Global slow down...
Re: Global slow down...
every once in a while, i wish we had a like button ^^^^^
Re: Global slow down...
Dr Birx today:” over 99% of mortality in Europe is from people over 50 with pre-existing conditions ... with the majority of the mortality afflicted having 3 or more of those conditions”
Also, most of the deaths were people 75 yrs old + ... by far.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... italy-says
Again, I think this will get down to math: “acceptable losses” - I don’t have an opinion one way or another (or at least won’t say it here) but this is a struggle between shutting down the country with millions of people literally going from good paying jobs to zero dollars coming in - vs a medical problem in certain areas of the country , albeit the most popular areas... again, I’m not supporting one course or another)
Also, most of the deaths were people 75 yrs old + ... by far.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... italy-says
Again, I think this will get down to math: “acceptable losses” - I don’t have an opinion one way or another (or at least won’t say it here) but this is a struggle between shutting down the country with millions of people literally going from good paying jobs to zero dollars coming in - vs a medical problem in certain areas of the country , albeit the most popular areas... again, I’m not supporting one course or another)
VR/
Paul
SI VI PACEM, PARA BELLUM
Paul
SI VI PACEM, PARA BELLUM
Re: Global slow down...
Sorry Matt! I thought I was staying away from politics
My apologies!
My apologies!
VR/
Paul
SI VI PACEM, PARA BELLUM
Paul
SI VI PACEM, PARA BELLUM
Re: Global slow down...
matt.wu wrote:So I don’t understand why folks bitch about enforcing the “no politics” rule when certain “sides” are talking and then proceed to carry on themselves.
Wtf guys?
I know we’ve since moved on from the topic and back to the disease spread itself, but do I really need to do a toddler style count down to timeout?
I tend not to agree with most of you all on politics, but you wouldn’t know it, and that’s the point. This is a terrible medium for that type of discussion. No more politics!
DEATH FROM ABOVE
Re: Global slow down...
You were good. You and Rob got it back on track.deepcdvr wrote:Sorry Matt! I thought I was staying away from politics
My apologies!
- streetracer101
- Posts: 8787
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:41 pm
- Name: Mr Shackleford
Re: Global slow down...
Yup. And that's why I think the president is screwed regardless of outcome. At some point, our society has to draw a line in the sand in what is acceptable. Unfortunately, this line will lead to thousands of deaths +/- thousands of families destroyed by financial losses.deepcdvr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:53 pmDr Birx today:” over 99% of mortality in Europe is from people over 50 with pre-existing conditions ... with the majority of the mortality afflicted having 3 or more of those conditions”
Also, most of the deaths were people 75 yrs old + ... by far.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... italy-says
Again, I think this will get down to math: “acceptable losses” - I don’t have an opinion one way or another (or at least won’t say it here) but this is a struggle between shutting down the country with millions of people literally going from good paying jobs to zero dollars coming in - vs a medical problem in certain areas of the country , albeit the most popular areas... again, I’m not supporting one course or another)
- Henryj
- Bubblehead
- Posts: 4483
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:17 pm
- Name: Old guy
- Location: Wapakoneta, Ohio
Re: Global slow down...
I agree that he’s probably screwed. I’ll quote a friend, although he was in a different context. “Sometimes the choice is between some casualties and massive casualties.” People have a hard time with that math, they want a perfect outcome.streetracer101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:02 pm
Yup. And that's why I think the president is screwed regardless of outcome. At some point, our society has to draw a line in the sand in what is acceptable. Unfortunately, this line will lead to thousands of deaths +/- thousands of families destroyed by financial losses.deepcdvr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:53 pmDr Birx today:” over 99% of mortality in Europe is from people over 50 with pre-existing conditions ... with the majority of the mortality afflicted having 3 or more of those conditions”
Also, most of the deaths were people 75 yrs old + ... by far.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... italy-says
Again, I think this will get down to math: “acceptable losses” - I don’t have an opinion one way or another (or at least won’t say it here) but this is a struggle between shutting down the country with millions of people literally going from good paying jobs to zero dollars coming in - vs a medical problem in certain areas of the country , albeit the most popular areas... again, I’m not supporting one course or another)
If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.
-
- Posts: 2071
- Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:12 pm
Re: Global slow down...
If there had been better preparation instead of denial early on, we might be in a better position to make a hard decision to open up for business. Hell, if we had executed better 3-4 weeks ago in regards to medical equipment, this decision would be easier. Alas it didn't happen and we are where we are. I worry about my elderly mother and in laws. If we do open up for business, I'll be locking them up and throwing away the key for the foreseeable future. Best case scenario, we develop some herd immunity after many die and the risks drop significantly.
- pacifichrono
- Posts: 3926
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:54 am
- Name: Tom
- Location: Sunny San Diego
Re: Global slow down...
Jeez, I take a short lunch break and you guys are 26 pages into a new topic already! Couple new faces but mostly the same crazy bastards! I’m gonna try really hard to walk the Wu Line and keep politics out of my comments.
Before Trump even mentioned his “cure worse than the problem” point earlier today, I was thinking about the same concept. At some point (I’m not sure exactly ‘where’), society might reach a tipping point where the long-term damage being done to the economy in terms of jobs, living conditions, careers, families, savings, etc. may actually outweigh the future health risks (and incremental deaths) society is likely to sustain by governments and businesses taking certain actions to re-start the economy, businesses, and jobs.
As I’m sitting here staring at my PC pondering all this at 11:45 p.m., I wonder if there should be something like a Presidential Task Force of the nation’s top economic, business, health, and government experts to evaluate this dilemma and recommend what certain actions be taken and at what stage(s).
I think Trump said (paraphrasing) the doctors would want everyone in isolation for the next two years. By the same token, many business people would like to see the “all clear” signal given in a couple weeks to avoid economic disaster and the huge toll of human suffering that would bring.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would compare this dilemma to that of influenza: every flu season 20,000 to 90,000 Americans die from influenza, despite widespread efforts to vaccinate the population. That is a LOT of deaths…and yet we don’t require self-isolation and the closing of businesses during winter months to reduce the transmission of flu viruses, and therefore deaths. Rather, society accepts these tens of thousands of annual virus deaths as the “norm.” It wouldn’t think about shutting down the economy to save, let’s say, 10,000 or 25,000 of those lives per year. The financial cost would be too great a price to pay.
Bingo! But where is the right balance point?
Before Trump even mentioned his “cure worse than the problem” point earlier today, I was thinking about the same concept. At some point (I’m not sure exactly ‘where’), society might reach a tipping point where the long-term damage being done to the economy in terms of jobs, living conditions, careers, families, savings, etc. may actually outweigh the future health risks (and incremental deaths) society is likely to sustain by governments and businesses taking certain actions to re-start the economy, businesses, and jobs.
As I’m sitting here staring at my PC pondering all this at 11:45 p.m., I wonder if there should be something like a Presidential Task Force of the nation’s top economic, business, health, and government experts to evaluate this dilemma and recommend what certain actions be taken and at what stage(s).
I think Trump said (paraphrasing) the doctors would want everyone in isolation for the next two years. By the same token, many business people would like to see the “all clear” signal given in a couple weeks to avoid economic disaster and the huge toll of human suffering that would bring.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would compare this dilemma to that of influenza: every flu season 20,000 to 90,000 Americans die from influenza, despite widespread efforts to vaccinate the population. That is a LOT of deaths…and yet we don’t require self-isolation and the closing of businesses during winter months to reduce the transmission of flu viruses, and therefore deaths. Rather, society accepts these tens of thousands of annual virus deaths as the “norm.” It wouldn’t think about shutting down the economy to save, let’s say, 10,000 or 25,000 of those lives per year. The financial cost would be too great a price to pay.
Bingo! But where is the right balance point?
Regards from Sunny San Diego.............Tom
- bedlam
- Posts: 1542
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:16 pm
- Name: Carl
- Location: Fremantle, Western Australia (GMT +8)
Re: Global slow down...
Consider yourself corrected.pacifichrono wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:47 pm...Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would compare this dilemma to that of influenza...
Re: Global slow down...
Wow. This thread really got off track...
- demer03
- Current Forecast: Vintage Doxa
- Posts: 19637
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:41 pm
- Name: Mike
- Location: Lake Michigami
Re: Global slow down...
Tom, first of all....good to see you.pacifichrono wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:47 pmJeez, I take a short lunch break and you guys are 26 pages into a new topic already! Couple new faces but mostly the same crazy bastards! I’m gonna try really hard to walk the Wu Line and keep politics out of my comments.
Before Trump even mentioned his “cure worse than the problem” point earlier today, I was thinking about the same concept. At some point (I’m not sure exactly ‘where’), society might reach a tipping point where the long-term damage being done to the economy in terms of jobs, living conditions, careers, families, savings, etc. may actually outweigh the future health risks (and incremental deaths) society is likely to sustain by governments and businesses taking certain actions to re-start the economy, businesses, and jobs.
As I’m sitting here staring at my PC pondering all this at 11:45 p.m., I wonder if there should be something like a Presidential Task Force of the nation’s top economic, business, health, and government experts to evaluate this dilemma and recommend what certain actions be taken and at what stage(s).
I think Trump said (paraphrasing) the doctors would want everyone in isolation for the next two years. By the same token, many business people would like to see the “all clear” signal given in a couple weeks to avoid economic disaster and the huge toll of human suffering that would bring.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would compare this dilemma to that of influenza: every flu season 20,000 to 90,000 Americans die from influenza, despite widespread efforts to vaccinate the population. That is a LOT of deaths…and yet we don’t require self-isolation and the closing of businesses during winter months to reduce the transmission of flu viruses, and therefore deaths. Rather, society accepts these tens of thousands of annual virus deaths as the “norm.” It wouldn’t think about shutting down the economy to save, let’s say, 10,000 or 25,000 of those lives per year. The financial cost would be too great a price to pay.
Bingo! But where is the right balance point?
Second, agree completely. A difficult choice is coming.
Old Michigan steams like a young man's dreams
The islands and bays are for sportsmen
The islands and bays are for sportsmen
Re: Global slow down...
I don't know. When the owner of the site comes along and says to stop posting about politics, and then the same person who's been the cause of much of the rancor on this thread continues to post about politics, maybe it's time for the thread to be locked. No one's going to change anyone's mind here, and it's just pissing everyone off.
There are lots of FB groups, reddit sites, and other places where you can argue politics if that's what you want. Matt made it pretty clear he doesn't want it here.
There are lots of FB groups, reddit sites, and other places where you can argue politics if that's what you want. Matt made it pretty clear he doesn't want it here.
Re: Global slow down...
Good pointpacifichrono wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:47 pmJeez, I take a short lunch break and you guys are 26 pages into a new topic already! Couple new faces but mostly the same crazy bastards! I’m gonna try really hard to walk the Wu Line and keep politics out of my comments.
Before Trump even mentioned his “cure worse than the problem” point earlier today, I was thinking about the same concept. At some point (I’m not sure exactly ‘where’), society might reach a tipping point where the long-term damage being done to the economy in terms of jobs, living conditions, careers, families, savings, etc. may actually outweigh the future health risks (and incremental deaths) society is likely to sustain by governments and businesses taking certain actions to re-start the economy, businesses, and jobs.
As I’m sitting here staring at my PC pondering all this at 11:45 p.m., I wonder if there should be something like a Presidential Task Force of the nation’s top economic, business, health, and government experts to evaluate this dilemma and recommend what certain actions be taken and at what stage(s).
I think Trump said (paraphrasing) the doctors would want everyone in isolation for the next two years. By the same token, many business people would like to see the “all clear” signal given in a couple weeks to avoid economic disaster and the huge toll of human suffering that would bring.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would compare this dilemma to that of influenza: every flu season 20,000 to 90,000 Americans die from influenza, despite widespread efforts to vaccinate the population. That is a LOT of deaths…and yet we don’t require self-isolation and the closing of businesses during winter months to reduce the transmission of flu viruses, and therefore deaths. Rather, society accepts these tens of thousands of annual virus deaths as the “norm.” It wouldn’t think about shutting down the economy to save, let’s say, 10,000 or 25,000 of those lives per year. The financial cost would be too great a price to pay.
Bingo! But where is the right balance point?
From this morning - these are cases per state per MILLION inhabitants, many millions of them who are this morning out of work. Do you think they would like to return to work in 46 states where they may have 30-40 people with the flu per MILLION inhabitants? Many of those states having record low unemployment rates just a few days ago...
I'm not saying I have an opinion one way or another - nor am I referencing "the Donald" - just saying we have a decision to make in the near future.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
VR/
Paul
SI VI PACEM, PARA BELLUM
Paul
SI VI PACEM, PARA BELLUM
Re: Global slow down...
Keep in mind that as isolation diminishes, there is the danger of a new round of cases.
Asymptomatic people with the virus may increase the spread.
Asymptomatic people with the virus may increase the spread.
"We'd better synchronize our watches."
- JP Chestnut
- Posts: 17821
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:40 am
- Name: Jacob
- Location: Ithaca, NY USA
Re: Global slow down...
I agree with you. I’d rather do this too long than too short. The economy is already a mess and it won’t be worth it if we go back to normal too quickly.
Re: Global slow down...
I just watched a news report on the South Korean policies in effect to deal with this.
They are doing a ton of testing (more than the US to be sure), but they are combining that testing with a tracking program using the GPS on the citizen's phone.
The report didn't get into significant detail, but it seems everyone is required to provide the government with their cell phone number. If you have a positive COVID-19 test result, you are required to quarantine yourself. Your GPS location and your credit card information will be tracked by the government to ensure you do not leave your self isolation. (I am assuming there are negative consequences if you do violate the self-quarantine order).
By leveraging the GPS on the phone, the government is also able to alert those around you that they may have been exposed to someone who has tested positive to COVID-19 as well.
While I strongly suspect a large part of the US population would not be willing to accept this type of governmental monitoring, I believe this is the only way we could get the US back and minimize potential human losses. You need both universal COVID-19 testing combined with the allowing the government the ability to track your whereabouts at all times.
- JP Chestnut
- Posts: 17821
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:40 am
- Name: Jacob
- Location: Ithaca, NY USA
Re: Global slow down...
Meanwhile over here my stupid bitch neighbor got sick, thought she had it, got tested and then while she was waiting for results she and her family were in and out of the house nonstop and her kids were all over everyone’s yards.
This was after the governor made two statements saying to stay the fuck inside.
Luckily she didn’t have it, but I’m still super pissed at her and I’ll never get over it.
This was after the governor made two statements saying to stay the fuck inside.
Luckily she didn’t have it, but I’m still super pissed at her and I’ll never get over it.
Re: Global slow down...
Keep in mind that this is NOT actual cases per state per million, but CONFIRMED cases per state per million. The country is in it's infancy in testing so our data is extremely flawed until more testing is done. Hopefully we will know more in a couple of weeks. I am a business owner who is feeling the hurt, and completely understand that there is a business decision to be made regarding the tipping point, we just need better data to make a more informed decision.deepcdvr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:36 am
Good point
From this morning - these are cases per state per MILLION inhabitants, many millions of them who are this morning out of work. Do you think they would like to return to work in 46 states where they may have 30-40 people with the flu per MILLION inhabitants? Many of those states having record low unemployment rates just a few days ago...
I'm not saying I have an opinion one way or another - nor am I referencing "the Donald" - just saying we have a decision to make in the near future.
1920px-COVID-19_outbreak_USA_per_capita_cases_map_svg.png
Re: Global slow down...
We can either cower and watch the economy crater, or live smartly (distancing, wash hands, etc.) and keep collecting a paycheck. I'd rather the latter but will have to accept fact that more will get sick. What to do, what to do.
The Hapa
- 59yukon01
- 1.21 gigawatts?!
- Posts: 10514
- Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:49 am
- Name: David
- Location: Louisville, KY
Re: Global slow down...
+1.... This has been my thoughts from the very beginning.demer03 wrote:Tom, first of all....good to see you.pacifichrono wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:47 pmJeez, I take a short lunch break and you guys are 26 pages into a new topic already! Couple new faces but mostly the same crazy bastards! I’m gonna try really hard to walk the Wu Line and keep politics out of my comments.
Before Trump even mentioned his “cure worse than the problem” point earlier today, I was thinking about the same concept. At some point (I’m not sure exactly ‘where’), society might reach a tipping point where the long-term damage being done to the economy in terms of jobs, living conditions, careers, families, savings, etc. may actually outweigh the future health risks (and incremental deaths) society is likely to sustain by governments and businesses taking certain actions to re-start the economy, businesses, and jobs.
As I’m sitting here staring at my PC pondering all this at 11:45 p.m., I wonder if there should be something like a Presidential Task Force of the nation’s top economic, business, health, and government experts to evaluate this dilemma and recommend what certain actions be taken and at what stage(s).
I think Trump said (paraphrasing) the doctors would want everyone in isolation for the next two years. By the same token, many business people would like to see the “all clear” signal given in a couple weeks to avoid economic disaster and the huge toll of human suffering that would bring.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would compare this dilemma to that of influenza: every flu season 20,000 to 90,000 Americans die from influenza, despite widespread efforts to vaccinate the population. That is a LOT of deaths…and yet we don’t require self-isolation and the closing of businesses during winter months to reduce the transmission of flu viruses, and therefore deaths. Rather, society accepts these tens of thousands of annual virus deaths as the “norm.” It wouldn’t think about shutting down the economy to save, let’s say, 10,000 or 25,000 of those lives per year. The financial cost would be too great a price to pay.
Bingo! But where is the right balance point?
Second, agree completely. A difficult choice is coming.
Re: Global slow down...
The problem with just re-opening for business is that it won't solve anything. We are in the middle of a pandemic. So simply telling everyone that businesses are open won't mean that the economy will get back to normal. Lots of people will still be reluctant to gather in groups at restaurants, events, on airplanes, etc. And, since the real decision regarding whether to shut things down has been left to the states, some states will relax their rules, and some won't.
Meanwhile, the promotion of such a policy means that more people WILL do those things, which means more people will get sick, which means a greater likelihood that the healthcare system gets overwhelmed, which means more deaths from Covid-19 and other maladies that require hospitalization or medical attention due to lack of resources.
So it would basically be the worst of both worlds. More dead people AND a shitty economy. Better to continue what we're doing - social distancing to flatten the curve, ramping up production of PPE (hopefully), researching/developing a vaccine and medications, and counting on Congress to pass a stimulus package to keep everyone afloat (which they seem close to right now, but we'll see).
Meanwhile, the promotion of such a policy means that more people WILL do those things, which means more people will get sick, which means a greater likelihood that the healthcare system gets overwhelmed, which means more deaths from Covid-19 and other maladies that require hospitalization or medical attention due to lack of resources.
So it would basically be the worst of both worlds. More dead people AND a shitty economy. Better to continue what we're doing - social distancing to flatten the curve, ramping up production of PPE (hopefully), researching/developing a vaccine and medications, and counting on Congress to pass a stimulus package to keep everyone afloat (which they seem close to right now, but we'll see).
- JP Chestnut
- Posts: 17821
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:40 am
- Name: Jacob
- Location: Ithaca, NY USA
Re: Global slow down...
I totally agree with you. I'd MUCH rather the government dump massive amounts of money into the hands of people who are suffering than ease this up and make it all for nothing.JBZ wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:31 amThe problem with just re-opening for business is that it won't solve anything. We are in the middle of a pandemic. So simply telling everyone that businesses are open won't mean that the economy will get back to normal. Lots of people will still be reluctant to gather in groups at restaurants, events, on airplanes, etc. And, since the real decision regarding whether to shut things down has been left to the states, some states will relax their rules, and some won't.
Meanwhile, the promotion of such a policy means that more people WILL do those things, which means more people will get sick, which means a greater likelihood that the healthcare system gets overwhelmed, which means more deaths from Covid-19 and other maladies that require hospitalization or medical attention due to lack of resources.
So it would basically be the worst of both worlds. More dead people AND a shitty economy. Better to continue what we're doing - social distancing to flatten the curve, ramping up production of PPE (hopefully), researching/developing a vaccine and medications, and counting on Congress to pass a stimulus package to keep everyone afloat (which they seem close to right now, but we'll see).
We have already shit all over the economy. Let's get something out of it at least.
Re: Global slow down...
Ultimately, I think keeping everyone quarantined for 18 months is completely unreasonable. But what we're doing now should buy us time to ramp up testing and medical resources, which will allow us to engage in targeted quarantines/isolation and ease the strain on the healthcare system. That will probably allow people to get back to work even before a vaccine is developed.JP Chestnut wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:35 amI totally agree with you. I'd MUCH rather the government dump massive amounts of money into the hands of people who are suffering than ease this up and make it all for nothing.JBZ wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:31 amThe problem with just re-opening for business is that it won't solve anything. We are in the middle of a pandemic. So simply telling everyone that businesses are open won't mean that the economy will get back to normal. Lots of people will still be reluctant to gather in groups at restaurants, events, on airplanes, etc. And, since the real decision regarding whether to shut things down has been left to the states, some states will relax their rules, and some won't.
Meanwhile, the promotion of such a policy means that more people WILL do those things, which means more people will get sick, which means a greater likelihood that the healthcare system gets overwhelmed, which means more deaths from Covid-19 and other maladies that require hospitalization or medical attention due to lack of resources.
So it would basically be the worst of both worlds. More dead people AND a shitty economy. Better to continue what we're doing - social distancing to flatten the curve, ramping up production of PPE (hopefully), researching/developing a vaccine and medications, and counting on Congress to pass a stimulus package to keep everyone afloat (which they seem close to right now, but we'll see).
We have already shit all over the economy. Let's get something out of it at least.
And no one, regardless of political party, is entirely comfortable with a $2 trillion stimulus package that's getting put together this quickly. As a former boss once said, "that's something that can only get fucked up." But I don't see much of an alternative at this point. The feds have to stop the bleeding.
- JP Chestnut
- Posts: 17821
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:40 am
- Name: Jacob
- Location: Ithaca, NY USA
Re: Global slow down...
You're right that 18 months isn't feasible. However, mid-may? We just need more time, testing, and information before we can make an informed choice on how to go forward.JBZ wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:47 amUltimately, I think keeping everyone quarantined for 18 months is completely unreasonable. But what we're doing now should buy us time to ramp up testing and medical resources, which will allow us to engage in targeted quarantines/isolation and ease the strain on the healthcare system. That will probably allow people to get back to work even before a vaccine is developed.JP Chestnut wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:35 amI totally agree with you. I'd MUCH rather the government dump massive amounts of money into the hands of people who are suffering than ease this up and make it all for nothing.JBZ wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:31 amThe problem with just re-opening for business is that it won't solve anything. We are in the middle of a pandemic. So simply telling everyone that businesses are open won't mean that the economy will get back to normal. Lots of people will still be reluctant to gather in groups at restaurants, events, on airplanes, etc. And, since the real decision regarding whether to shut things down has been left to the states, some states will relax their rules, and some won't.
Meanwhile, the promotion of such a policy means that more people WILL do those things, which means more people will get sick, which means a greater likelihood that the healthcare system gets overwhelmed, which means more deaths from Covid-19 and other maladies that require hospitalization or medical attention due to lack of resources.
So it would basically be the worst of both worlds. More dead people AND a shitty economy. Better to continue what we're doing - social distancing to flatten the curve, ramping up production of PPE (hopefully), researching/developing a vaccine and medications, and counting on Congress to pass a stimulus package to keep everyone afloat (which they seem close to right now, but we'll see).
We have already shit all over the economy. Let's get something out of it at least.
And no one, regardless of political party, is entirely comfortable with a $2 trillion stimulus package that's getting put together this quickly. As a former boss once said, "that's something that can only get fucked up." But I don't see much of an alternative at this point. The feds have to stop the bleeding.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: BramleyGreg, gwells, Henryj, R@cerx, tyd450 and 683 guests