Corona virus, China major city lockdowns, etc.

[TysonLPrice]

I'm holding off criticising that until we see what he actually announces. I think we can pretty much guess what it'll look like but I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt until we actually see it.

After 3 1/2 of lies and buffoonery you are still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...WOW!

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Yeah i feel we really can in this instance make a pre judgement. We really dont need to know even the detail of what Trump is going to propose on this subject to know 2 things.

1, It wont work, because freedom of speech

2, Trump wont go through with anything that limits his ability to tweet, he is an addict.

[dilettante]

At least the Trump Deranged over here have a hero in Sleepy, Creepy Joe:

[TysonLPrice]

At least the Trump Deranged over here have a hero in Sleepy, Creepy Joe:

At least for Joe it was a mistake. For Trump racism is part of his very nature.

[dilettante]

"Mistake." I don't think so, Pervy Joe's record is abysmal including lying about NAACP endorsements, his support of the Clinton Crime Bill, and on and on.

[FunkyDexter]

you are still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...WOW!

With Trump I'm happy to wait a day so I can criticise things he actually does rather than things I'm fairly sure he's about to do. I mean, if I want to get my Trump rage fix it's not like there's a lack of concrete material available.

[dilettante]

I mean, if I want to get my Trump rage fix it's not like there's a lack of concrete material available.

Fair point.

[dilettante]

Even minor celebs are slowly losing it:




Cas is a good guy though. He'll do anything for the fans.

[FunkyDexter]

OK so Trump has signed his order.

I don't feel like I understand the implications of this. So regulators can take legal action against the company for the content posted by users. I'm uneasy about that (it seems like it's holding them accountable for something that's not fully under their control) but in an age of miss-information it may not be such a bad thing.

But it seems to me that the person most likely to suffer under this is Trump himself. Surely this means that Twitter et al are more likely to fact check content and, given Trumps propensity misleading and inflammatory statements, he's going to get flagged a whole lot more. Note that Twitter did not actually censor Trump - his content is still there - so he can't make that claim. They simply added an additional information source.

I guess the motivation is that either he thinks he will be the one controlling the regulatory bodies (but that seems like very short term thinking to me) or he's just throwing out a general threat.

[TysonLPrice]

OK so Trump has signed his order.

I don't feel like I understand the implications of this. So regulators can take legal action against the company for the content posted by users. I'm uneasy about that (it seems like it's holding them accountable for something that's not fully under their control) but in an age of miss-information it may not be such a bad thing.

But it seems to me that the person most likely to suffer under this is Trump himself. Surely this means that Twitter et al are more likely to fact check content and, given Trumps propensity misleading and inflammatory statements, he's going to get flagged a whole lot more. Note that Twitter did not actually censor Trump - his content is still there - so he can't make that claim. They simply added an additional information source.

I guess the motivation is that either he thinks he will be the one controlling the regulatory bodies (but that seems like very short term thinking to me) or he's just throwing out a general threat.

Something I don't understand is to be a member of something like Twitter you agree to there terms in exchange to use their platform. If you don't follow their rules you can get kicked off just like here. If I keep using obscenity in my posts here I could be banned. Why isn't that against my free speech? I don't see where Trump can say his free speech is affected when he agreed to the rules.

[FunkyDexter]

I think the difference there is simply reach and the increasing "need" to be on a platform. I know many of us would disagree but you don't need to be on VBF to run for president (though, Si the Geek for President would be a great campaign to run). Realistically you probably do need to be on Twitter, facebook etc. That does make the way Twitter policing it's standards more important.

But I get where you're coming from. He did accept those Ts and Cs and, at least with his Looting Shooting tweet, he definitely broke them. It's hard to take that tweet as anything other than glorifying violence.

[Shaggy Hiker]

You don't have any right to free speech. That's mostly a misstatement of the situation. The GOVERNMENT can't restrict your speech. A private establishment can restrict your speech and behavior while using their establishment. Therefore, VBF can restrict speech because it's not a public platform. The same is true of Twitter, at least so far. However, FD has a good point: Social media is becoming essential for political campaigns, so leaving it as a private entity will create an increasing bind for us. After all, the alternative isn't all that appealing, either.

Trump HAS been censored, now. His tweet inciting violence in MN has been hidden. It then reportedly got re-tweeted by the official white house account, and that has now been hidden, as well.

I'm making popcorn, let the games begin....

[dilettante]

I know people love rubbing their own rhubarbs, but isn't this way off topic? Sounds like it needs its own thread.

I'm not claiming I didn't get drawn in myself.

[FunkyDexter]

His tweet inciting violence in MN has been hidden

My understanding is that you simply have to press a button to view it. Is that correct? If it is then that's not censorship, in my opinion, as it doesn't prevent anyone from viewing it. The actual removal of the tweet or restricting viewing of it would have been censorship.

isn't this way off topic? Sounds like it needs its own thread.

If it stays off topic, perhaps, but it's hardly worth it off the back of half a dozen posts. Even if it stays off topics I'm not sure it would be merited. Discussions meander.

[si_the_geek]

I know many of us would disagree but you don't need to be on VBF to run for president (though, Si the Geek for President would be a great campaign to run).

It could be entertaining, but if I was up against Trump then he would be re-elected... I'd rather not risk that!


Anyway, back to the topic... the lockdown in the UK is starting to end, and it is becoming very segregated already as each individual country (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) has their own variations of changes. Now you can meet up with other households (at 2m distance), but in England it is limited to 6 people... so you can't have two families with two children meeting up, unless you leave some of the parents at home

Of course with the "Track and Trace" system (or alternative names) there will now be regional lockdowns etc too, so it's gonna become much more complicated.

[Shaggy Hiker]

My understanding is that you simply have to press a button to view it. Is that correct? If it is then that's not censorship, in my opinion, as it doesn't prevent anyone from viewing it. The actual removal of the tweet or restricting viewing of it would have been censorship.

I don't know. I have heard it two different ways, and since I don't spend any time on twitter, and never have, I don't know what the terminology means as far as access. I assumed hidden was kind of like what happens when we soft delete something, but perhaps it's just behind a click.


As for opening up, I'd say that Idaho is 90% back, as far as I can tell. There are some businesses that aren't open, and some places have dispersed seating, but I noticed that masks are pretty much absent anymore. Wal-Mart employees wear them, as they are now required to do, but I see that almost all the Home Depot employees are not. Customers at both places are 90% unmasked, and it may be higher than that.

I hear that South Florida is hopping, too, which means that a second wave is highly likely, at least in some areas. There may never be much of a second wave in Idaho, just like there wasn't much of a first wave. When your population is kind of small, waves don't propagate so easily.

However, if a second wave does hit, it will be worse. The pressure to keep businesses open will be far higher than it was the first time around. Compliance with a second shutdown will be less.

Of course, we may not have a second wave. If that's the case, that's great, otherwise....the second one will really hurt.

[dilettante]

I don't see how a second wave would be worse than the first. Unlike the 1918 Spanish Flu it isn't subject to rapid mutation and isn't being carried by massive troop movements.

I'm not saying it would be mild, but it should be milder. For one thing a fraction of the population will have survived it with some immunity, and for another many people will still be observing practices that limit rapid spread that were not in place as the first wave began. As far as health care capacity goes we should be in better shape in terms of experience and medical supplies.

It could still be very bad of course but I don't see how it would be worse even without distribution of effective vaccines before it erupts.


Remember, "flattening the curve" is only about stalling spread so that (1.) health care has some chance of keeping up and thus some ability to provide care for more virulent cases and (2.) vaccines might possibly be developed and implemented at mass scale. The latter was probably always a pipedream, so until 70% to 80% become infected this just won't be over.

The current understanding is that infection survival does confer immunity, at least for a time. This makes herd immunity possible, but we have to get there. Over-isolation would seem to just delay that day along with massive economic impact.

I don't want to catch it either, but I have probably stayed more cautious and isolated than most people.

[dilettante]

[wes4dbt]

I agree with Shaggy and Dil,

I don't think the spikes will be as massive, a lot of people have had the virus and the most vulnerable to hospitalization percentage is lower. But I do think it's going to be a lot harder to shut down daily life again, think there would be less compliance.

Remember opinions are free and you get what you pay for.

*My opinions are not fully test and I not responsible for any calamities they may cause.
.

[FunkyDexter]

I checked. They didn't censer him. They "hid" his tweet. All that means is that the tweet collapsed to a link labelled view. Clicking the link opens the tweet. Anyone who chooses to view it can.

I do think it's going to be a lot harder to shut down daily life again, think there would be less compliance

I think that's the fear, at least, that's what I've been hearing over here and I suspect it's true, at least in the UK.

I honestly don't know whether a second spike would be worse. I think you guys are overstating how much immunity will have built up. The number of people who've been infected may be a massive number it's still a very small percentage of the population. Nowhere near enough to confer herd immunity.

On the flip side we will be much better prepared to deal with further outbreaks. We've got much more testing in place. I'm not entirely convinced by the phone apps but the processes and staffing that have been set up for contact tracing are much better than they were four months ago. Localised lockdowns will be difficult to implement but they've got a fighting chance of working.

[dilettante]

Well at this point we know that a lot of the testing is flawed, for example detecting dead virus as active which had fueled the "infection does not confer immunity" rumors. And I say "rumors" referring to spoutings by medical authorities, who have been cynically wrong in their pronouncements over and over again. Even respected medical journal publishing is viewed with suspicion now that it appears political bias has invaded them and much of what has been published was not properly peer-reviewed as in the past.

Phone apps appear to be of dubious merit all around, ignoring possible tinfoil-hat privacy issues. Testing without isolation (quarantine incarceration?) obviously does little. And we have lots of evidence that lockdowns are ineffective and have dangerous economic effects: Sweden's "light touch" approach for one, New York's findings that 66% of hospitalizations came from those observing lockdowns in a serious study of 1000 cases from 100 hospitals for another.

It all fuels suspicions of some other agenda or incompetent panicked over-reaction. And it seems irrefutable that the only way out is for nearly everyone to become infected, the so-called "long game" nobody wants to face because of its obvious consequence that we could lose many people to the virus.

Some will tout South Korea, but it is already starting to fall apart in its second wave upon re-opening because it had bet the farm on lockdowns and tracking/tracing phone apps.

The lockdown approach may be worse than any alternative. Then pile on the economic impacts and you have to ask hard questions.

[Shaggy Hiker]

And I say "rumors" referring to spoutings by medical authorities, who have been cynically wrong in their pronouncements over and over again. Even respected medical journal publishing is viewed with suspicion now that it appears political bias has invaded them and much of what has been published was not properly peer-reviewed as in the past.

I disagree with all of that. I don't feel they have been cynically wrong. The news wants people to state the facts, but when nobody knows, it's all just opinion backed by very little. Therefore, they are likely to be wrong, and probably would say so if reporters let them, but cynical? I wouldn't say so.

As for not peer reviewing papers, that's certainly true, but it's also terribly misleading. What's been happening is that pre-review papers have been getting posted. The vast majority of them go on to be peer reviewed and published, but that can take six months, or more. We haven't had the virus around for that long, so if we were going through that lengthy process, the first papers about it, those written back in December or earlier, would only be hitting the journals now. We know SO much more than that, despite not knowing so much. Due to the pace of things, the standard process has been expedited. In general, though, that system is working.

Phone apps appear to be of dubious merit all around, ignoring possible tinfoil-hat privacy issues. Testing without isolation (quarantine incarceration?) obviously does little. And we have lots of evidence that lockdowns are ineffective and have dangerous economic effects: Sweden's "light touch" approach for one, New York's findings that 66% of hospitalizations came from those observing lockdowns in a serious study of 1000 cases from 100 hospitals for another.

It all fuels suspicions of some other agenda or incompetent panicked over-reaction. And it seems irrefutable that the only way out is for nearly everyone to become infected, the so-called "long game" nobody wants to face because of its obvious consequence that we could lose many people to the virus.

Some will tout South Korea, but it is already starting to fall apart in its second wave upon re-opening because it had bet the farm on lockdowns and tracking/tracing phone apps.

The lockdown approach may be worse than any alternative. Then pile on the economic impacts and you have to ask hard questions.

That all seems overly negative. For one thing, what's the alternative to lockdowns? We never really locked down, as you could still go to pretty much any store you wanted to. You couldn't get a sit-down meal, and you couldn't get a haircut, but you could get most things. So, what's the alternative? Ignore it? Real lockdown? Group orgy? Something else?

[dilettante]

The only alternative I can imagine is a middle ground. Maybe one where more people didn't lose their jobs, but obviously precautions would still be necessary to help slow the spread. The reason to slow the spread would be to prevent overburdening health care so as effective health care as possible might remain available to those with serious symptoms.

All of it is highly variable though depending on population density, average population age, and so on. For example some populations seem to be more genetically prone to serious impacts and low income populations may have dietary issues and/or close-packed living conditions.

But one thing is true for all: until almost everyone has been infected it won't be over. For those not suffering economically it is easy to sniff, while gobbling designer ice cream and hummingbird liver paté. Not so much though for who have lost their jobs and small businesses.

[wes4dbt]

Don't want to just pile on Dil but I guess I am.

New York's findings that 66% of hospitalizations came from those observing lockdowns in a serious study of 1000 cases from 100 hospitals for another.

If you remember, this was a study that was done after the NY spike, while new cases were going down. It still was a worrying report.

Some will tout South Korea, but it is already starting to fall apart in its second wave upon re-opening because it had bet the farm on lockdowns and tracking/tracing phone apps.

I've heard these kind of statements but see no evidence,



But I don't don't see a Second Wave. As restrictions have been eased there has been a slight increase in new cases.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The only alternative I can imagine is a middle ground. Maybe one where more people didn't lose their jobs, but obviously precautions would still be necessary to help slow the spread. The reason to slow the spread would be to prevent overburdening health care so as effective health care as possible might remain available to those with serious symptoms.

All of it is highly variable though depending on population density, average population age, and so on. For example some populations seem to be more genetically prone to serious impacts and low income populations may have dietary issues and/or close-packed living conditions.

But one thing is true for all: until almost everyone has been infected it won't be over. For those not suffering economically it is easy to sniff, while gobbling designer ice cream and hummingbird liver paté. Not so much though for who have lost their jobs and small businesses.

Some countries just covered the pay for people who were unable to go to work. That would cover a whole lot, but gig workers would take it in the shorts.

[Delaney]

Yes, France did that.
Covered up to 84% of the net salary (that's called partial activity or partial unemployment, it is normally the company who pays but in this case, the government will refund the companies and extended that to small companies and self-employment/freelance). And if you were at risk (diabetic, asthmatic, high blood pressure) or have children to keep, they allowed you to take sick days up to 21 (with full pay). If you are really sick, it is of course not limited.

But, at some point, we will have to "pay back" in a way or an other .

[wes4dbt]

Yes, France did that.
Covered up to 84% of the net salary (that's called partial activity or partial unemployment, it is normally the company who pays but in this case, the government will refund the companies and extended that to small companies and self-employment/freelance). And if you were at risk (diabetic, asthmatic, high blood pressure) or have children to keep, they allowed you to take sick days up to 21 (with full pay). If you are really sick, it is of course not limited.

But, at some point, we will have to "pay back" in a way or an other .

That's interesting. Are most people there happy with this method and how it's being handled??? It always amazes me how governments can just reach into their pockets and pull out what ever amount of money they decided they need. And your right, one way or the other, we will have to pay back.

[FunkyDexter]

Are most people there happy with this method and how it's being handled???

That's what we did in the UK and, yes, we're pretty happy with it. It hasn't been perfect and some people have been missed (including me) but, on the whole, it's allowed us to keep our economy running in the short term. The scheme is planned to end in October and it sounds like the government are going to require companies to share some of the burden before then.

But, you're right to raise this point:-

It always amazes me how governments can just reach into their pockets and pull out what ever amount of money they decided they need.

It goes on the national debt. In the UK we're fortunate enough to have a very strong credit rating so this is an option. I suspect it wouldn't be for a lot of other countries (probably would be for the US though). In essence it's that same as when we bailed the banks out - short term borrowing to prevent economic collapse.

Of course we do have to pay that debt back and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out over the next 10 years. It's going to be the same arguments of Austerity vs Stimulus as followed the banking crises. Following that we pursued austerity and I do think that was probably the right decision if you look at it purely through the lens of the economy. Something that the virus has starkly laid bare is the costs of those cuts. We've faired worse than the rest of the world except the US (so yay for the special relationship) and I'm pretty sure a lot of that can be laid at the door of cuts to the NHS and supporting infrastructure. We were simply unable to respond to this crisis as well as the rest of the world.

[Shaggy Hiker]

You can pay it back, or expand the economy to make it smaller relative to GDP. Naturally, people would prefer the latter, as the former means higher taxes and/or reduced spending, neither of which are very popular with people. However, you CAN make those two happen, whereas growing the economy is never a certain thing.

[dilettante]

Those observing lockdowns might be looking for entertainment, having exhausted video collections and the more obvious streaming choices. Here's one you may have missed.

Brief one-season TV show. Eerie, perhaps a bit sad. Maybe enough to be compared to the world of 2011's Melancholia.




If you prefer a bit of action there is always the relatively unknown:




And no, I'm not stalking Jodie Foster. Though her portrayal of "Nurse" in Hotel Artemis does remind me more than a little of my ex.

[techgnome]

Hotel Artimus felt like an attempt at cashing in on John Wick popularity with out having to pay John Wick.

-tg

[dilettante]

I've seen reviewers place it as part of that universe, so that might be a fair comparison. I watched it for free without having viewed the trailer so I got my money's worth. Trailers often give away a lot though, exposing the high spots and spoiling the film.

I wouldn't class it as a big movie. Quite the contrary. Fairly small story.

[wes4dbt]

FD, SH,

My bigger concern is about the states. I don't see any other choices other than taxes or cut services. Also, they can't have a debt (I don't know alot about this but that's what I've been hearing) so this is gonna have to be a quick fix for a very complicated problem.

Probably wont have much of an affect on me because age/retired. But I worry for my children/grand/great grand kids. Also the people on the fringes that need help with food and housing, mental health, the disabled, the infirmed .

[TysonLPrice]

The moron in chief strikes again:

President Trump has announced that he is immediately halting the decades-long U.S. membership in the World Health Organization over its response to China's handling of the corona virus epidemic.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ority-to-do-it

Despite the rest of the world imploring for help:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...190431765.html

I hope this orange stain on the world doesn't get another four years to hurt us like this over and over again.

[dilettante]

[FunkyDexter]

My bigger concern is about the states

Is covering peoples salaries something that would sit with the individual states? I'd have expected it to be a federal thing as it's basically part of a crisis response.

this is gonna have to be a quick fix for a very complicated problem.

I agree, but I do think we needed to apply the fix. The alternative was to just let the economy collapse.

I'm not stalking Jodie Foster.

I've had a crush on Jodie Foster the 90s but she's made it pretty clear that I'm not her type.

[TysonLPrice]

I've had a crush on Jodie Foster the 90s but she's made it pretty clear that I'm not her type.

That's a diplomatic way of saying that

[dilettante]

I only brought it up because of the odd coincidence of Jodie Foster's involvement in both projects above. As far as I can recall she didn't actually appear in any episode of Tales From The Loop.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Is covering peoples salaries something that would sit with the individual states? I'd have expected it to be a federal thing as it's basically part of a crisis response.

The answer to that is....yessss....ish...

In the US, there is unemployment insurance. This is paid into by the employer, and provides some cushion for workers who get laid off. There are several holes in that net (technically, if there are no holes, it isn't a net, it's a tarp, but still...). For one thing, the states are free to set unemployment amounts and eligibility rules largely as they choose. Some states, especially southern states, pay very little. Most states have some requirement about looking for work, but that can mean different things in different places. There's also some flexibility in how long the benefits last.

Then Congress added further funding and altered eligibility and requirements in the bailout. So, they've put their oar in, as well, and everybody is stirring the stew. In my state, the office handling unemployment pretty much went into full on meltdown due to the number of claims at a time when people weren't thrilled with showing up at the office (many offices were closed, though I'm not sure how that agency was impacted). The governor has said repeatedly that the response amounted to a disgraceful failure, but there's not much he can really do. They were set up to handle N cases per month, and got 100N, or something like that. They couldn't cope, and probably knew that ahead of time. They were staffed for normal times and mile emergencies, not for what hit them. Still, that means that a whole lot of people were pretty much on hold for a month or two.

So, it's state by state in implementation, response, staffing, and everything else.

Also, I did mention the bit about the employers paying into the unemployment insurance system. What happens to gig workers, who are not considered employees? What happens to the self employed? Traditionally: Nothing happens for them. In this case, I believe it was in the bailout that they would get covered, which meant that they got put in the interminable queue along with everybody else, further overloading a system that couldn't handle the case load. The system was there, it was state by state...and federal, and in no way was it designed to handle the situation that arose.

[dreammanor]

[Wuhan notified the results of concentrated nucleic acid testing: more than 9.89 million people were detected, no confirmed cases]

From 0:00 on May 14 to 24:00 on June 1, Wuhan City tested 9899828 people and found no confirmed cases. 300 asymptomatic infections were detected, and the detection rate was 0.303/10,000.

In addition, 1174 close contacts were tracked. Their nucleic acid test results were negative. The cost of centralized testing is borne by the government, and the cost is reduced through centralized procurement. The total expenditure is about 900 million yuan (RMB).

https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_7668909