Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Janet Yellen supposedly Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary
Thanks Lewis, you got to this before me. Though perhaps I can add a little context and data.
Here's a news report from KCRA Sacramento. This or something like it could be the source of this misinformation on rates. The headline is correct, but the body of the report (regarding rates) isn't.
Study: California leads in health care worker COVID-19 infections
A report release in September by National Nurses United, the country's largest nurses union, found that California is leading in COVID-19 infection rates amongst health care workers nationwide. The Golden State reported 35,525 infection cases, followed by Georgia at 17,317, then Florida at 16,380. California ranks third in overall health care worker deaths, behind New York and New Jersey.
Anyone reading that and having at least a passing familiarity with US states would realize that California couldn't have the highest infection rate. The Peach State's population is 1/4 that of California, making its infection rate roughly twice as high.
Only 15 states are providing infection numbers for all health care workers on a daily, semiweekly, or weekly basis. In May, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began requiring nursing homes to provide Covid-related health care worker infection and mortality data, which is publicly available from CMS. For the hospital industry, however, data collection on health care worker infections and deaths has been woefully inadequate.
The full report notes that just 16 states provide infection figures for all health care workers regardless of frequency. Table 6 there is labeled "Covid-19 Health Care Worker Infection Rates". In actuality, it gives the number of health care worker infections as a percentage of total infections. California has the 2nd lowest rate of the 16 states.
That comes with a qualification that could easily apply to the entire report: "Some variation among the states may be due to more aggressive testing of health care workers in some areas."
Both of you are mincing words to avoid my point and to support your brethren. The fact is that Mark DIRECTLY blamed Florida's "moronic" governor for the death of his friends in Florida who were healthcare workers. He wrote: "I have lost friends in FL because of the moronic way the governor and money grubbing crowd in that state have chosen to deal with Covid." We can debate how bad California has done on Covid in light of its policies (even "morons" know that if you lock everything down you will reduce covid) but the FACT is that many healthcare workers in California still died even with "smart" policy. It's simply not a fair debate if you ignore the social impact of lockdowns. That's where reasonable people can disagree and it is a fair point of debate. Mark also said on the heels of MSF's post softening Cuomo's blame for the nursing home fiasco that Cuomo, unlike DeSantis "did as the scientific and medical advisors suggested." This is also untrue. Cuomo himself did not defend his decision based on science. He essentially though falsely said he followed Trump's CDC guidance (according to PolitiFact https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/13/andrew-cuomo/new-yorks-nursing-home-policy-was-not-line-cdc/) Just as clearly, Cuomo did not follow the "science." The day after Cuomo issued his directive the AMDA responded that it was "over-reaching, not consistent with science, unenforceable, and beyond all, not in the least consistent with patient safety principles." https://paltc.org/sites/default/files/Statement on the March 25 NYSDOH Advisory.pdf
Both of you are mincing words to avoid my point and to support your brethren. ..We can debate how bad California has done on Covid in light of its policies
No one is mincing your words except you. You said with regard to Covid death-rate outcomes that Newsom's record for California was "pretty dreadful overall." That is fundamentally a false statement, according to the CDC's analysis of state outcomes. What I despise is a tendency often found on Fox and with your own statements to claim something well-established like anthropogenic climate change is "debatable" when it isn't unless you go outside the realm of science into the rightwing fantasy-land of conspiracies. Now you are backpedaling and claiming you were really discussing the "social impact" of the policies. Your original words were:
but conveniently ignore that Gavin Newsome (another big science guy, right) has presided over the state with the worst covid record amongst healthcare workers (and pretty dreadful overall). Did he kill his state's healthcare workers too?
That is clearly not a reference to "social impacts."
Both of you are mincing words to avoid my point and to support your brethren. ..We can debate how bad California has done on Covid in light of its policies
No one is mincing your words except you. You said with regard to Covid death-rate outcomes that Newsom's record for California was "pretty dreadful overall." That is fundamentally a false statement, according to the CDC's analysis of state outcomes. What I despise is a tendency often found on Fox and with your own statements to claim something well-established like anthropogenic climate change is "debatable" when it isn't unless you go outside the realm of science into the rightwing fantasy-land of conspiracies. Now you are backpedaling and claiming you were really discussing the "social impact" of the policies. Your original words were:
but conveniently ignore that Gavin Newsome (another big science guy, right) has presided over the state with the worst covid record amongst healthcare workers (and pretty dreadful overall). Did he kill his state's healthcare workers too?
That is clearly not a reference to "social impacts."
No, Lew, you did mince words and now you are creating entirely new ones. I never said as you falsely summarize: "with regard to Covid death-rate outcomes that Newsom's record for California was "pretty dreadful overall.'" I never mentioned "rates" or "death rate outcomes." What I said exactly was California was "the state with the worst covid record amongst healthcare workers (and pretty dreadful overall)." You chose to define "worst" and "dreadful" as you did, good for you. My statement was not made false by you sua sponte adding a comparative analysis with states with totally different covid policies. It doesn't take a genius to understand that if you shut down everything covid rates will be lower than if you didn't. My POINT (which was very clear to an unbiased reader) was that even with "smart" policies (according to those who choose to post on such matters here anyway) there are plenty of cases of covid and so it's absurd to blame the deaths of two healthcare workers on covid policy. Of course Florida is on one of the spectrum and California the other with respect to covid restrictions. I didn't need to spell that out for a careful reader like you, did I? But why beat around the bush with rhetoric, let's get to it smart man. Was DeSantis "directly" responsible for the death of Mark's friends, and, if so, is Newsom responsible for the deaths in his state (regardless of "rates")? And while you're at it, please tell me if you think Cuomo "followed the science" in sending covid infected persons into nursing homes? That's what this discussion centered on, but you have discussed everything but that.
@wxman123 What your point is, your real point then, is that sacrificing human life in exchange for personal wealth is an acceptable outcome if you are more concerned about the "social impact" than the death rate as you say. Why not just come out and say that keeping businesses open is more important than death rates to you, that some people are expendable? Because to say having one of the lowest state death rates as Newsom does with California is "pretty dreadful overall" because you don't like that some businesses are closed means as much. The difference between a 50 person per 100,000 people death rate and a 100 person per 100,000 death rate is not meaningless to the 50 people who didn't die as a result or to the families of the 50 extra people who did die. Nor is having half the infection rate of another more laissez-faire state meaningless to those who didn't get infected or those who did.
So OK, if I misinterpreted what you were saying, the ethical implications are far worse from my perspective. So yes you did need to spell that out to me. Thank you for doing that. To just say well a lot of people are getting sick anyway so who cares what the infection or death rate is seems pretty cynical. The question is who should be sacrificed for the greater economic good, who are the expendable ones? You? Me? Maybe just the old and poor. It's worth it so bars can stay open.
Anytime you personalize an issue you stymie legitimate discourse. What bothers me are people who present themselves as objective truth-seers but then resort to the most base assertion, like DeSantis directly killed specific individuals because of "moronic" policies. I agree that there is a difference when we compare death rates among states, but saying California is amongst the lowest because of its policies is not something clear nor easily proven. NY/NJ with tight restrictions are among the worst, far worse than Florida. But, yes, the timing of when those deaths happened matters...but then again you have the Cuomo policy factor so there is that. Does that count? Oklahoma with pretty lax restrictions has a better rate than California. Very complicated. So back to your question; to me it's not at all clear that covid restrictions have had such a tremendous impact that it's worth the strain on society. If the goal is simply to save every life at any cost then the policy would be easy. Impose Marshall law and order people to stay home. Is that what you advocate? In the end I think all of us have an opinion on the right balance, you and I just disagree on what that is. What is unfair is saying my opinion puts me on the side of murderers.
Never said you were a "murderer," just that you believe some people are expendable and worth sacrificing so the economy can grow, and just as you claim it isn't at all clear that restrictive policies help with infection rates--tell that to South Korea or Germany--I can also say that it isn't at all clear that opening every or most businesses up without health restrictions will be good for the economy long-term. There are plenty of people who can argue quite cogently that it is bad economics if many more people get infected, can't work or shop and end up in the hospital as a result. It is also bad eco if the pandemic persists longer in our country than other competing countries instead of waiting for the vaccine to be released before opening up. What is clear is you think the sacrifice of lives is worth it.
Never said you were a "murderer," just that you believe some people are expendable and worth sacrificing so the economy can grow, and just as you claim it isn't at all clear that restrictive policies help with infection rates--tell that to South Korea or Germany--I can also say that it isn't at all clear that opening every or most businesses up without health restrictions will be good for the economy long-term. There are plenty of people who can argue quite cogently that it is bad economics if many more people get infected, can't work or shop and end up in the hospital as a result. It is also bad eco if the pandemic persists longer in our country than other competing countries instead of waiting for the vaccine to be released before opening up. What is clear is you think the sacrifice of lives is worth it.
So do you, it's just that you draw the line differently. You evaded my question: do you advocate a total "stay at home" lockdown, which unequivocally would save the most lives relative to covid? If not, then you too "think the sacrifice of lives is worth it." By the way, I never said I was against all restrictions, I favor wearing masks for example. As for closing public establishments, I'm more of a freedom of choice guy. I know in Florida, some restaurants offer well-spaced outdoor seating despite no government restrictions. I (and many others) would choose to go to those but avoid places acting like nothing ever happened. Policies designed to protect people from themselves are of questionable utility, and punishing the good folks, like closing down those in California who planned for safe outdoor dining, makes little sense to me.
@wxman123 And you are ignoring my point that by the measures that matter most regarding health, Newsom's covid response has been successful and not at all "pretty dreadful overall" as you stated. Would you admit he has been successful relative to other states?
Under the Regional Stay Home Order Can We Go Outside?
Members of the same household are encouraged to maintain physical and mental health by safely going to a park, a beach, hike, walk, or bike ride with members of their own household. Californians are also encouraged to keep connected with loved ones virtually.
Limiting mixing and movement of individuals from different households is critical in order to stop the transmission of the virus.
First, the order isn't for all of California but for any region that "falls below 15% ICU bed availability, the Regional Stay Home Order goes into effect." But secondly, what really bothers you if this aspect of Stay at Home does is not that people are forced to stay inside--they can still go outside--but that they can't congregate in large numbers at businesses. That's it, the making money part that seems to upset the GOP.
But also the would-I-support-a-total-lockdown question is a false one because like the California order itself, the answer really depends on the infection rate, the availability of medical treatment, and the length of the lockdown. My answer is yes I would support a total lockdown if conditions were severe enough and no I wouldn't if they weren't that severe. But it's a false question because no U.S. politician has enforced a "total lockdown."
What really bothers you is the inability to make as much money from businesses as before. And you are willing to sacrifice lives for those businesses. The appropriate anology is to the movie Jaws and the mayor who refuses to shut the beaches down when a shark is killing people. It wasn't human life he was concerned about. It was the loss of the summer business. If he shut the beaches, people could still leave their homes, just not congregate in the water where the shark was.
And this anology is especially relevant in relation to DeSantis in Florida, given the beaches there and his lousy response to the pandemic. This is where he is ethically now: https://aol.com/entertainment/florida-gop-official-resigns-protest-075650944.html Even members of his own party are abandoning him as he tries to suppress the truth.
The Jaws analogy is even relevant on an economic basis, because it's fair to say that from a long-term economic perspective shutting down the beaches temporarily would have been a better idea. The brand value of the beach was severely damaged by keeping the beaches open because tourists will think after the attacks "That's the beach where ten people died from shark attacks because the greedy mayor cared more about business interests than human life." They won't want to go to that beach even after the shark is gone. So, in the short-term business is lost from the shut down and the local economy is hurt. But in the long-term, it's actually better for the business's brand to have a pristine safety record. It won't have the stain on its record of unecessary deaths.
To put it in Covid terms, I have no desire to visit Florida as a tourist right now and probably won't for a long-time even after Covid is gone because of DeSantis's terrible response.
Additional side effects are surfacing with regard to the Pfizer vaccine that were not observed during trails (individuals with allergy sensitivities at greater risk to negative side effects). This may slow its deployment.
MA reporting today that 64% of all state deaths are still occurring in senior care facilities. Many of these residents leave the care facility to be treated by area hospitals and then are being sent back to the facility where special wings are being setup when possible. Contracting Covid-19 complicates the already compromised health of this population.
Using MA data, that means 36% of Covid-19 related deaths are occurring outside of these facilities. Again, do some / most of these individuals often have compromised health issues? The vaccines (with all there potential side effects) may be the best response for both of these populations.
We hear a lot about positivity rates which is important when dealing with the problem of transmission, but does anyone have numbers on the death rate of "healthy" individuals? Herd immunity...which is a thing... will play a part in this population because we mingle more in herds.
Seniors home residents seem to be our top priority going forward, then our general population that have preexisting conditions. coronavirus & preexisting conditions Masks, vaccines, and common sense behavior all play a part for the rest of us
As far as the economy is concerned. Senior facility have little impact. E-commerce has entered into a perfect storm and should emerge stronger than ever. Home based businesses will grow. Small businesses (in- store retail) are being tested, while big box retail gains market share. Travel and leisure businesses are in full stress test mode. For individuals whose jobs are going away we'll need re-training programs, Shifting resources toward construction and infrastructure projects would make good sense.
Additional side effects are surfacing with regard to the Pfizer vaccine that were not observed during trails (individuals with allergy sensitivities at greater risk to negative side effects). This may slow its deployment.
MA reporting today that 64% of all state deaths are still occurring in senior care facilities. Many of these residents leave the care facility to be treated by area hospitals and then are being sent back to the facility where special wings are being setup when possible. Contracting Covid-19 complicates the already compromised health of this population.
Using MA data, that means 36% of Covid-19 related deaths are occurring outside of these facilities. Again, do some / most of these individuals often have compromised health issues? The vaccines (with all there potential side effects) may be the best response for both of these populations.
We hear a lot about positivity rates which is important when dealing with the problem of transmission, but does anyone have numbers on the death rate of "healthy" individuals? Herd immunity...which is a thing... will play a part in this population because we mingle more in herds.
Seniors home residents seem to be our top priority going forward, then our general population that have preexisting conditions. coronavirus & preexisting conditions Masks, vaccines, and common sense behavior all play a part for the rest of us
As far as the economy is concerned. Senior facility have little impact. E-commerce has entered into a perfect storm and should emerge stronger than ever. Home based businesses will grow. Small businesses (in- store retail) are being tested, while big box retail gains market share. Travel and leisure businesses are in full stress test mode. For individuals whose jobs are going away we'll need re-training programs, Shifting resources toward construction and infrastructure projects would make good sense.
Basically if you're under 60 and healthy there's a 99% chance you'll live. As you get older the risk of death increases greatly.
@wxman123 And you are ignoring my point that by the measures that matter most regarding health, Newsom's covid response has been successful and not at all "pretty dreadful overall" as you stated. Would you admit he has been successful relative to other states?
Under the Regional Stay Home Order Can We Go Outside?
Members of the same household are encouraged to maintain physical and mental health by safely going to a park, a beach, hike, walk, or bike ride with members of their own household. Californians are also encouraged to keep connected with loved ones virtually.
Limiting mixing and movement of individuals from different households is critical in order to stop the transmission of the virus.
First, the order isn't for all of California but for any region that "falls below 15% ICU bed availability, the Regional Stay Home Order goes into effect." But secondly, what really bothers you if this aspect of Stay at Home does is not that people are forced to stay inside--they can still go outside--but that they can't congregate in large numbers at businesses. That's it, the making money part that seems to upset the GOP.
But also the would-I-support-a-total-lockdown question is a false one because like the California order itself, the answer really depends on the infection rate, the availability of medical treatment, and the length of the lockdown. My answer is yes I would support a total lockdown if conditions were severe enough and no I wouldn't if they weren't that severe. But it's a false question because no U.S. politician has enforced a "total lockdown."
What really bothers you is the inability to make as much money from businesses as before. And you are willing to sacrifice lives for those businesses. The appropriate anology is to the movie Jaws and the mayor who refuses to shut the beaches down when a shark is killing people. It wasn't human life he was concerned about. It was the loss of the summer business. If he shut the beaches, people could still leave their homes, just not congregate in the water where the shark was.
And this anology is especially relevant in relation to DeSantis in Florida, given the beaches there and his lousy response to the pandemic. This is where he is ethically now: https://aol.com/entertainment/florida-gop-official-resigns-protest-075650944.html Even members of his own party are abandoning him as he tries to suppress the truth.
The Jaws analogy is even relevant on an economic basis, because it's fair to say that from a long-term economic perspective shutting down the beaches temporarily would have been a better idea. The brand value of the beach was severely damaged by keeping the beaches open because tourists will think after the attacks "That's the beach where ten people died from shark attacks because the greedy mayor cared more about business interests than human life." They won't want to go to that beach even after the shark is gone. So, in the short-term business is lost from the shut down and the local economy is hurt. But in the long-term, it's actually better for the business's brand to have a pristine safety record. It won't have the stain on its record of unecessary deaths.
To put it in Covid terms, I have no desire to visit Florida as a tourist right now and probably won't for a long-time even after Covid is gone because of DeSantis's terrible response.
The length of your reply doesn't hide the fact that you are simply picking a line of covid restriction with which you agree. Within that band you are willing to accept deaths that would not occur with greater restriction, and villainizing those who have a different perspective. Sure, you say you would support a full lockdown under "severe" enough conditions. So would everyone, but using conditions they define as "severe" enough.
Of course you know that QoL is majorly impaired in many survivors.
Two months out of date:
You separate economic impacts from public health. No one with sense does that; they are not severable in any way. If we had appropriate disaster relief, we would not be having such a bootless discussion.
I was waiting for this. Republican Supreme Court Judges are going to invalidate the election in battleship states & Trump will be declared the Winner. We also have electoral college people voting for Trump even if Trump lost the state. So, keep your enthusiasm for Biden Presidency in check, it's not going to happen.
I thought at one point there was a decision on this board to avoid political discussions. This thread seems to be an exception. Will stay away for a few more weeks.
Of course you know that QoL is majorly impaired in many survivors.
Two months out of date:
You separate economic impacts from public health. No one with sense does that; they are not severable in any way. If we had appropriate disaster relief, we would not be having such a bootless discussion.
Actually the entire premise of my last few posts was directly opposite from what you claim. Virtually every decision made on covid restrictions was made with someone's sense of the right balance between public health and economics, we merely disagree on what the right balance is. You and Lew have vilified those who disagree with what YOU think is the right balance, and elevated on a pedestal those whose balance you agree with (no matter how absurdly hypocritical those people are). Then, for good measure, you not so subtlety Bash Trump's response while ignoring all of his heroic efforts in the darkest early days (remember your hero Cuomo's praise?) and his orchestrating one of the greatest scientific triumphs in medical history. No need to reply by telling me Trump didn't invent the vaccine, I know that much despite my lack of sense.
- drastic and disciplined behavioral policies (mandates, enforcement) to prevent disease transmission
- massive disaster relief to those harmed by the above
Agreed there is a definite need for government assistance. Both parties are acting like spoiled children, they want what they want or will stomp their feet and go home. That being said, and as these many posts point out, people can disagree on what's "disastrously wrongheaded." I'm no expert on what the best relief/stimulus package is but I can tell you personally, firsthand that expanded unemployment absolutely does contribute to some workers not wanting to return to work in the current setting. I don't know how prevalent the issue is nationwide, but it is a real issue. I would never have believed it before, I do believe people want to work in general. Perhaps it's legitimate fear over covid exposure at work...but I can tell you that for many whose expanded unemployment had them making close to or more than they were earning at work, they would prefer to stay home. Economists can use whatever data they want to show a "thoroughly debunked myth" but ask anyone who actually employs lower wage-earners if expanded unemployment led to workers preferring to stay home and see what you hear.
So what? Is that really a good argument against emergency disaster relief? And please do not bothsides this. McConnell and his party are the only ones causing suffering and death here.
Yeah, Pelosi, Schumer and co. have been easy and practical all along. My good man, it is both sides and that's being kind. I'm sure this would all be so easy if McConnell and the R's just went along with it. Either side could give in on their pet demands (liability protection/aid to local govt) to help those desperately in need, neither has. And, as for the economics of free money, I guess it's easy to love helicopter cash. What could possibly go wrong?
Comments
Here's a news report from KCRA Sacramento. This or something like it could be the source of this misinformation on rates. The headline is correct, but the body of the report (regarding rates) isn't.
Study: California leads in health care worker COVID-19 infections Anyone reading that and having at least a passing familiarity with US states would realize that California couldn't have the highest infection rate. The Peach State's population is 1/4 that of California, making its infection rate roughly twice as high.
From the study's press release, echoing what you wrote about quality of the data: The full report notes that just 16 states provide infection figures for all health care workers regardless of frequency. Table 6 there is labeled "Covid-19 Health Care Worker Infection Rates". In actuality, it gives the number of health care worker infections as a percentage of total infections. California has the 2nd lowest rate of the 16 states.
That comes with a qualification that could easily apply to the entire report: "Some variation among the states may be due to more aggressive testing of health care workers in some areas."
So OK, if I misinterpreted what you were saying, the ethical implications are far worse from my perspective. So yes you did need to spell that out to me. Thank you for doing that. To just say well a lot of people are getting sick anyway so who cares what the infection or death rate is seems pretty cynical. The question is who should be sacrificed for the greater economic good, who are the expendable ones? You? Me? Maybe just the old and poor. It's worth it so bars can stay open.
Would I support a total lockdown is a misleading question in that regard because Newsom hasn't done a total lockdown:
https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/#regional-stay-home-order First, the order isn't for all of California but for any region that "falls below 15% ICU bed availability, the Regional Stay Home Order goes into effect." But secondly, what really bothers you if this aspect of Stay at Home does is not that people are forced to stay inside--they can still go outside--but that they can't congregate in large numbers at businesses. That's it, the making money part that seems to upset the GOP.
But also the would-I-support-a-total-lockdown question is a false one because like the California order itself, the answer really depends on the infection rate, the availability of medical treatment, and the length of the lockdown. My answer is yes I would support a total lockdown if conditions were severe enough and no I wouldn't if they weren't that severe. But it's a false question because no U.S. politician has enforced a "total lockdown."
What really bothers you is the inability to make as much money from businesses as before. And you are willing to sacrifice lives for those businesses. The appropriate anology is to the movie Jaws and the mayor who refuses to shut the beaches down when a shark is killing people. It wasn't human life he was concerned about. It was the loss of the summer business. If he shut the beaches, people could still leave their homes, just not congregate in the water where the shark was.
And this anology is especially relevant in relation to DeSantis in Florida, given the beaches there and his lousy response to the pandemic. This is where he is ethically now: https://aol.com/entertainment/florida-gop-official-resigns-protest-075650944.html
Even members of his own party are abandoning him as he tries to suppress the truth.
The Jaws analogy is even relevant on an economic basis, because it's fair to say that from a long-term economic perspective shutting down the beaches temporarily would have been a better idea. The brand value of the beach was severely damaged by keeping the beaches open because tourists will think after the attacks "That's the beach where ten people died from shark attacks because the greedy mayor cared more about business interests than human life." They won't want to go to that beach even after the shark is gone. So, in the short-term business is lost from the shut down and the local economy is hurt. But in the long-term, it's actually better for the business's brand to have a pristine safety record. It won't have the stain on its record of unecessary deaths.
To put it in Covid terms, I have no desire to visit Florida as a tourist right now and probably won't for a long-time even after Covid is gone because of DeSantis's terrible response.
Allergy-risk-Pfizer-jab-TWO-patients-fall-ill
MA reporting today that 64% of all state deaths are still occurring in senior care facilities. Many of these residents leave the care facility to be treated by area hospitals and then are being sent back to the facility where special wings are being setup when possible. Contracting Covid-19 complicates the already compromised health of this population.
Using MA data, that means 36% of Covid-19 related deaths are occurring outside of these facilities. Again, do some / most of these individuals often have compromised health issues? The vaccines (with all there potential side effects) may be the best response for both of these populations.
We hear a lot about positivity rates which is important when dealing with the problem of transmission, but does anyone have numbers on the death rate of "healthy" individuals? Herd immunity...which is a thing... will play a part in this population because we mingle more in herds.
Seniors home residents seem to be our top priority going forward, then our general population that have preexisting conditions.
coronavirus & preexisting conditions
Masks, vaccines, and common sense behavior all play a part for the rest of us
As far as the economy is concerned. Senior facility have little impact. E-commerce has entered into a perfect storm and should emerge stronger than ever. Home based businesses will grow. Small businesses (in- store retail) are being tested, while big box retail gains market share. Travel and leisure businesses are in full stress test mode. For individuals whose jobs are going away we'll need re-training programs, Shifting resources toward construction and infrastructure projects would make good sense.
May be. What's the cite for this?
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics is interesting.
Of course you know that QoL is majorly impaired in many survivors.
Two months out of date:
You separate economic impacts from public health. No one with sense does that; they are not severable in any way. If we had appropriate disaster relief, we would not be having such a bootless discussion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/opinion/trump-coronavirus-relief.html
So what we need at this time is
- drastic and disciplined behavioral policies (mandates, enforcement) to prevent disease transmission
- massive disaster relief to those harmed by the above
And please do not bothsides this. McConnell and his party are the only ones causing suffering and death here.
this might interest you:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/covid-stimulus-checks-mnuchin-free-money-creates-jobs.html
Actually both of these are the case. Even lots of Republicans know it to be true.
As for money from above, it's good to see here a 'let 'em suffer' attitude.
Here is the answer: pay businesses to be closed:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/15/false-choice-between-economy-containing-virus/