Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Shoe0nHead"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DREAMLANDSLEEEP The governors certainly know better how to handle their problems than THIS White House, but if there were an actual President in the White House, then the federal government would be able to do a better job of managing a national crisis than 50 independent governors.
For example, instead of each Governor having to compete to get medical supplies on the open market, bidding up the price against other states, an effective federal government would buy up all the medical supplies that the entire country needs, using defense appropriation rights to get them at minimal prices, and then use military supply chains to distribute them to the states as needed. This would be better for all governors than the current model, and many governors have been asking the Trump administration to do this for months.
It's unfair to compare the US to the EU, because the EU is a loose confederation, not a full country as the US is meant to be. They do have an extremely weak central government by design, and nobody expects the US federal government to behave as weakly as the EU's.
As for job losses, it's a necessary part of this. Better that they be unemployed than dead. The role of the Federal government should be in helping businesses and employees to stay financially stable over the course of this crisis, so that when the public is ready to open up again, they can pick up where they left off. The current administration is dropping the ball on this though, focusing more on big business and stock markets than on small businesses and employees. The House Dems have had to fight tooth and nail too get even modest provisions past the Senate, and even those the Trump administration is trying to cheat by firing oversight.
"Opening up the economy" would be a disaster, because those curves that have been flattening out over the past week or two would take right off again, and we'd be right back where we started. There can be NO "opening of the economy" until either A: there is a vaccine, or B: actual active cases of the virus have dropped into the tiny digits, and testing options are everywhere, such that if any one random person is found to be infested, they can immediately be isolated, and everyone they met tested and isolated, so that everyone else can go about their business without spread.
There is a VAST VAST difference between a responsible reaction to a crisis and a "fascist takeover." If a policeman tackles someone just for insulting him or something, that would be a fascist response. If a policeman tackles someone to prevent that person being shot or caught in an explosion, it's saving his life. Context is everything.
1
-
@DREAMLANDSLEEEP Most of them, sure. But a lot of people DO die. over 30,000 Americans are already dead because of this, and this is just the START. Even if we stayed fairly locked-down, there will likely be 10-20K more dead by the end of this. If we did "open up" any time soon, that number would jump to hundreds of thousands. The early projections weren't wrong, they were just based on the assumption that we wouldn't lock down as successful as we have. If we failed that lock-down, the original projections would kick right back into effect.
And again, it is the government's job to PREVENT people "starving to death" during the crisis. This situation is like a medically-induced coma, you knock the patient out so that they can get over whatever their condition is, and then wake them back up. If you don't feed them intervenously during that, then yeah, they would die, and that would suck, which is why you don't do that.
So yes, we need the shutdown, and yes, it needs to keep going on, but also yes, while the shutdown is on, it is the government's responsibility to keep everyone fed and make sure that they don't get kicked out of their houses and basically keep the wheels running at their minimum levels, so that when we do open back up, everyone is alive and well and ready to do their jobs again, and those jobs are still there waiting for them.
It may be "bad for the economy" to keep in lockdown, but it's also "bad for the economy" to lose 100K+ Americans. Even if they did just "open things back up," the economy would be in the toilet for the next 18 months because any rational American would STAY in lockdown voluntarily, not going to theaters, sports, restaurants, etc., because they don't want to be one of those 1% that die, or to carry that disease to friends and relatives that might be one of those 1%.
We don't have a lockdown because of AIDS because AIDS is FAR less contagious. If you see someone on the street with AIDS, and you manage to not fuck them, then you'll be fine. Covid isn't super contagious, but it is plenty contagious, just being in the general area of someone who has it is plenty, so having a bunch of people hanging out together is bad news.
Admittedly I haven't been following EU news all that closely lately, but I seriously doubt that this will "set back the EU" any. EU countries are acting independently because that's how they are currently set up, but that's not a rejection of the idea of the EU, and might eventually lead to even closer bonds between them as they analyze what worked and what didn't about this crisis. It's quite possible that countries like Spain and Italy would have been in better shape if they'd had more direct intervention from other members of the EU.
1
-
@DREAMLANDSLEEEP Again, it's the government's responsibility to not only enforce the shutdown, but also to make it tolerable. If they fail at either, they fail at both. We currently have an awful government, that's the fault of 2016 Bernie Bros, but we have to make do with what we've got, because none of the alternatives are good. Hopefully you live in a State that is at least trying to offset the awfulness of the Federal response.
Even if it all breaks down and people go out and get themselves killed in spite of the lockdown, spreading it out makes things better because it means the hospitals are not rushed. NY is in an OK place at the moment. They were on track to be in an awful place next week, but their measures slowed that down. If they stopped doing their thing today, they would be in that same awful place in a month or two, that's how this works. By slowing things down as best we can, we keep people from rushing the hospitals, leaving them better able to not only handle the incoming CV patients, but also handle normal medical issues like cancer and injury.
"You may think I'm selfish idiot, but I would rather die young and free than live long life of imprisonment."
Oh, don't be dramatic. Even worst case here we're talking a year or two of watching Netflix and eating delivery food, go ask Britain during the Blitz what hardship is like. More likely we can get the case load down to low enough levels that we can partially reopen within the next few months, but we can't jump the gun. It's like a house fire, you have to put out all the flames, because if you only put out a few and then move back in, they will just come back.
"So if most people would responsibly stay in voluntary lockdown why do we need the government to do it? "
Because the ones that wouldn't would still be a problem. They would still be getting sick, putting pressure on the system, carrying things around, etc. Etc's like how relatively small numbers of anti-vaxers can screw things up for everyone else. We live in a society.
"Also if most cases are asymptomatic and most people would get it and therefore gain some form of resistance, the assumed second wave would not be as impactful as the first. "
Depends on how it happens. If it happens six months from now after the virus has slowly spread through the community, maybe, but if it happens in one month because people rush to the streets again, it would be at least almost as bad as the first wave, because there would still be way more people who aren't immune than immune people.
" At this point herd immunity is in my opinion the best shot we have until there is vaccine which is not even 100% sure we ever will get one. "
And yet every country that tried a "herd immunity" response worked out fine. For about a month. And then they became a clusterfuck. Herd immunity is a good long term strategy, but you need to build it up carefully, not just "everyone get sick right now!" Also remember that we'd still be talking around 100,000 dead Americans taking that approach, maybe you, maybe your parents or grandparents. I'd rather not burn mine on a pyre just to get the economy going again.
Also, as far as vaccines, we're almost certain to get one, and we'll know that we have it relatively soon. The thing about vaccines is that the long part is not so much finding it, as testing it. We don't want a vaccine that totally works, but also totally kills 10% of people, and then rush that out the door, which is why they take a year or so to test. If there never is a vaccine, then sure, herd immunity will be the eventually result, but we still want to spread that out over the next year or so, so that the system can handle the process. Think of the country like a patient, if you give a cancer patient their entire cycle of chemo drugs all at once, they WILL die, which is why you spread it out over days or weeks, so their body can make the changes it needs to slowly. Whatever changes we make her, they can't be rushed, and doing so will just harm the patient.
1
-
@DREAMLANDSLEEEP Well, fortunately for all of us, Trump has no authority to "open up America." He never even closed it in the first place, even though he should have. It's the governors that decide, and most of them don't plan on reopening until at least the middle of next month, if that. Now some idiot Red State governors will reopen (some haven't even closed things yet, even though their states are riddled with virus), and their states will suffer for that, but I'm lucky to not be in one, and at some point neighboring states can just close their borders and ride out the idiots. It's sad, but there's nothing we can do about it.
Also, there's nothing wrong with the WHO here. They've just been scapegoated by Trump and his lackeys because Trump is incapable of accepting responsibility for his own failures. It's possible that they could have done something a bit better here or there, but there was no malice or genuine incompetence there, and any failing they have were only a drop in the bucket compared to the failings of the Trump administration.
1