meant to add:

    Yes, you are paranoid, and yes, they are out to get you!


    test. OK, never mind, Mr. Unz. It did work for the 2nd comment. The OS had to be broken in.

  24. @Achmed E. Newman

    Sounds paranoid, right?
     
    Yes, but only because I know how retarded most lefties are, GToD. They can only think about one move ahead. The best they could do initially was play the xenophobe card when the President wanted to cut off the China travel earlier. Then, they got their Media branch to go forget that whole thing. They've just lucked out with this Infotainment Panic-Fest, and they won't let a crisis go to waste.

    Sure, they are glad the economy is tanking with good timing here. You give them a lot of credit for thinking that I don't think they have the capacity for.

    Yes, you're paranoid, and yes, they are out to get you

    I guess Ron Unz doesn’t want to hear from a hoaxer, but I just learned that this new version of iPadOS does not let you use the 5-minute EDIT window.

    I meant to add:

    Yes, you are paranoid, and yes, they are out to get you!

    test. OK, never mind, Mr. Unz. It did work for the 2nd comment. The OS had to be broken in.

  25. There will be a vaccine (probably only partially effective, like the annual flu vaccine), and half a dozen different approaches are being used to find it. I read that infrastructure cannot be constructed now, to mass-manufacture the vaccine, because each of the approaches requires a different kind of infrastructure. Thus, all of the pre-built infrastructure would have to be bulldozed later, except for the winner. This would result in the loss of several billion dollars, plus the embarrassing scene of the bulldozers. And so, the US government does not pre-build the alternative manufacturing plants right now. Someone please tell me that I have this wrong.

  26. This is ridiculous.

    Except for the very old and/or infirm, it’s not any more “unsafe” to lead a normal life than it was on March 1. For everyone else its perfectly safe. No one has any sense of risk anymore.

    IT IS NOT “UNSAFE” TO GO OUTSIDE OR EAT IN A RESTAURANT OR DO ANYTHING ELSE.

    This is the biggest mass delusion the world has ever seen. (thanks to the media and it’s obsession with catching that wascalwy wabbit Donald Trump)

  27. @Achmed E. Newman

    ... an additional $600 a week in unemployment benefits such that many service sector workers will be taking a pay cut if they elect to go back to work now.
     
    Holy Moley! I just heard about that a couple of days back. Yeah, that's no incentive at all to go back to work, even when work does open up again. What's the number, 23,000,000 on unemployment now? With even just a small amount of normal unemployment money, that's easily $3,500 a month. That makes it an $75 to $90 BILLION monthly burn rate, or a cool TRILLION a year.

    Who's gonna be the poor bastard to break it to people that it's time to cut off this money borrowed from their future? I said it before, and I'll say it now, this Kung Flu is the Socialists' 9/11.

    I suspect the opposite. I think we are in the seminal stages of what will become some sort of UBI.

    • Agree: nebulafox
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    The opposite of what? That's pretty much what I was thinking, though it disgusts me too much to want to write about it. Yes, this is a great way, as you wrote in comment#30, to implement that. I don't have to like it, and that's what I meant by the Socialists' 9/11.

    (I just don't know what I wrote that was the opposite of this, is all.)

    I've got a post coming on my blog about something I suspect about the power bill. It's not a big deal like this UBI Socialist utopia that I'm gonna want to leave out of, but still: the late fees will be waived and power won't be cut off for a failure to pay. This is due to economic hardship due to the Kung Flu Panic-Fest. I normally pay ahead, A.E. I did pay the bill and then another month, but I have a suspicion that this big company will let people slide with hundreds of dollars owed, and I'll be the sucker for paying up regularly. I was THIS CLOSE to not paying a dime.

    I'm really tired of being the sucker who is responsible financially. That's what Socialism entails, in case some of the denser ones here never did get that for all my trying: In Socialism the responsible ones are the SUCKERS. That is, if there are any left after a few decades of it ...
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Oh, I just thought of this. Perhaps you thought that my meaning of "Socialists' 9/11" was that it was a bad thing for them. I see why you wrote "quite the opposite" to that. If you had followed my link, you'd have seen I meant it in this way: This is the Socialists' time to take advantage of a crisis, just as it was the Neocon's time to take advantage 18 1/2 years ago.

    Gotta follow those Peak Stupidity links, for enlightenment. ;-}
    , @Kim

    I suspect the opposite. I think we are in the seminal stages of what will become some sort of UBI.
     
    Of course. And UBI will be issued on a card and that will be a wedge for ending cash. That will mean that you no longer have access to the fruits of your labor. A bank must be used so that you can get access your own property and the bank can decline you at any time.

    Total surveillance. Total control.

    So that well-known prediction of Revelations will soon come to pass. Who really expected that?


    Revelation 13:17
    “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
     
  28. @dfordoom
    Exactly how was the question framed? I suspect that a very large number of people would be in favour of a gradual re-opening of the economy.

    The impending econoclysm will be far worse than most people realize.
     
    I suspect that you're right.

    But the US has handled the whole crisis so badly that you may be left with no good options. A much earlier response could have pretty much avoided the crisis. It's a self-inflicted injury.

    It asked respondents when they thought it would be safe to open the national economy and gave them different time frames to choose from–now, in two weeks, in a month, etc.

  29. @Mark G.
    Normally when someone receives unemployment there is a requirement they go out to look for a job. This requirement was lifted because Democrats in Congress argued you didn't want people out job hunting during an epidemic. So the result of this is that the $600 weekly federal benefits on top of the average $250 state benefits means many people make more being unemployed than employed. The median wage in this country is $700 per week so over half of all workers qualify for this.

    Even if we wanted to, we won't be able to open most things up until July when this benefit ends. Businesses can't open if they can't get workers and who is going to take an income cut to start working, especially if they have a fear that this disease will still be around, when they could just stay home and relax instead?

    The requirement to look for a job could be reinstated when the lock downs end but there will be many people arguing that anyone uncomfortable going back shouldn't be forced to. So if there is no requirement to go back most workers won't go back and there will be worker shortages. You may even see worker shortages in essential businesses like grocery stores if they have to compete with newly re-opened businesses for workers.

    The Democrats in Congress saw this program as a way to reward their low income supporters and gain political support. The Republicans in Congress knew this was a bad idea but wanted their big business bailouts so they did a trade with the Democrats. So the Republicans let one bad program get passed so they could get their bad program passed too.

    As I alluded to earlier, if we were to conjure up a scenario as to how some sort of UBI became a permanent fixture, could we come up with a better one than this?

    • Agree: Mark G.
  30. This is the idiot point. At first, it was just a sudden plague. Nobody knew what to think of it. But then, as everything always does, a non-ideological matter of medicine, science, fact, becomes political. The conservatives have always been doing this. It’s one of their famous talking-point memo things they do. Take some thing from real life that has nothing political about it, and wangle it around into something to bash the liberals with. Because the truth doesn’t matter to them. They just want people to die. Blood figuratively dripping from their mouths.

    • Replies: @anon
    The conservatives have always been doing this. It’s one of their famous talking-point memo things they do. Take some thing from real life that has nothing political about it, and wangle it around into something to bash the liberals with. Because the truth doesn’t matter to them. They just want people to die. Blood dripping from their dirty, infested fangs.

    Yet...schoolmarm says
    Racial slurs, dehumanizing language, personal identifying information, spamming, the advocation of illegal activity, or excessive profanity will not be approved.

    ?

  31. “a non-ideological matter of medicine, science, fact, becomes political.”

    In this instance, the “non-ideological matter of medicine” is a dangerous and contagious virus. The virus kills humans. How the humans respond to the threat, what measures they take or do not take or refuse to take, or cannot take because of external constraints, how they go about making and implementing these decisions, and what the ramifications are for other humans affected but not consulted, all of this stuff and more is what we know as…. the “political”.

    I thought you were the guy who goes around calling everybody else stupid.

    To put this in terms stark enough that even a blowhard can understand it…

    An example of a “matter of science” which is NOT political would be the rings of Saturn. I do not vote on the rings of Saturn, and they have no effect whatsoever on my daily life. The rings of Saturn are not political.

    A dangerous virus which came to my hometown as a result of political decisions taken and not taken, and which will spread or not spread depending on which human collective actions are taken or not taken, necessarily has a dimension of the political. It does not “become” political except in the screaming-mimi sense. All of the decisions, even the ones made by scientists, are political decisions — because humans, because limitations, because interactions, because logistics, because some things are possible and some are not, and these are not always known at the time you need to call the shot.

    There’s this homeless guy who sleeps at a bus shelter on my corner, he’s always muttering about the Oakland Raiders, and something about “becaauuuuse because becaaaause I said it’s VARIABLE!!” whatever that means. Maybe you could go call him stupid, I bet he’d appreciate the company.

  32. While unsure if it’s now safe–whatever that means, exactly–to begin the process of a return to normalcy, I still support the idea of a state or a few giving it a shot, with important caveats.

    Here you go. Started April 24.
    https://covid19.alaska.gov/reopen/

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  33. anon[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag
    This is the idiot point. At first, it was just a sudden plague. Nobody knew what to think of it. But then, as everything always does, a non-ideological matter of medicine, science, fact, becomes political. The conservatives have always been doing this. It's one of their famous talking-point memo things they do. Take some thing from real life that has nothing political about it, and wangle it around into something to bash the liberals with. Because the truth doesn't matter to them. They just want people to die. Blood figuratively dripping from their mouths.

    The conservatives have always been doing this. It’s one of their famous talking-point memo things they do. Take some thing from real life that has nothing political about it, and wangle it around into something to bash the liberals with. Because the truth doesn’t matter to them. They just want people to die. Blood dripping from their dirty, infested fangs.

    Yet…schoolmarm says
    Racial slurs, dehumanizing language, personal identifying information, spamming, the advocation of illegal activity, or excessive profanity will not be approved.

    ?

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    It's not a slur. It's pure fact. And it applies directly to you.
  34. @Audacious Epigone
    I suspect the opposite. I think we are in the seminal stages of what will become some sort of UBI.

    The opposite of what? That’s pretty much what I was thinking, though it disgusts me too much to want to write about it. Yes, this is a great way, as you wrote in comment#30, to implement that. I don’t have to like it, and that’s what I meant by the Socialists’ 9/11.

    (I just don’t know what I wrote that was the opposite of this, is all.)

    I’ve got a post coming on my blog about something I suspect about the power bill. It’s not a big deal like this UBI Socialist utopia that I’m gonna want to leave out of, but still: the late fees will be waived and power won’t be cut off for a failure to pay. This is due to economic hardship due to the Kung Flu Panic-Fest. I normally pay ahead, A.E. I did pay the bill and then another month, but I have a suspicion that this big company will let people slide with hundreds of dollars owed, and I’ll be the sucker for paying up regularly. I was THIS CLOSE to not paying a dime.

    I’m really tired of being the sucker who is responsible financially. That’s what Socialism entails, in case some of the denser ones here never did get that for all my trying: In Socialism the responsible ones are the SUCKERS. That is, if there are any left after a few decades of it …

  35. @Audacious Epigone
    I suspect the opposite. I think we are in the seminal stages of what will become some sort of UBI.

    Oh, I just thought of this. Perhaps you thought that my meaning of “Socialists’ 9/11” was that it was a bad thing for them. I see why you wrote “quite the opposite” to that. If you had followed my link, you’d have seen I meant it in this way: This is the Socialists’ time to take advantage of a crisis, just as it was the Neocon’s time to take advantage 18 1/2 years ago.

    Gotta follow those Peak Stupidity links, for enlightenment. ;-}

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  36. @Jay Fink
    Obesity in the U.S is more than a health issue, it is ingrained in our culture now as something that is socially acceptable, especially in the lower classes. Once the taboo was lifted it will be difficult to control again, no matter what the health consequences are.

    Defining deviancy downward. All kinds of attitudes and behaviors that were unacceptable in 1950 are acceptable today. Attitudes and behaviors that were unheard of in 1950 are increasingly common.

    People go on disability for weight-related medical issues and are kept alive with taxpayer-funded medication and surgery. They’re in effect rewarded for their self-indulgence.

  37. Douglas MacArthur perhaps said it best:

    Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear – kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.

    We are being screwed because we are letting them do it to us.

  38. “Except for the very old and/or infirm, it’s not any more “unsafe” to lead a normal life than it was on March 1. For everyone else its perfectly safe. No one has any sense of risk anymore.’

    I like to tread lightly here on calling this an outright hoax. There’s not really any evidence of that, whatever legitimate misgivings one may have. Your comment suggests that you don’t understand the purpose of a quarantine. Essentially the argument is this; quarantine or the matter will be worse. Because of all that we don’t know about the virus — a simple rebut to arguments such as yours is this —-

    minus the quarantine/lockdowns the matter would have been catastrophic. The quarantine/mock downs served as a stop gap for may what yet be a serious pandemic. Hence any all attempts to normalize the should be gradual and slower than that. The measures taken enabled us to make needed assessments for the future.

    Prudence is not a substitute for error. Your income is not as valuable as you life and more it is not as valuable as the lives of the people your carelessness might infect or would have effected had we simply followed your prescription.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    minus the quarantine/lockdowns the matter would have been catastrophic.
     
    That's possible but there's no actual evidence. The outbreak seems to have passed its peak before the lockdowns could have had any significant effect. Obviously the lockdowns have had some effect but we don't know how much.

    The worst thing is that we don't know which measures might have had a real effect and which measures have been entirely useless. It's possible that most of the positive effects were a result of the banning of large gatherings and the suspension of most air travel. It's possible that shutting down small businesses has had no effect at all, other than contributing to economic ruin. It's quite likely that harassing people for leaving their homes and getting some fresh air and sunlight has made things worse.

    I'm not saying that the lockdowns have been mostly futile, but it's a possibility.
  39. I had a very interesting weekend and it pivots on responding to authority. Many many years ago when I set to make a shift, my housemate and I were in the backyard. We were doing yard work and barbecuing and as it goes, we started joking around and it broke out into one those out loud fests chasing each other around the yard and dirt trowing or grass throwing waterhose laughing fit screaming affairs. when it was all over as these end — we went inside about our business. Eventually we had settled in the house to eat and watch whatever idiot box programming we chose . . .

    There was a knock at the door, I answered and there before me were two offices a hispanic woman and white male sherrif. I did the customary

    ” Yada yada . . . what can I do for you?”

    “They asked if they could come in and I standard asked for what reason. They stated something about a a disturbance, I laughed and I was oblivious. My response was not without a warrant, call or no call from whoever. My housemate for some reason invited them in —

    i have no idea what she was thinking . . . well, I didn’t until this weekend. Skeedaddled into the garage to hop on my bike. lo ad behold i wasn’t in there for 30 seconds before the officers appeared asking me questions i had no intention of answering, telling to turn down my music for riding and the general humiliating power plays were attempted. The hispanic officer was having the time of her life — eventually they departed. Here’s what I did not know.

    My housemate had looked out her window facing the street at the knock at the door — what she saw and never mentioned until the incident came this weekend — was a full on SWAT team creeping around the front bushes and approaching from the side corners of the house.

    She was scared and thought we were being raided. Ad what she knew was that raid or no raid, warrants required. What she also knew was that in cases of domestic calls, any party can , especially in situations involving a woman — can override the other — in otherwords both parties have to agree to deny entry. The fact that I said no and she said yes only compounded matters negatively for me.

    I have never really gotten past her invitation against my expressed wishes. She wasn’t in need of help, there was threatening behavior, there wasn’t even a run of the mill open verbal spat —

    And despite my being made aware that outside of the house was gang or riot geared officers — in my view she should have protected her rights and mine. But that is me in an after thought of knowing that today — not then. She thought she was avoiding an incident, I thought and think to this day she invited one. In her mind a fleeting thought, that even in the presence of a swat team – i might have said something provocative

    i.e. “Excuse me, but what can I do for you an your little entourage.” Accompanied by a laugh and tone that might very well have set them off. For people who actually think the law matters, that the constitution matters, not only in discussion, but real life — dealing with authority can be risky and I imagine even more so, if you are part of an incorrect statistical assessment. What motivated my housemate was fear — fear of the very people she ought to trust.

    She has seen how authority works up close and personal before — and she is keenly aware that one’s rights — law and order is a matter of circumstance.

    That was more than ten years ago — I had no idea there was a swat team outside until Saturday of this last weekend.

    Apparently “horseplay” is cause for a gang unit.

  40. @anon
    The conservatives have always been doing this. It’s one of their famous talking-point memo things they do. Take some thing from real life that has nothing political about it, and wangle it around into something to bash the liberals with. Because the truth doesn’t matter to them. They just want people to die. Blood dripping from their dirty, infested fangs.

    Yet...schoolmarm says
    Racial slurs, dehumanizing language, personal identifying information, spamming, the advocation of illegal activity, or excessive profanity will not be approved.

    ?

    It’s not a slur. It’s pure fact. And it applies directly to you.

    • Replies: @anon
    It’s not a slur.

    It is dehumanizing language.

    Racial slurs, dehumanizing language, personal identifying information, spamming, the advocation of illegal activity, or excessive profanity will not be approved.
     
    Anyway, what are these hypothetical fangs infested with? Just wondering.
  41. Reopen or not but demand has cratered and people are freaked out

    We were at the all time high of the biggest bubble ever, and everything depends on max consumption at the very max limit of debt/income

    It will not simply “turn back on” “back to the way it was”

  42. @obwandiyag
    It's not a slur. It's pure fact. And it applies directly to you.

    It’s not a slur.

    It is dehumanizing language.

    Racial slurs, dehumanizing language, personal identifying information, spamming, the advocation of illegal activity, or excessive profanity will not be approved.

    Anyway, what are these hypothetical fangs infested with? Just wondering.

  43. “It will not simply “turn back on” “back to the way it was”

    missed opportunities.
    —————

    As for some cock-eyed notion that “conservatives” are responsible for turning non-political issues into political issues . . .

    Any matter that has policy applications or requires policy implications is political. The question of philosophical orientation in addressing it, and apply whatever policy is deemed necessary if any — is by definition going to be political.

    We may agree it’s raining, what to do about the rain is another matter.

    And in the arena you are trying to create for conservatives is owned by the liberals of every stripe.

    It is the liberal mind that denies the reality of male female biology. It’s your feminist wing that pretends breasts don’t matter.

  44. “Safe” is such a loaded word in this context. I think it’s safe to reopen the economy with some preventative measures in place, but for democrats “safe” is probably 100% safe and zero risk. It’s never “safe” to drive your car considering your risk of accidents, but you most likely are safe to drive your car most days. It would have been interesting if it was broken down to responses from “Extremely safe” to “Extremely Unsafe”.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I think it’s safe to reopen the economy with some preventative measures in place, but for democrats “safe” is probably 100% safe and zero risk. It’s never “safe” to drive your car considering your risk of accidents, but you most likely are safe to drive your car most days.
     
    People in general do not understand risk. They do not understand that it is always necessary to balance one risk against another, and they do not understand the difference between a moderate risk and a high risk.

    Take vaccination. There might be a 1 in 10,000 risk of dying as a result of being vaccinated, and a 1 in 100 risk of dying of the disease if you're not vaccinated. Obviously the smart choice in that case is to choose vaccination but it is not obvious at all to most people. They simply do not understand that one risk is much higher than the other.

    In this case the problem is even worse since it's a matter of balancing two different kinds of risk. The risk of dying of COVID-19 is something people can visualise as a real thing while the risks of destroying the economy seem too abstract. The destruction of the economy might well kill more people in the long term but it will kill them indirectly.

    And of course there's no chance at all of getting people to understand short-term risks vs long-term risks.

    The other big problem is that when you balance risks you have to do so unemotionally. Most people cannot do that.
  45. @EliteCommInc.
    "Except for the very old and/or infirm, it’s not any more “unsafe” to lead a normal life than it was on March 1. For everyone else its perfectly safe. No one has any sense of risk anymore.'


    I like to tread lightly here on calling this an outright hoax. There's not really any evidence of that, whatever legitimate misgivings one may have. Your comment suggests that you don't understand the purpose of a quarantine. Essentially the argument is this; quarantine or the matter will be worse. Because of all that we don't know about the virus --- a simple rebut to arguments such as yours is this ----

    minus the quarantine/lockdowns the matter would have been catastrophic. The quarantine/mock downs served as a stop gap for may what yet be a serious pandemic. Hence any all attempts to normalize the should be gradual and slower than that. The measures taken enabled us to make needed assessments for the future.

    Prudence is not a substitute for error. Your income is not as valuable as you life and more it is not as valuable as the lives of the people your carelessness might infect or would have effected had we simply followed your prescription.

    minus the quarantine/lockdowns the matter would have been catastrophic.

    That’s possible but there’s no actual evidence. The outbreak seems to have passed its peak before the lockdowns could have had any significant effect. Obviously the lockdowns have had some effect but we don’t know how much.

    The worst thing is that we don’t know which measures might have had a real effect and which measures have been entirely useless. It’s possible that most of the positive effects were a result of the banning of large gatherings and the suspension of most air travel. It’s possible that shutting down small businesses has had no effect at all, other than contributing to economic ruin. It’s quite likely that harassing people for leaving their homes and getting some fresh air and sunlight has made things worse.

    I’m not saying that the lockdowns have been mostly futile, but it’s a possibility.

  46. @Tusk
    "Safe" is such a loaded word in this context. I think it's safe to reopen the economy with some preventative measures in place, but for democrats "safe" is probably 100% safe and zero risk. It's never "safe" to drive your car considering your risk of accidents, but you most likely are safe to drive your car most days. It would have been interesting if it was broken down to responses from "Extremely safe" to "Extremely Unsafe".

    I think it’s safe to reopen the economy with some preventative measures in place, but for democrats “safe” is probably 100% safe and zero risk. It’s never “safe” to drive your car considering your risk of accidents, but you most likely are safe to drive your car most days.

    People in general do not understand risk. They do not understand that it is always necessary to balance one risk against another, and they do not understand the difference between a moderate risk and a high risk.

    Take vaccination. There might be a 1 in 10,000 risk of dying as a result of being vaccinated, and a 1 in 100 risk of dying of the disease if you’re not vaccinated. Obviously the smart choice in that case is to choose vaccination but it is not obvious at all to most people. They simply do not understand that one risk is much higher than the other.

    In this case the problem is even worse since it’s a matter of balancing two different kinds of risk. The risk of dying of COVID-19 is something people can visualise as a real thing while the risks of destroying the economy seem too abstract. The destruction of the economy might well kill more people in the long term but it will kill them indirectly.

    And of course there’s no chance at all of getting people to understand short-term risks vs long-term risks.

    The other big problem is that when you balance risks you have to do so unemotionally. Most people cannot do that.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  47. @Audacious Epigone
    I suspect the opposite. I think we are in the seminal stages of what will become some sort of UBI.

    I suspect the opposite. I think we are in the seminal stages of what will become some sort of UBI.

    Of course. And UBI will be issued on a card and that will be a wedge for ending cash. That will mean that you no longer have access to the fruits of your labor. A bank must be used so that you can get access your own property and the bank can decline you at any time.

    Total surveillance. Total control.

    So that well-known prediction of Revelations will soon come to pass. Who really expected that?

    Revelation 13:17
    “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

  48. “That’s possible but there’s no actual evidence. The outbreak seems to have passed its peak before the lockdowns could have had any significant effect. Obviously the lockdowns have had some effect but we don’t know how much.”

    First let’s stay in context. I am in effect playing the Devil’s advocate here.

    You are answering issues for which there are no clear supporting data. Ca. supposedly peaked in May. Other states in April, some are not making any such claims . . . so no, it did not peak before the lockdown, it was during the lockdown they began predicted peaks — which you cannot do unless the cases have been absorbed by the entire population — but in general you cannot predict a peak, you note when there are less infections rates and note a peak — but an indication that something was at issue is when they began predicting when the virus would peak —- given the numbers against the unknowns, it was not even possible based on the most vulnerable populations.

    I don’t even think we have a clear ground zero in the US from which to track its progress. It’s airborn, it may go dormant during the summer and come back with a vengeance in the fall and inter, with even more virulent strain(s) —
    —————

    ” It’s quite likely that harassing people for leaving their homes and getting some fresh air and sunlight has made things worse.”

    I don’t think there is any evidence of that. Which is my point, we know historically, that people contact can hasten the spread, Mary Mallon really serves as the precedent in our modern era. It’s a counter intuitive position for which I would need some substantial evidence that the lockdown itself made matters worse.

    On my walks people avoided me. I avoided them but my concerns were not about the virus — laugh. And those walks occurred at night to avoid having extended headaches from too much light exposure. I think I would agree, that people needed to have some access to fresh air. Frankly, I am concerned about the level of marijuana smoking that congests entire sections of neighborhood enough to gag me more than once.

    No easy answers here — still interesting that Atlas started breaking up just about the time the talk of easing started. In fact, whether started talking easing, I took a look and low and behold . . . news of a major shift in the speed, and structure of Atlas . . .

    I do think the leadership has missed some very important opportunities anyone who applaud returning to the way things were, doesn’t fully have a grasp on how bad things were and are . . . in fact, its even interesting that this occurred as the easing against the debts from the last financial errors had little or no effect. And economists the world over should be deeply concerned of doing what we had been doing — economic barn burning to cover up a mountain of financial misconduct and careless behavior tat infected the entire system.

    Giving my feet a rest, this week. I’ve worn out two pairs of hiking boots.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    With government playing massive fire department an healthcare taker . . . resetting the rules to amass even greater powers.

    Though, I more often than I should, could walk for more than five hours and was never once stopped or harassed by anyone.
    , @dfordoom

    You are answering issues for which there are no clear supporting data.
     
    Yes, that's my point. There's no clear reliable data at all. There's a lot of data but it has gaps, it's contradictory and ambiguous, it's open to interpretation. There's no way to be sure that everyone is following the same rules in collecting the data.

    My problem with lockdown enthusiasts is that they seem to be driven by a sense of moral certainty.

    The Corona outbreak is no longer a medical issue. It has become a moral and political issue (just like climate science). Who needs evidence when you know you're right?

    We do know that the lockdowns can cause massive economic damage because that's already happening. We don't know if it's possible for the economy to recover. The lockdown enthusiasts seem indifferent to this because they're driven by emotion.
  49. @EliteCommInc.
    "That’s possible but there’s no actual evidence. The outbreak seems to have passed its peak before the lockdowns could have had any significant effect. Obviously the lockdowns have had some effect but we don’t know how much."


    First let's stay in context. I am in effect playing the Devil's advocate here.

    You are answering issues for which there are no clear supporting data. Ca. supposedly peaked in May. Other states in April, some are not making any such claims . . . so no, it did not peak before the lockdown, it was during the lockdown they began predicted peaks --- which you cannot do unless the cases have been absorbed by the entire population -- but in general you cannot predict a peak, you note when there are less infections rates and note a peak --- but an indication that something was at issue is when they began predicting when the virus would peak ---- given the numbers against the unknowns, it was not even possible based on the most vulnerable populations.

    I don't even think we have a clear ground zero in the US from which to track its progress. It's airborn, it may go dormant during the summer and come back with a vengeance in the fall and inter, with even more virulent strain(s) ---
    ---------------

    " It’s quite likely that harassing people for leaving their homes and getting some fresh air and sunlight has made things worse."

    I don't think there is any evidence of that. Which is my point, we know historically, that people contact can hasten the spread, Mary Mallon really serves as the precedent in our modern era. It's a counter intuitive position for which I would need some substantial evidence that the lockdown itself made matters worse.

    On my walks people avoided me. I avoided them but my concerns were not about the virus -- laugh. And those walks occurred at night to avoid having extended headaches from too much light exposure. I think I would agree, that people needed to have some access to fresh air. Frankly, I am concerned about the level of marijuana smoking that congests entire sections of neighborhood enough to gag me more than once.

    No easy answers here --- still interesting that Atlas started breaking up just about the time the talk of easing started. In fact, whether started talking easing, I took a look and low and behold . . . news of a major shift in the speed, and structure of Atlas . . .

    I do think the leadership has missed some very important opportunities anyone who applaud returning to the way things were, doesn't fully have a grasp on how bad things were and are . . . in fact, its even interesting that this occurred as the easing against the debts from the last financial errors had little or no effect. And economists the world over should be deeply concerned of doing what we had been doing -- economic barn burning to cover up a mountain of financial misconduct and careless behavior tat infected the entire system.

    Giving my feet a rest, this week. I've worn out two pairs of hiking boots.

    With government playing massive fire department an healthcare taker . . . resetting the rules to amass even greater powers.

    Though, I more often than I should, could walk for more than five hours and was never once stopped or harassed by anyone.

  50. @EliteCommInc.
    "That’s possible but there’s no actual evidence. The outbreak seems to have passed its peak before the lockdowns could have had any significant effect. Obviously the lockdowns have had some effect but we don’t know how much."


    First let's stay in context. I am in effect playing the Devil's advocate here.

    You are answering issues for which there are no clear supporting data. Ca. supposedly peaked in May. Other states in April, some are not making any such claims . . . so no, it did not peak before the lockdown, it was during the lockdown they began predicted peaks --- which you cannot do unless the cases have been absorbed by the entire population -- but in general you cannot predict a peak, you note when there are less infections rates and note a peak --- but an indication that something was at issue is when they began predicting when the virus would peak ---- given the numbers against the unknowns, it was not even possible based on the most vulnerable populations.

    I don't even think we have a clear ground zero in the US from which to track its progress. It's airborn, it may go dormant during the summer and come back with a vengeance in the fall and inter, with even more virulent strain(s) ---
    ---------------

    " It’s quite likely that harassing people for leaving their homes and getting some fresh air and sunlight has made things worse."

    I don't think there is any evidence of that. Which is my point, we know historically, that people contact can hasten the spread, Mary Mallon really serves as the precedent in our modern era. It's a counter intuitive position for which I would need some substantial evidence that the lockdown itself made matters worse.

    On my walks people avoided me. I avoided them but my concerns were not about the virus -- laugh. And those walks occurred at night to avoid having extended headaches from too much light exposure. I think I would agree, that people needed to have some access to fresh air. Frankly, I am concerned about the level of marijuana smoking that congests entire sections of neighborhood enough to gag me more than once.

    No easy answers here --- still interesting that Atlas started breaking up just about the time the talk of easing started. In fact, whether started talking easing, I took a look and low and behold . . . news of a major shift in the speed, and structure of Atlas . . .

    I do think the leadership has missed some very important opportunities anyone who applaud returning to the way things were, doesn't fully have a grasp on how bad things were and are . . . in fact, its even interesting that this occurred as the easing against the debts from the last financial errors had little or no effect. And economists the world over should be deeply concerned of doing what we had been doing -- economic barn burning to cover up a mountain of financial misconduct and careless behavior tat infected the entire system.

    Giving my feet a rest, this week. I've worn out two pairs of hiking boots.

    You are answering issues for which there are no clear supporting data.

    Yes, that’s my point. There’s no clear reliable data at all. There’s a lot of data but it has gaps, it’s contradictory and ambiguous, it’s open to interpretation. There’s no way to be sure that everyone is following the same rules in collecting the data.

    My problem with lockdown enthusiasts is that they seem to be driven by a sense of moral certainty.

    The Corona outbreak is no longer a medical issue. It has become a moral and political issue (just like climate science). Who needs evidence when you know you’re right?

    We do know that the lockdowns can cause massive economic damage because that’s already happening. We don’t know if it’s possible for the economy to recover. The lockdown enthusiasts seem indifferent to this because they’re driven by emotion.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  51. Pandemic! Famine! Riot! Terror in the Streets!

    Politicians Hardest Hit.

    Revolution!

    Yee-haw! Shoot’em while they are running, boys.

  52. “We do know that the lockdowns can cause massive economic damage because that’s already happening. We don’t know if it’s possible for the economy to recover. The lockdown enthusiasts seem indifferent to this because they’re driven by emotion.”

    Uhhh nope. You don’t get to shift your argument. You stated as i recall your comments on the lockdown were to the virus contamination levels —

    “The worst thing is that we don’t know which measures might have had a real effect and which measures have been entirely useless. It’s possible that most of the positive effects were a result of the banning of large gatherings and the suspension of most air travel.”

    That has nothing to do with the other side effects of the lockdown.. Your are attempting to get brownie points ere for something unrelated — no.

    We know the virus is airborne. We know that it can be carried via various avenues. One of those avenues that contributes to large infections levels is human interactions based on proximity” that what we believe and teach anyway. The lockdown would have prevents large scale consubstantiation in this regard or at least slowed the process via self quarantining —-

    Logic then dictates, it prevented a an immediate large scale and effect by scale and time. In other words, again minus the lockdown, the contamination levels could have wiped out millions — hence creating not only a complete shut down of metropolitan areas and services, but adding the additional burden of other diseases by way of bodies left unattended, in streets and homes and homes with no one available to tend to those issues — , including sanitation in other areas . . compounding the problem even further — with no populations available to redress the losses . . . leaving the populations left alive vulnerable to no only disease, contaminated water, food, a loss of any services, such as law enforcement, emergency response . . . — imagine the state of the internet with the loss of providers resulting from contamination and its side effects . . .

    rebuilding the economy would be the least of the anyone;s concerns. Think Hurricane Katrina . . . minus the access of boats into the interior of the city now run by local power groups —

    These are the issues that emergency planners think about — so they pre-empt that by immediate quarantine to prevent what they would plan as the logical progression of events if no measures had been taken —

    Your assessments about peas are incorrect and your assessment about what would have been had there been no lock down is speculative. Now I am being careful not to extend my comments from months ago about the virus contagion and the numbers — which is where there is some meat and potatoes — but that the lockdown is worse — will remain an unknown, even if i wanted to open the fence and and grant your dance away from the original contention which was that the lockdown created a worse scenario for contagion —-

    At the moment what we have is an orderly controlled environment — thus far. But you can see hints of what might have occurred if the there was the spread that was feared — cities, and states ready to pit themselves against each other. I never went shopping. But my housemate did — had it not been for stores actually preventing hoarding —

    imagine those stores being out of commission entirely because their staffs were sick or dead . . .

    There will come a time when these practice runs will have meaning. There will be massive pandemics, there will be collapses . . . I make no predictions when — but i take some of these disaster films for what they provide. I take Katrina for what it provides concerning human behavior —

    And what we have experienced thus far is nothing compared to what is coming — i hope it is long past my time . . .

    —————-

    Note; my comments are don’t even skim the mist of the organizational issues involved.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    rebuilding the economy would be the least of the anyone;s concerns.
     
    If the economy collapses you might change your mind on that point.

    The problem is that we have to deal with two separate potential disasters. The first is a public health disaster if the virus gets out of control. The second is a potential economic disaster. And an economic disaster might well cause a public health disaster (if the economy goes down the toilet you're not going to have a health system). Somehow you have to try to avoid both disasters, which means you have to manage the public health crisis without destroying the economy.

    So it's a balancing act. I've never been opposed to measures to keep the virus under control. It's just unfortunate that western governments failed to act quickly. Had they acted quickly the virus could have been contained without drastic potentially economy-destroying measures. Those same governments then panicked and went for extreme measures. Probably too extreme. And the problem is that we don't know if the extreme measures were justified or if more moderate measures would have worked just as well.

    Now we have an economy that is circling the drain. And we still don't know which measures are effective if it becomes necessary to take further action if the virus again threatens to get out of control.

    Think Hurricane Katrina
     
    Irrelevant since there was never any chance it was going to lead to nationwide economic collapse.

    and your assessment about what would have been had there been no lock down is speculative.
     
    As is yours.
  53. @EliteCommInc.
    "We do know that the lockdowns can cause massive economic damage because that’s already happening. We don’t know if it’s possible for the economy to recover. The lockdown enthusiasts seem indifferent to this because they’re driven by emotion."

    Uhhh nope. You don't get to shift your argument. You stated as i recall your comments on the lockdown were to the virus contamination levels ---

    "The worst thing is that we don’t know which measures might have had a real effect and which measures have been entirely useless. It’s possible that most of the positive effects were a result of the banning of large gatherings and the suspension of most air travel."


    That has nothing to do with the other side effects of the lockdown.. Your are attempting to get brownie points ere for something unrelated -- no.


    We know the virus is airborne. We know that it can be carried via various avenues. One of those avenues that contributes to large infections levels is human interactions based on proximity" that what we believe and teach anyway. The lockdown would have prevents large scale consubstantiation in this regard or at least slowed the process via self quarantining ----

    Logic then dictates, it prevented a an immediate large scale and effect by scale and time. In other words, again minus the lockdown, the contamination levels could have wiped out millions -- hence creating not only a complete shut down of metropolitan areas and services, but adding the additional burden of other diseases by way of bodies left unattended, in streets and homes and homes with no one available to tend to those issues --- , including sanitation in other areas . . compounding the problem even further -- with no populations available to redress the losses . . . leaving the populations left alive vulnerable to no only disease, contaminated water, food, a loss of any services, such as law enforcement, emergency response . . . -- imagine the state of the internet with the loss of providers resulting from contamination and its side effects . . .

    rebuilding the economy would be the least of the anyone;s concerns. Think Hurricane Katrina . . . minus the access of boats into the interior of the city now run by local power groups ---


    These are the issues that emergency planners think about -- so they pre-empt that by immediate quarantine to prevent what they would plan as the logical progression of events if no measures had been taken ---


    Your assessments about peas are incorrect and your assessment about what would have been had there been no lock down is speculative. Now I am being careful not to extend my comments from months ago about the virus contagion and the numbers -- which is where there is some meat and potatoes --- but that the lockdown is worse --- will remain an unknown, even if i wanted to open the fence and and grant your dance away from the original contention which was that the lockdown created a worse scenario for contagion ----


    At the moment what we have is an orderly controlled environment -- thus far. But you can see hints of what might have occurred if the there was the spread that was feared --- cities, and states ready to pit themselves against each other. I never went shopping. But my housemate did -- had it not been for stores actually preventing hoarding ---

    imagine those stores being out of commission entirely because their staffs were sick or dead . . .

    There will come a time when these practice runs will have meaning. There will be massive pandemics, there will be collapses . . . I make no predictions when --- but i take some of these disaster films for what they provide. I take Katrina for what it provides concerning human behavior ---


    And what we have experienced thus far is nothing compared to what is coming --- i hope it is long past my time . . .


    ----------------

    Note; my comments are don't even skim the mist of the organizational issues involved.

    rebuilding the economy would be the least of the anyone;s concerns.

    If the economy collapses you might change your mind on that point.

    The problem is that we have to deal with two separate potential disasters. The first is a public health disaster if the virus gets out of control. The second is a potential economic disaster. And an economic disaster might well cause a public health disaster (if the economy goes down the toilet you’re not going to have a health system). Somehow you have to try to avoid both disasters, which means you have to manage the public health crisis without destroying the economy.

    So it’s a balancing act. I’ve never been opposed to measures to keep the virus under control. It’s just unfortunate that western governments failed to act quickly. Had they acted quickly the virus could have been contained without drastic potentially economy-destroying measures. Those same governments then panicked and went for extreme measures. Probably too extreme. And the problem is that we don’t know if the extreme measures were justified or if more moderate measures would have worked just as well.

    Now we have an economy that is circling the drain. And we still don’t know which measures are effective if it becomes necessary to take further action if the virus again threatens to get out of control.

    Think Hurricane Katrina

    Irrelevant since there was never any chance it was going to lead to nationwide economic collapse.

    and your assessment about what would have been had there been no lock down is speculative.

    As is yours.

  54. “If the economy collapses you might change your mind on that point.”

    You have a very time with context . . .

    You are pulling concepts out of their intended structures. The argument here is simple. The response to your complaint is that had we maintained a status quo posture — the matter could have been and most likely would have been worse. Because they engaged in stop gapping by quarantine, it is impossible to know. But had they worse case scenario occurred, the economy would be of little of no value. The population would be so devastated that the multiple service structures would be of no value and the societal breakdown — potentially worse.

    I have already said we don’t know because of the measures taken — but for emergency planners of grand strategies, that would their line of rationale — so short term pain for something less is their position.

    no katrina, Los Angeles earthquakes, the floods several years ago that devastated the midwest and western US are exactly the point magnified several fold on national scale.

    Your dual optional disaster scenario would both be matters in considering the types of of stop gap measures in taken. Now you can dance away from your original position , and I certainly understand why . . . but in both options — a cause directly from a viral contamination could be one from which there is no return — and they would exacerbate each other.

    So the choice was made to create an artificial even extreme prevention to prevent the other. I have my own views on those choices. But your line of analysis that a lockdown made contamination worse — is really a stretch. Your attempt to indict my comments about the unknowns — is moot as I acknowledge the unknown consequences immediately.

    However, organisational planners don’t an should not plan on the least possible consequence, but on the worst.

    One might very well not have a worse cold if they took no medication. But a plan predicated on no consequence against the evidence — as you and others are bemoaning — is just careless. Again, I have a position that is the same s when this began, but it is not predicated on a scenario that embraces no consequence.

    —- Hint, when the current executive played down the matter, I thought his position was prudent and sensible. The reason there’s a need for devil’s advocates is challenge the positions you are making here — as a courtesy, I have not a made a point dismantling your position in its entirety . . . but you seem to be oblivious to just how vulnerable the human population is the the behaviors of nature. The kinds of issues scenarios I press — have been experienced more than once and other parts of the globe – represent a status quo, drought, famine, insect plagues . . . these are realities.

    You might want to do some homework on the dust bowl years . . .

    Further note as i have also made clear — until this week, I walked repeated three to four times a week –

    —————-

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But your line of analysis that a lockdown made contamination worse — is really a stretch.
     
    Which is not what I said at all. I merely suggested that one aspect of the lockdowns, preventing people from getting out into the fresh air and sunshine, may have been counter-productive.

    And that some of the lockdown measures may have been of marginal usefulness, which is not saying that they made contamination worse.

    It's obvious that most of the lockdown measures probably had some positive effect in reducing infections, but we don't know if they were mildly effective or very effective. And we don't know which of those measures may have been the mildly effective ones and which may have been the very effective ones. So we don't know which of the lockdown measures should be kept in place and which ones should be abandoned.

    Here in Australia (or New South Wales at least) we've mostly allowed small businesses to keep running and we've controlled the virus outbreak far more effectively than the US has.
  55. @EliteCommInc.
    "If the economy collapses you might change your mind on that point."


    You have a very time with context . . .


    You are pulling concepts out of their intended structures. The argument here is simple. The response to your complaint is that had we maintained a status quo posture -- the matter could have been and most likely would have been worse. Because they engaged in stop gapping by quarantine, it is impossible to know. But had they worse case scenario occurred, the economy would be of little of no value. The population would be so devastated that the multiple service structures would be of no value and the societal breakdown -- potentially worse.


    I have already said we don't know because of the measures taken -- but for emergency planners of grand strategies, that would their line of rationale --- so short term pain for something less is their position.


    no katrina, Los Angeles earthquakes, the floods several years ago that devastated the midwest and western US are exactly the point magnified several fold on national scale.


    Your dual optional disaster scenario would both be matters in considering the types of of stop gap measures in taken. Now you can dance away from your original position , and I certainly understand why . . . but in both options -- a cause directly from a viral contamination could be one from which there is no return --- and they would exacerbate each other.


    So the choice was made to create an artificial even extreme prevention to prevent the other. I have my own views on those choices. But your line of analysis that a lockdown made contamination worse -- is really a stretch. Your attempt to indict my comments about the unknowns -- is moot as I acknowledge the unknown consequences immediately.

    However, organisational planners don't an should not plan on the least possible consequence, but on the worst.


    One might very well not have a worse cold if they took no medication. But a plan predicated on no consequence against the evidence -- as you and others are bemoaning --- is just careless. Again, I have a position that is the same s when this began, but it is not predicated on a scenario that embraces no consequence.

    ---- Hint, when the current executive played down the matter, I thought his position was prudent and sensible. The reason there's a need for devil's advocates is challenge the positions you are making here --- as a courtesy, I have not a made a point dismantling your position in its entirety . . . but you seem to be oblivious to just how vulnerable the human population is the the behaviors of nature. The kinds of issues scenarios I press --- have been experienced more than once and other parts of the globe - represent a status quo, drought, famine, insect plagues . . . these are realities.

    You might want to do some homework on the dust bowl years . . .

    Further note as i have also made clear -- until this week, I walked repeated three to four times a week -

    ----------------

    But your line of analysis that a lockdown made contamination worse — is really a stretch.

    Which is not what I said at all. I merely suggested that one aspect of the lockdowns, preventing people from getting out into the fresh air and sunshine, may have been counter-productive.

    And that some of the lockdown measures may have been of marginal usefulness, which is not saying that they made contamination worse.

    It’s obvious that most of the lockdown measures probably had some positive effect in reducing infections, but we don’t know if they were mildly effective or very effective. And we don’t know which of those measures may have been the mildly effective ones and which may have been the very effective ones. So we don’t know which of the lockdown measures should be kept in place and which ones should be abandoned.

    Here in Australia (or New South Wales at least) we’ve mostly allowed small businesses to keep running and we’ve controlled the virus outbreak far more effectively than the US has.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    What's your best guess of the face mask usage rate among people out in public?
  56. “Which is not what I said at all. I merely suggested that one aspect of the lockdowns, preventing people from getting out into the fresh air and sunshine, may have been counter-productive.”

    I will give you an out —-

    that may have been where you landed, but that is not where you started. And as indicated by my behavior and comments from as far back as March —

    fresh air is certainly a good idea, in my view.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I appreciate the generosity of of Mr. Unz in tolerating on his site people such as myself ---

    But allow me to provide a response directly from him in response to the current issue of the virus in question.



    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-government-employee-who-may-have-saved-a-million-american-lives/
  57. @EliteCommInc.
    "Which is not what I said at all. I merely suggested that one aspect of the lockdowns, preventing people from getting out into the fresh air and sunshine, may have been counter-productive."


    I will give you an out ----

    that may have been where you landed, but that is not where you started. And as indicated by my behavior and comments from as far back as March ---


    fresh air is certainly a good idea, in my view.

    I appreciate the generosity of of Mr. Unz in tolerating on his site people such as myself —

    But allow me to provide a response directly from him in response to the current issue of the virus in question.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-government-employee-who-may-have-saved-a-million-american-lives/

  58. @dfordoom

    But your line of analysis that a lockdown made contamination worse — is really a stretch.
     
    Which is not what I said at all. I merely suggested that one aspect of the lockdowns, preventing people from getting out into the fresh air and sunshine, may have been counter-productive.

    And that some of the lockdown measures may have been of marginal usefulness, which is not saying that they made contamination worse.

    It's obvious that most of the lockdown measures probably had some positive effect in reducing infections, but we don't know if they were mildly effective or very effective. And we don't know which of those measures may have been the mildly effective ones and which may have been the very effective ones. So we don't know which of the lockdown measures should be kept in place and which ones should be abandoned.

    Here in Australia (or New South Wales at least) we've mostly allowed small businesses to keep running and we've controlled the virus outbreak far more effectively than the US has.

    What’s your best guess of the face mask usage rate among people out in public?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    What’s your best guess of the face mask usage rate among people out in public?
     
    In the part of Australia where I live it's certainly very low.

    I'm sceptical about the usefulness of masks. Unless you really understand proper infection control principles and you know how to put the mask on properly, make sure it fits properly, how to take it off properly, what to do with it after you've taken it off and how to clean it properly (if you're going to attempt to clean it) they probably are pretty useless.

    Australia has controlled the virus pretty successfully without face masks. And we had it under control at a time when face mask usage was very low indeed.

    They're probably a good idea for people who have to be out in public a lot (cops, paramedics, bus drivers, cashiers in shops) but unless they're properly trained in their usage there's not much point.
  59. @Audacious Epigone
    What's your best guess of the face mask usage rate among people out in public?

    What’s your best guess of the face mask usage rate among people out in public?

    In the part of Australia where I live it’s certainly very low.

    I’m sceptical about the usefulness of masks. Unless you really understand proper infection control principles and you know how to put the mask on properly, make sure it fits properly, how to take it off properly, what to do with it after you’ve taken it off and how to clean it properly (if you’re going to attempt to clean it) they probably are pretty useless.

    Australia has controlled the virus pretty successfully without face masks. And we had it under control at a time when face mask usage was very low indeed.

    They’re probably a good idea for people who have to be out in public a lot (cops, paramedics, bus drivers, cashiers in shops) but unless they’re properly trained in their usage there’s not much point.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS