Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if that takes another six months?

If it takes another six months then I suggest that you vote for Biden due to Trump's inability to manage the epidemic better because it should not take another six months.

I don't know what you want me to say. I think I have explained this very clearly. I do not think we can safely reopen the economy now. I think the loudest voices to reopen are not the ones who will be taking the risks and that they are putting their financial interests ahead of the health of others. I am arguing that the health risks of reopening be decreased to the point that those calling for reopening are comfortable accepting that risk for themselves and their families. I don't think that is an unreasonable position or one that is hard to understand.

Jeff I have not responded to this assertion because I don't think it matters, I would hope that most of us would be able to put aside how the shutdown personally affects us with how it affects society at large. But since you seem to think that those of us who are in favor of reopening would not be taking "risks" and putting their financial interests first I will respond. I am a teacher (check all my previous posts if you don't believe me) and my husband is a fed. My personal financial situation isn't at all being impacted by this (yet - eventually we will all be affected) And yes, if things reopened I would have to return to work, which in your mind would be risking my health. On a personal level, I am loving the shutdown. My husband likes working from home, and to be completely honest I am in no hurry to head back to school. Yet I am very much in favor of things reopening asap, because I don't want to see society destroyed simply so my husband and I can keep working from home.

How would you feel if after returning to work you find that both you and your husband have caught COVID-19, your school has to close again because of an outbreak, and while your husband's job could still be done remotely, he is too ill to work. So, then you are even in a worse situation and the economy is still not recovering?

It's good that you are willing to personally accept this risk, but I hope you won't have to make such a sacrifice.

I don't care at all if my husband and I catch Covid-19 because the chance that we would experience an illness more severe than the flu is extremely small. And of course reopening things, is going to cause the number of cases to go up. Yes, many more people will become infected, for the vast majority, they will experience a flu like illness. Will deaths increase as well? Of course. Yes, it's a terrible thing, I don't mean to sound heartless but I simply don't think a disease that kills less than 2% of those infected is worth the damage that this will cause. Jeff, I really think the main difference between our perspectives is that I am under the belief that economic damage of a prolonged shutdown will be much greater than you believe. I am not the least bit opposed to extensive government programs to try to mitigate the damage, but I don't think anything we can do will come close to mitigating the damage of a prolonged global shutdown.

No the difference is you are convinced it won’t hurt YOU, so you don’t care if it hurts others.

Nope. I am the pp who said I am a teacher and my husband is a fed. On a personal level I would rather the shut down continue than have to return to work. But just because the shutdown is good for me, doesn't change the fact that I think it should end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously can’t believe that you think being considered about almost certain economic collapse, is simply being worried about someone’s stock portfolio. You’re usually fairly reasonable. This is a shockingly simplistic way of disregarding people’s concerns over the economic damage this is causing to the entire world.

There are solutions to those economic problems that don't involve a rush to open in unsafe conditions. But, if you believe that your personal economic situation justifies risking your own health and the health of your family members, please go first. As I have repeatedly said, don't expect others to take risks that you won't take.

Jeff, generally you seem to be an educated and well informed person. I can't believe you are minimizing the economic damage this is causing to thinking that people who are concerned are only worried about their own economic situations. I would have to assume that you have enough understanding of economics to realize how intertwined sectors are that a shutdown of this magnitude (not just in the U.S. but globally) is going to have devastating effects on everyone. And what solutions can possibly come close to solving the vast global economic damage that would be caused? This is completely unprecedented. Never before has anything on this scale ever happened. I find it amazing of how dismissive people are of the damage this shut down is going to cause.

+1. Even Charles Munger is baffled by this economy and he has seen many different depressions and recessions in his 96 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if that takes another six months?

If it takes another six months then I suggest that you vote for Biden due to Trump's inability to manage the epidemic better because it should not take another six months.

I don't know what you want me to say. I think I have explained this very clearly. I do not think we can safely reopen the economy now. I think the loudest voices to reopen are not the ones who will be taking the risks and that they are putting their financial interests ahead of the health of others. I am arguing that the health risks of reopening be decreased to the point that those calling for reopening are comfortable accepting that risk for themselves and their families. I don't think that is an unreasonable position or one that is hard to understand.

Jeff I have not responded to this assertion because I don't think it matters, I would hope that most of us would be able to put aside how the shutdown personally affects us with how it affects society at large. But since you seem to think that those of us who are in favor of reopening would not be taking "risks" and putting their financial interests first I will respond. I am a teacher (check all my previous posts if you don't believe me) and my husband is a fed. My personal financial situation isn't at all being impacted by this (yet - eventually we will all be affected) And yes, if things reopened I would have to return to work, which in your mind would be risking my health. On a personal level, I am loving the shutdown. My husband likes working from home, and to be completely honest I am in no hurry to head back to school. Yet I am very much in favor of things reopening asap, because I don't want to see society destroyed simply so my husband and I can keep working from home.

How would you feel if after returning to work you find that both you and your husband have caught COVID-19, your school has to close again because of an outbreak, and while your husband's job could still be done remotely, he is too ill to work. So, then you are even in a worse situation and the economy is still not recovering?

It's good that you are willing to personally accept this risk, but I hope you won't have to make such a sacrifice.

I don't care at all if my husband and I catch Covid-19 because the chance that we would experience an illness more severe than the flu is extremely small. And of course reopening things, is going to cause the number of cases to go up. Yes, many more people will become infected, for the vast majority, they will experience a flu like illness. Will deaths increase as well? Of course. Yes, it's a terrible thing, I don't mean to sound heartless but I simply don't think a disease that kills less than 2% of those infected is worth the damage that this will cause. Jeff, I really think the main difference between our perspectives is that I am under the belief that economic damage of a prolonged shutdown will be much greater than you believe. I am not the least bit opposed to extensive government programs to try to mitigate the damage, but I don't think anything we can do will come close to mitigating the damage of a prolonged global shutdown.

No the difference is you are convinced it won’t hurt YOU, so you don’t care if it hurts others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test everyone. Activate FEMA and Nat Guard and USPS and volunteer workers to deliver food to those in need at home. Get all negative testers back to work and all positive testers stay at home/hospital till clear. Do it. Now.

You just can't mandate testing "everyone".
This ain't communist china, thank God.

Personal responsibility is essential.

Oh ffs. Personal responsibility can't change the supply chains. And yes, we very much can mandate testing for everyone, just like vaccines can be mandated. If you don't want to be tested, then you can continue staying at home.

Are you planning to padlock my house?

I'm not, but the government certainly has the power to enforce a quarantine, or condition access to services and locations based on medical factors -- it's quite well established.

Point is no one can mandate testing or lock people up in their homes. You must accept personal responsibility for your own health, like it or not.

OMG no. The government absolutely has the power to lock you up to enforce a quarantine. The govenment also has the power to require you to be tested or vaccinated to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I have to say is that Trump and the R establishment are LOVING that this has turned into a simple-minded fight about "the libs need to open up now!" ... taking the focus off of the federal failures to do anything to actually allow us to open up safely.

This attitude only prevents people to look at this in an unbiased and objective way.

Oh yeah, you're so unbiased and objective Turning this into "team shutdown" v "liberators" (which is firmly 100% the fault of Trump) is the recipe for destroying objectivity.

Politicizing it encourages people to join their camp. People get the sense that those left of center are in favor of shutting things down and those right of center are in favor of reopening and that tends to consciously or not influence how people feel about it. It's natural that people want to "join their team."

No, this is absolutely not "natural." It's intentional, coordinated manipulation of the narrative, and exploitation of people's desire to identify.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously can’t believe that you think being considered about almost certain economic collapse, is simply being worried about someone’s stock portfolio. You’re usually fairly reasonable. This is a shockingly simplistic way of disregarding people’s concerns over the economic damage this is causing to the entire world.

There are solutions to those economic problems that don't involve a rush to open in unsafe conditions. But, if you believe that your personal economic situation justifies risking your own health and the health of your family members, please go first. As I have repeatedly said, don't expect others to take risks that you won't take.

Jeff, generally you seem to be an educated and well informed person. I can't believe you are minimizing the economic damage this is causing to thinking that people who are concerned are only worried about their own economic situations. I would have to assume that you have enough understanding of economics to realize how intertwined sectors are that a shutdown of this magnitude (not just in the U.S. but globally) is going to have devastating effects on everyone. And what solutions can possibly come close to solving the vast global economic damage that would be caused? This is completely unprecedented. Never before has anything on this scale ever happened. I find it amazing of how dismissive people are of the damage this shut down is going to cause.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I have to say is that Trump and the R establishment are LOVING that this has turned into a simple-minded fight about "the libs need to open up now!" ... taking the focus off of the federal failures to do anything to actually allow us to open up safely.

This attitude only prevents people to look at this in an unbiased and objective way.

Oh yeah, you're so unbiased and objective Turning this into "team shutdown" v "liberators" (which is firmly 100% the fault of Trump) is the recipe for destroying objectivity.

Politicizing it encourages people to join their camp. People get the sense that those left of center are in favor of shutting things down and those right of center are in favor of reopening and that tends to consciously or not influence how people feel about it. It's natural that people want to "join their team."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I have to say is that Trump and the R establishment are LOVING that this has turned into a simple-minded fight about "the libs need to open up now!" ... taking the focus off of the federal failures to do anything to actually allow us to open up safely.

This attitude only prevents people to look at this in an unbiased and objective way.

Oh yeah, you're so unbiased and objective Turning this into "team shutdown" v "liberators" (which is firmly 100% the fault of Trump) is the recipe for destroying objectivity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test everyone. Activate FEMA and Nat Guard and USPS and volunteer workers to deliver food to those in need at home. Get all negative testers back to work and all positive testers stay at home/hospital till clear. Do it. Now.

You just can't mandate testing "everyone".
This ain't communist china, thank God.

Personal responsibility is essential.

Oh ffs. Personal responsibility can't change the supply chains. And yes, we very much can mandate testing for everyone, just like vaccines can be mandated. If you don't want to be tested, then you can continue staying at home.

Are you planning to padlock my house?

I'm not, but the government certainly has the power to enforce a quarantine, or condition access to services and locations based on medical factors -- it's quite well established.

Point is no one can mandate testing or lock people up in their homes. You must accept personal responsibility for your own health, like it or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test everyone. Activate FEMA and Nat Guard and USPS and volunteer workers to deliver food to those in need at home. Get all negative testers back to work and all positive testers stay at home/hospital till clear. Do it. Now.

You just can't mandate testing "everyone".
This ain't communist china, thank God.

Personal responsibility is essential.

Oh ffs. Personal responsibility can't change the supply chains. And yes, we very much can mandate testing for everyone, just like vaccines can be mandated. If you don't want to be tested, then you can continue staying at home.

Are you planning to padlock my house?

I'm not, but the government certainly has the power to enforce a quarantine, or condition access to services and locations based on medical factors -- it's quite well established.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if that takes another six months?

If it takes another six months then I suggest that you vote for Biden due to Trump's inability to manage the epidemic better because it should not take another six months.

I don't know what you want me to say. I think I have explained this very clearly. I do not think we can safely reopen the economy now. I think the loudest voices to reopen are not the ones who will be taking the risks and that they are putting their financial interests ahead of the health of others. I am arguing that the health risks of reopening be decreased to the point that those calling for reopening are comfortable accepting that risk for themselves and their families. I don't think that is an unreasonable position or one that is hard to understand.

Jeff I have not responded to this assertion because I don't think it matters, I would hope that most of us would be able to put aside how the shutdown personally affects us with how it affects society at large. But since you seem to think that those of us who are in favor of reopening would not be taking "risks" and putting their financial interests first I will respond. I am a teacher (check all my previous posts if you don't believe me) and my husband is a fed. My personal financial situation isn't at all being impacted by this (yet - eventually we will all be affected) And yes, if things reopened I would have to return to work, which in your mind would be risking my health. On a personal level, I am loving the shutdown. My husband likes working from home, and to be completely honest I am in no hurry to head back to school. Yet I am very much in favor of things reopening asap, because I don't want to see society destroyed simply so my husband and I can keep working from home.

Lady we are ALL worried about the economy. Why don't you save your concern for asking about why we don't have PPE for our essential workers? Why we have no coherent plan to test, trace, and isolate? Those are the things we would need to re-open safely. It's not a mystery, and yet there is NO PLAN.

But we can reopen now, if we are willing to accept more fatalities. It's not unreasonable to think the % of fatalities from Coronavirus doesn't warrant the economic damage. Obviously not everyone agrees, but again it's not unreasonable to think that the cure that you are proposing is worse than the disease.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if that takes another six months?

If it takes another six months then I suggest that you vote for Biden due to Trump's inability to manage the epidemic better because it should not take another six months.

I don't know what you want me to say. I think I have explained this very clearly. I do not think we can safely reopen the economy now. I think the loudest voices to reopen are not the ones who will be taking the risks and that they are putting their financial interests ahead of the health of others. I am arguing that the health risks of reopening be decreased to the point that those calling for reopening are comfortable accepting that risk for themselves and their families. I don't think that is an unreasonable position or one that is hard to understand.

Jeff I have not responded to this assertion because I don't think it matters, I would hope that most of us would be able to put aside how the shutdown personally affects us with how it affects society at large. But since you seem to think that those of us who are in favor of reopening would not be taking "risks" and putting their financial interests first I will respond. I am a teacher (check all my previous posts if you don't believe me) and my husband is a fed. My personal financial situation isn't at all being impacted by this (yet - eventually we will all be affected) And yes, if things reopened I would have to return to work, which in your mind would be risking my health. On a personal level, I am loving the shutdown. My husband likes working from home, and to be completely honest I am in no hurry to head back to school. Yet I am very much in favor of things reopening asap, because I don't want to see society destroyed simply so my husband and I can keep working from home.

How would you feel if after returning to work you find that both you and your husband have caught COVID-19, your school has to close again because of an outbreak, and while your husband's job could still be done remotely, he is too ill to work. So, then you are even in a worse situation and the economy is still not recovering?

It's good that you are willing to personally accept this risk, but I hope you won't have to make such a sacrifice.

I don't care at all if my husband and I catch Covid-19 because the chance that we would experience an illness more severe than the flu is extremely small. And of course reopening things, is going to cause the number of cases to go up. Yes, many more people will become infected, for the vast majority, they will experience a flu like illness. Will deaths increase as well? Of course. Yes, it's a terrible thing, I don't mean to sound heartless but I simply don't think a disease that kills less than 2% of those infected is worth the damage that this will cause. Jeff, I really think the main difference between our perspectives is that I am under the belief that economic damage of a prolonged shutdown will be much greater than you believe. I am not the least bit opposed to extensive government programs to try to mitigate the damage, but I don't think anything we can do will come close to mitigating the damage of a prolonged global shutdown.

You really think 500k-1MM deaths would have zero economic impact?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test everyone. Activate FEMA and Nat Guard and USPS and volunteer workers to deliver food to those in need at home. Get all negative testers back to work and all positive testers stay at home/hospital till clear. Do it. Now.

You just can't mandate testing "everyone".
This ain't communist china, thank God.

Personal responsibility is essential.

Oh ffs. Personal responsibility can't change the supply chains. And yes, we very much can mandate testing for everyone, just like vaccines can be mandated. If you don't want to be tested, then you can continue staying at home.

Are you planning to padlock my house?

I don’t see why an employer can’t mandate a test, especially if they provide sick leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if that takes another six months?

If it takes another six months then I suggest that you vote for Biden due to Trump's inability to manage the epidemic better because it should not take another six months.

I don't know what you want me to say. I think I have explained this very clearly. I do not think we can safely reopen the economy now. I think the loudest voices to reopen are not the ones who will be taking the risks and that they are putting their financial interests ahead of the health of others. I am arguing that the health risks of reopening be decreased to the point that those calling for reopening are comfortable accepting that risk for themselves and their families. I don't think that is an unreasonable position or one that is hard to understand.

Jeff I have not responded to this assertion because I don't think it matters, I would hope that most of us would be able to put aside how the shutdown personally affects us with how it affects society at large. But since you seem to think that those of us who are in favor of reopening would not be taking "risks" and putting their financial interests first I will respond. I am a teacher (check all my previous posts if you don't believe me) and my husband is a fed. My personal financial situation isn't at all being impacted by this (yet - eventually we will all be affected) And yes, if things reopened I would have to return to work, which in your mind would be risking my health. On a personal level, I am loving the shutdown. My husband likes working from home, and to be completely honest I am in no hurry to head back to school. Yet I am very much in favor of things reopening asap, because I don't want to see society destroyed simply so my husband and I can keep working from home.

Lady we are ALL worried about the economy. Why don't you save your concern for asking about why we don't have PPE for our essential workers? Why we have no coherent plan to test, trace, and isolate? Those are the things we would need to re-open safely. It's not a mystery, and yet there is NO PLAN.