[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4932

File: 1589526295458.jpg (162.68 KB, 701x1140, 701:1140, 1445918935305-3.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Continuation of the locked thread on /pony/

>>1034155
You presume the assumptions are unknown. That's your problem.
Reality is, just examining the numbers demonstrates this.

Rent costs money. This alone makes the idea that businesses wouldn't shut down completely ridiculous on the face of it.
Businesses around the world already do when for whatever reason they get a several-month dry season.
Rent is expensive, and typically requires a down payment. They're typically set to a contract, too, with penalties and forfeitures in the event that contract is canceled.
The equipment then will need to be moved, if it is not sold to pay for the penalties which needless to say will also be difficult given the economic shutdown. Storing and moving that equipment costs additional piles of money.

This isn't some "cascade of events". This is a flat linear progression of a single event. Businesses are expensive. If they're not making money, they can't pay for themselves. This is something understood by any economist.

And speaking of "can't know", maybe you ought to look in the mirror? You sure make an awful amount of assumptions about what's going to happen with the virus, after all. Are you going to insist that's all guaranteed somehow?

>>1034156
>which is why we social distance and hold things down. so that the steady stream of cases go into the hospital and more people live.
Yes, and you can do this WITHOUT quarantining the population and causing massive economic collapse.

>loosening the restrictions without proper testing is what will burst the dam
That all depends on how you loosen it. If by "loosening" you mean to assume that I mean "Entirely open it up 100%", then sure. But, since that's obviously not the case, and not something ever suggested, then surely loosening in areas with low infection rates as is, especially in areas where the population aren't at significant risk seems to have no major risks whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the blatant economic damages that are caused by a complete quarantine as we're currently in are going on while you're too paranoid to do the most minor of loosenings.

>that is simply untrue, and even if it was, that is the optimal state for them. to say otherwise is simply warped thinking
According to what? I have yet to see any information to suggest hospitals are at capacity. I've only heard reports that the reverse is true.

And, no absolutely not is "under capacity" the best state of affairs, when your economy is actively dying.

>hospitals aren't a company, they are a public service for people in need. if there is nobody at the hospital because everyone is healthy, then that's a great day for humanity.
And when they're below capacity because the government says we have to avoid getting over capacity, then that government is lying through their teeth.
Because the claimed benefit isn't actually being presented.
The whole point was not to overload hospitals.
Because, once again you cannot stop an infection that already exists in the population. This is a flat mathematical reality. All you're accomplishing is killing the economy, for no good reason.

>the plan is to save lives, and the loss of work and small businesses are an unfortunate side effect.
Your plan as presented thus far saves no lives.
The economic collapse will kill.

>and what i'm choosing is to save lives, so that the whole of human suffering is lessened as a whole. cause while it sucks to shut down a start up business, it sucks even more to lose ma and pa to a devestating disease, who's business would be closed anyways due to passing away.
You assume human suffering is lessened.
It is not.
Economic devastation will cause horrific human suffering. This is a known fact. Just look at the economic depressions of the past.

You are willing to sacrifice people's livelihoods, not even for a 'few'. Just for the peace of mind, that doesn't actually do anything.

 No.4933

If you want you can link across boards like
>>>/pony/1034155

I was hearing the story of a woman who opened an ice cream shop somewhere in Washington or Oregon who might lose the entire business over the outbreak. I think I heard about it on NPR. Not sure if this is the same company, but this is an example of what people are going through. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-chronicles-ice-cream-shop-owner-lays-off-staff-save-company/

This whole situation is a nightmare scenario for small businesses, which is a shame.

>>4932
> then surely loosening in areas with low infection rates as is, especially in areas where the population aren't at significant risk seems to have no major risks whatsoever.
I agree that these decisions should be made on a case by case basis, though I don't really trust most governments to get it right. Too many political pressures both ways. But if the science and data supports a certain area is safe to reopen, I wouldn't want to hold that back with a universal stay at home order.

>>4932
>Because, once again you cannot stop an infection that already exists in the population. This is a flat mathematical reality. All you're accomplishing is killing the economy, for no good reason.
I'm curious, what is your response to this article
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

>>4932
>and what i'm choosing is to save lives, so that the whole of human suffering is lessened as a whole
I do think people don't consider that an economic depression causes tremendous harm in and of itself. I think they call people who graduated around the time of the recession "the lost generation". So many people who entered that market basically never got a chance at the life they had planned out. Which I mean, life isn't fair and nobody was entitled to a good paying job. But, still caused a lot of harm.

I think there needs to be a balance here between fighting the virus and saving the economy. Countries like South Korea are finding success in that, we need to start getting our shit together and emulate that success.

 No.4934

>>4933
My biggest fear with all of this is that small business will effectively go extinct, and we'll be stuck relying nearly entirely on megacorporations.
That's not something I think will lead to a healthy society.

>though I don't really trust most governments to get it right.
I'll agree there. Especially since politicians are terrified of anything that could make them look bad.
It's why they've always been reactionary, when it comes to crisis, and prevention is rarely done.

>I'm curious, what is your response to this article
I'll give it a read and get back to you.
Going off the summary, seems about right, in terms of why a quarantine was necessary. A flood of infected will collapse the medical system, which'd result in unnecessary death.

>I think there needs to be a balance here between fighting the virus and saving the economy.
I can agree there. That's my biggest fuss with all this, honestly. If it serves a benefit, without a significant cost, all I've got is objections on principle.
The way it's currently going, though, it seems there's little to no benefit, for a whole lot of cost.

In regards to the 'lost generation' thing, that's mostly people who started in that recession. I realize it's hard for them, too, but, honestly, they're not who I feel the worst for.
It's the people who were in that market before a recession. Basically, people who were starting out. Trying to build for themselves. People who've invested some ten plus years of hard work trying to create their own thing.
Watching all that collapse and then being stuck in the same place as people half your age, having to compete with them for the same job, that's seriously rough.

 No.4935

File: 1589529675242.png (343.43 KB, 2000x1085, 400:217, 1 a9Lcz2g8DkKdnW0o_vk3ow.png) ImgOps Google

>>4933
Seems rather interesting. I can't say I disagree much with what's presented here.
The only thing I will say is, I don't know if I would put such stock on a vaccine.
As I understand it in regards to the flu, it's usually mutated heavily by that point and doesn't tend to do much.I'd expect something similar in regards to this virus, since the article seems to say it's mutated already rather significantly

But, that's a minor thing. It's still miles better than the current strategy, and the strategy echoed by many.
Only problem then is whether or not it is possible to execute. I suspect the answer to that one is "no".

 No.4936

>>4932
Landlords can forgive rent during the pandemic. Or the government can pay it for small businesses while businesses are closed. Rent isn't some absolute fact of the universe. You assume everything must continue the way it has when those broken systems are what lead to this crisis in the first place. They can be changed at any time.

All of situations are all "mights" and "maybes". Even IF we assume that yes, some businesses will be forced to close because of the pandemic, you cannot assume that this will financially ruin someone who this happens to, or that they will commit suicide. Your deaths are far-off hypothetical whereas re-opening too soon will cause certain, preventable deaths. It's not an "assumption" to say people will die from the virus. People are STILL dying from this.

 No.4938

>>4936
Landlords have expenses too. As to the government, the question'd be how much that'd cost.
Can't just print money forever.

In regards to the results of economic devastation, I'd say we can simply look at the past.
History's chock full of economic depressions.
And, frankly, your deaths are just as hypothetical. I see no cause to believe loosening restrictions is going to cause a massive surge in preventable death. As I understand it, hospitals are well under capacity, which would make this the logical time to loosen those, if the goal was to 'flatten the curve'

 No.4939

>>4938
You don't need to "print money" if you tax the wealthy their fair share. Or cut military spending. Or any number of things you could do to make sure people don't die and you don't have to sacrifice them to a preventable death.

They aren't hypothetical. At all. People are still dying of the disease. People dying of the disease is far more immediate and apparent than people potentially committing suicide after losing their businesses. Again, that is based on assumptions built on more assumptions. They aren't even in the same category as actual statistics.

I'm not even sure your statement on hospitals is true. Please source this information. But even if it were, hospitals having beds is not the only issue. People still need access to hospitals. Many Americans simply could not afford to go to a hospital even if they are sick. Also, having the beds is not the only concern hospitals have. Do they have the supplies they need? The staff? The resources to cover all these people? Hospitals are still struggling to meet demands for ventilators and testing is still far under where it should be.

Also, being so focused on the capacity of hospitals while ignoring all these other issues makes it sound like you do not care if people get sick, even though they don't have to. I won't assume this is your attitude, but it comes off as callous.

 No.4940

>>4939
While I'm more than in favor of cutting the military budget, I think you underestimate how much it would cost. Military budget is only 689 billion, whereas as I understand it, the current stimulus package that doesn't even cover such things as is is around 3 trillion dollars.

People are dying, yes, but the question is if it's preventable.
Given the way viruses work, I do not believe it is. Unless you're going to quite literally keep people quarantined for years, and likely even then, when the quarantine breaks it will spread again.
There's a reason the flu continues to spread regardless of how much time is passed. One person infected who spreads it to another, and it starts growing exponentially.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/california-hospitals-empty-hospitals/2020/04/22/id/964143/
"Under capacity" doesn't mean just beds, incidentally. It means "under capacity" as the term says.
I never said anything about beds, as far as I can tell. Don't know where you got this odd idea it's only about beds.

>makes it sound like you do not care if people get sick, even though they don't have to.
People will get sick regardless. That's the way any virus works. You cannot stop a virus by quarantining the already-exposed general population. All you can do is slow it down.
To be quite frank, I do not understand where all this misinformation around how viruses work comes from. Pretty sure everyone who said we had to quarantine straight up said it was to 'flatten the curve'. Nobody said anything about shortening it, or preventing it outright, because that's impossible.

Read the article Caterpillar posted. It helps explain a lot of that >>4933

As far as 'callousness' goes, let me phrase it like this:
If the choice is, people get infected now, or people get infected later but also we have to pay a small fortune that destroys the livelihoods of millions, it seems an incredibly easy choice for me.
Honestly, if anything, the desire to just delay the disease at the direct cost of so many is what strikes me as callous.

 No.4941

>>4940
Just because some people getting the virus is not completely preventable does not mean we should just not even try to limit it's spread. That is why not lifting the quarantine too early is so important. We want as few people contracting (and spreading) it as possible.

When I say "beds", I don't mean literal mattresses. I'm using it as short hand for hospitals having the space to hold sick patients.  But my other concerns such as supplies and staff are still a factor. But even if hospitals are starting to free up extra space now (I'm stil lnot sure that is a reliable bit of information) our goal should still be to avoid people contracting the virus. It is still very possible that enough people get sick at once, the hospitals could get over-run again, or worse this time.

There is no reason to sacrifice people to preventable deaths to hold up an economy that helps the %1 above all else. It's time they helped us, the "essential workers", because they could not have made their fortunes without our labor. And unless you are part of the %1, you should not be championing re-opening sooner than necessary to guarantee the safety of as many people as possible. Which we aren't there yet. We still need more testing, more medical supplies, and more support for at-risk people. Suburbanites being able to go the restaurants is the least of our concerns now.

 No.4943

>>4941
As I understand it, it isn't "some" people. This is the nature of exponential growth.
You're going to have the same ultimate infected. Or possibly more, due to the lack of exposure developing immunity.
That's why nobody ever said when we started this quarantine that we were going to "shorten" the curve, or "cut" the curve. We were going to flatten it. Still have to deal with the same length, just over a longer period of time, so as to avoid overwhelming our logistics network.

>When I say "beds", I don't mean literal mattresses. I'm using it as short hand for hospitals having the space to hold sick patients
Okay. Same problem. When I said capacity, I wasn't talking "space". I was talking capacity.

If I'm running a McDonalds, we may well have 50 chairs inside, but if I've only got two workers, I can't feed that number at the same time. My capacity is less than that.

>t is still very possible that enough people get sick at once, the hospitals could get over-run again, or worse this time.
So loosen, not completely open. Look at a case-by-case, even tighten if you have to. It's "possible", sure, but possibilities can always be mitigated with proper measures.

>There is no reason to sacrifice people to preventable deaths to hold up an economy that helps the %1 above all else.
I find the class argument horrifically laughable at best, and downright dishonest at worst.

The 1% don't give much a damn when the economy takes a tumble. They're not overly effected by it. Sure, they might not get the massive cut they want, but, when you're that wealthy it doesn't really matter.
The people who are effected the worst by any depression are always the working class.

>And unless you are part of the %1, you should not be championing re-opening sooner than necessary to guarantee the safety of as many people as possible.
I was never a fan of the "either you agree with me, or you're with THEM" argument.
Couldn't I just echo you?
"Unless you're a part of the 1% who can afford it, you shouldn't be championing closing longer than necessary to guarantee the safety of the wealthy over the people who need to work to survive".
It's not exactly productive, is it? Just going to breed further hostility.

>Suburbanites being able to go the restaurants is the least of our concerns now.
Of course. But then I never suggested it was. This is what is commonly referred to as a "strawman". A dishonest way of presenting an argument in the worst possible light in order to avoid the case being made.

My trouble is that most of us need to actually work in order to pay our bills and actually keep our progress in the world. Closing longer than necessary because of the paranoia largely pushed by an elite that can afford to sit around for ages isn't helpful.

 No.4982

This guy does an absolutely excellent breakdown of my troubles with all of this. It's very much seeming like government got a taste and bit the whole.

 No.5063

>>4982
I'm not in favour of what he's saying, though.

We need to make our choice, is this virus dangerous or not?
Well, it's easy to say "most of the deaths are elderly and flu kills many anyways". What are the facts on these?
Quite a number of people who got the "mild" case have felt it as a pretty heavy time of sickness and at times hospitals were getting flooded with otherwise healthy people getting severely sick, even if many survived.
Given this is not a flat out lie and tempering with the numbers, where all health workers are somehow in on the conspiracy, this is a fact.
And we managed to curb some numbers by adding the lockdowns.

So, given we don't follow the government lies and there was never any illness at all road, we can say that the Corona virus is causing a fastspreading pretty severe illness that if not killing you, puts you in enough of a bind that you're likely going to be recovering in a hospital.

When you're at that point, you must wonder, can we open everything up again the same as before? Whenever you open things up again, people are going to get sick and the virus will spread more again.
And then it comes up to ballancing how much risk we want to take to allow our freedom again. Only note that if you take more risk, you don't risk yourself only on it. You risk the well being of everyone around.

I don't know what the deal exactly is with Sweden, but keep in mind that the living situation in an average Swedish city does not match the living conditions in other places.

 No.5064

>>5063
I do not think it's accurate to say that if you catch the virus, you "likely" have to recover in a hospital. I've certainly not seen any data like that so far. My understanding is most people are sent home, told not to go out, and expected to rest until it goes away. It certainly stops you from working, sure, but, I've not heard anyone say it requires hospitalization.

Right now, we're risking a mass collapse of our economy, with many small businesses unable to ever financially recover.  And the question has to be, "For what?"
Given the status of other nations who did not shut down, and states which either didn't shut down or at least didn't fully shut down, you have to wonder how much this actually helped.
Why are we locking down everything, now with the insane proposal of waiting until we've got a cure, when so many other places seem to have done fine with none or just minor restrictions?

We knew from the start that people were going to get sick and the virus was going to spread. There was no way to stop it once it's already in your population. This was only ever supposed to be a delaying tactic to keep our logistics networks from being overwhelmed. Well, if that was the excuse they gave, why is it continuing?
We've gone well beyond that point. We've sprinted past it, and are now selling our country's future for nothing. Just the appeasement of the paranoid who can afford to do nothing.

>Only note that if you take more risk, you don't risk yourself only on it. You risk the well being of everyone around.
But isn't that our choice to make?
If they're paranoid, they can remain home.
If they're not, they can take that risk.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200415040652/https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/7point5-million-small-businesses-are-at-risk-of-closing-report-finds.html

 No.5065

>>5064
>I do not think it's accurate to say that if you catch the virus, you "likely" have to recover in a hospital. I've certainly not seen any data like that so far.

For sure the high load on hospitals and general crises that came from places where the pandemic struck hard (Italy / France / UK / New York / Spain) and overworked hospital staff together with  a sizeable casualty rate should be sufficient data for that, no? The fact that plenty of people who are otherwise healthy land up there,..
Unless, once again, we go with the theory that it is all inflated and mass hysteria to coax people into giving up their liberties, that is.

> Well, if that was the excuse they gave, why is it continuing?
Because the virus doesn't just pack its bags and leave and we still have no proper way to deal with it.
If we give up now, we could have as well done nothing special when it started. Let it rage and kill off a good part of the population but at least we still have our freedom, huh?


> But isn't that our choice to make?
It's as much our choice as our choice to get pissdrunk and speed through traffic. Sure, it sucks for you if you get sick, but you're gonna infect other people who don't want to get sick and who might likely die.

 No.5066

>>5065
>a sizeable casualty rate should be sufficient data for that, no?
Of course not, no.
Not for a claim of 'likely'. I'd consider likely to represent more than 50%, at bear minimum, and realistically at least 75%.
If you want to say it can cause people to end up in the hospital, sure. Especially the elderly and those with pre-existing medical issues, or weakened immune systems.

>Because the virus doesn't just pack its bags and leave and we still have no proper way to deal with it.
Yes, obviously. Thus the statement I made in >>5064 right before what you're quoting here, about how it was to "delay".
You cannot get rid of viruses by quarantining the general population if the virus is already present. You only delay it.

>If we give up now, we could have as well done nothing special when it started.
If we "give up now", we'd be doing exactly what we said we were going to do.
Nobody, not a single person I know of, ever said we need to quarantine indefinitely until there is a cure.
It was always to flatten the curve.
Do you know what flattening the curve means, or are you uninformed on the particulars of this item? It was all over the media, pretty well plastered at every level, so I'm going to have to say, I'll be quite surprised if you somehow managed to miss it.

> Let it rage and kill off a good part of the population but at least we still have our freedom, huh?
If it's a choice between let it rage and kill off a portion of the population, or quarantine for ages and let economic deprevation and food shortages on top of the virus that will not just magically go away not to mention general civil unrest killing off the population, the choice is rather easy, isn't it?
It's quite literally "kill 50 people" vs "kill 50 people later, and also hundreds of other people on top of that".

>Sure, it sucks for you if you get sick, but you're gonna infect other people who don't want to get sick and who might likely die.
Then they should be quarantining themselves.
This is the thing that I do not get.
So many people echo this  argument as though it makes any kind of rational sense.

Listen: If I drive a car, there's a risk I might get hit by someone. I accept that risk by getting in to my car and driving.
It would be utter madness to say to everyone "Nobody gets to drive a car, because he's scared he might get hit by someone". If I'm scared, I shouldn't be driving, I absolutely shouldn't force everyone else to stop just because of me.

 No.5068

>>5066
You've been making a lot of claims in this thread that i'm going to need some statistics on.

You claim hospitals are under capacity, but I'm still hearing of numerous places where this isn't the case. Such as Alabama (https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2020/05/20/montgomery-down-one-icu-bed-sending-virus-patients-birmingham/5227449002/). What is your source on this information?

You claim that most people do not need to recover from this disease in a hospital. What is your source on this information?

Also you keep asserting that the stay-at-home will irreparable damage the economy, but other countries have managed it without such a result. Where are you getting that information?  

 No.5070

>>5068
As far as the economic concerns, I already posted a direct link for that particular line talking about how many small businesses are in danger of closing forever.

In regards to the hospital ization rate, that was your claim. You said that it was great enough to be "likely".
I said I don't believe that's true.

Name regards to the Alabama ICU lot, as I understand it, that's a classic example of fake news, as what is really happening is that in order to lower chance of spreading, as well as keep emergency slots open, ICU rooms are being marked as unavailable when adjacent to occupied rooms.
I will see if I can get a link on this later.

none the less, I feel that you ignore the issues I continue to point out, as it is inconvenient to your narrative.
It strikes me that you aren't inclined to engage with any ideas read conflict with your particular worldview.
Why should we maintain a lockdown indefinitely?
That should be the crux of this issue. Alongside how we can afford it.

 No.5076

>>5070
You can't claim something is fake news without any counter-evidence. Yes, I'd like to see that when you get the chance to supply it.

>Why should we maintain a lockdown indefinitely?

No one is saying we should. Not a single person has suggested the lock-down last forever. It literally cannot. But it should last until all the possible precautions have been taken and the maximum number of people can be safe. And with cases of the virus still rising, that isn't the case. Many businesses still can't get sanitation supplies or masks for their employees or customers. Many hospitals are still over capacity and No clear universal safety protocols have been put into place. Like I said, look to other countries and what they are doing or did to prepare to reopen. Then look at America. We aren't doing enough. We can't send people to die.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]