Coronavirus (NO POLITICAL OR SOCIAL COMMENTARY PLEASE)

[AFFanAttic]

Originally Posted by Underworld54

People want you to think everyone is at risk, which isn't true.

Which people, and why do they want us to think that though?

[Hitman Horton]

Originally Posted by MrHT

Yes, of course it's my decision to read the thread. But the Coronavirus pandemic is a very important matter and worthy of reading everyday. Heck, if a miracle happens one day and they announce that the pandemic has miraculously disappeared, I'd like to know. And the only way to know is to continuously read updates about it.

Seriously though, this is important to read about whether it be on the news or even on this thread. This is why the moderators kept this thread open even though it's completely unrelated to Blu-rays. It's extremely important and worth reading and discussing about, even if it does mean getting stressed every now and then.

I agree with you that it is important to keep up to date with the current situation. Information is extremely important. I would suggest that you get that information from the WHO, the CDC and your government websites. In my opinion, that is where you go for your information. Many of you will disagree with my opinion. I will tell you now that posting to tell me you disagree will not result in a response from me.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by mar3o

So you're healthy, go to work, get the virus, you're okay because you're healthy, but you swing by Dunkin' Donuts and pass it to the old man in front of you in line who then gets it and dies. That's how it works.

Are you implying that old man is high risk? If so, then those individuals show be minimizing their outings and staying safe. In which case, coffee at Dunkin Donuts shouldn't be a necessity.

Originally Posted by mar3o

As far as making more on unemployment than from work, this is an additional hardship that is putting people in debt by months. That can have long-lasting effects that put people behind for years. This additional $600 people are getting per week through unemployment is temporary. It end in July. Some people are asking for lay-offs to collect that extra cash because they desperately need it now. But they will be returning to their jobs by the time the assistance expires in July, hopefully, if their jobs still exist. Some jobs won't survive. My girlfriend can certainly use the additional money right now as she's one of the lucky ones that is working from home, but her hours were cut by 16 hours per week, so this is an actual temporary raise for her, even though she's working 26 hours instead of her normal 40. But if she's not called back full time because her job decides to keep her hours cut, or if her position is dropped through all this, then she's screwed for months to come, as this has been her job for well over 15 years. That extra $600 per week she got and saved will then be extremely helpful just to carry her through until she figures out what to do.

You're acting like people are just sitting pretty collecting big deposits and swimming in money. The reality is this was intended to help people survive, and for the majority of people, that's what it will be used for. Nobody is going to give up a permanent position just to collect until July. They're asking for temporary layoffs with the hope the extra money will help with the pile of bills coming in. Many of those asking are also uncomfortable working currently due to the virus.

The idea was to get money in people's hands quick before people go homeless or starve. It would have been much more complicated for them to figure out a functioning system that brings everyone up to 100% of what they normally make. They can't even get their "get my payment" page to work right. So they decided on a national average of $600, as that was the average needed to bring people to $100 of their normal pay. For many that means a raise, but again, it's only temporary, and it will help with the debt piling up. For those that don't need it for bills (lucky them) it will go back into the economy at some point.

I'm aware it is temporary at this time. I realize some people are fearful of the "what if" in the future, but help me understand why people would need more money than they typically make to be able to survive while at home?

It's not like their bills have automatically increased due to staying at home. In fact, their non-fixed expenses most likely have gone down in terms of travel (gas), eating out, etc. As long as people are making the same amount as when they were working from work they should be fine.

And for those that do find themselves still unemployed after July, if some jobs don't come back there would still be unemployment to help them get through that transition.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

It's not like their bills have automatically increased due to staying at home. In fact, their non-fixed expenses most likely have gone down in terms of travel (gas), eating out, etc. As long as people are making the same amount as when they were working from work they should be fine.

And how exactly do you propose the government would calculate that on a mass scale AND do it very quickly? I'm genuinely curious.

You do realize that unemployment across the country was practically crashing. Could you imagine if they had to input individual numbers based on some theoretical income?

[danman227460]

That is a slippery slope. So you are allowing certain people out but people who are high risk to stay home. So you expect people to not feel snubbed, excluded or forced to stay home while everyone else is out there.

Why should low risk Bob with no kids, no parents be able to work but Old Bob who has to feed his family can't because he is classified as high risk?

That is the rub. There is no way to enforce people who should be out VS people shouldn't. As that has been made clear, no one listens to the rules.

To expect people to obey certain rules set for them and them only requires a lot of acceptance and tolerance of their role. As one would say, act unselfishly. That is putting a lot of faith in people.

Originally Posted by rdodolak

Are you implying that old man is high risk? If so, then those individuals show be minimizing their outings and staying safe. In which case, coffee at Dunkin Donuts shouldn't be a necessity.



I'm aware it is temporary at this time. I realize some people are fearful of the "what if" in the future, but help me understand why people would need more money than they typically make to be able to survive while at home?

It's not like their bills have automatically increased due to staying at home. In fact, their non-fixed expenses most likely have gone down in terms of travel (gas), eating out, etc. As long as people are making the same amount as when they were working from work they should be fine.

And for those that do find themselves still unemployed after July, if some jobs don't come back there would still be unemployment to help them get through that transition.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

And how exactly do you propose the government would calculate that on a mass scale AND do it very quickly? I'm genuinely curious.

You do realize that unemployment across the country was practically crashing. Could you imagine if they had to input individual numbers based on some theoretical income?

The $600 top-up is in addition to the traditional base amount which is already based on your income. You already have to provide documentation and they already have to take into account what you typically make.

For NY that is up to $504 per week. If you still work part time you may still qualify for partial benefits which also has to be calculated.

So, it's not that difficult to pay people up to an additional $600 based on their average weekly pay. If you typically make more than $1104/wk then you get the full benefits. If you make less than $1104/wk, but more than $504/wk then you get a partial top-up benefits.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by danman227460

That is a slippery slope. So you are allowing certain people out but people who are high risk to stay home. So you expect people to not feel snubbed, excluded or forced to stay home while everyone else is out there.

Why should low risk Bob with no kids, no parents be able to work but Old Bob who has to feed his family can't because he is classified as high risk?

That is the rub. There is no way to enforce people who should be out VS people shouldn't. As that has been made clear, no one listens to the rules.

To expect people to obey certain rules set for them and them only requires a lot of acceptance and tolerance of their role. As one would say, act unselfishly. That is putting a lot of faith in people.

Also, if you have an underlying condition, why should you be required to tell your boss about it? If you have HIV and can't come in to work, should you have to report that to your boss?

Originally Posted by rdodolak

The $600 top-up is in addition to the traditional base amount which is already based on your income. You already have to provide documentation and they already have to take into account what you typically make.

For NY that is up to $504 per week. If you still work part time you may still qualify for partial benefits which also has to be calculated.

So, it's not that difficult to pay people up to an additional $600 based on their average weekly pay. If you typically make more than $1104/wk then you get the full benefits. If you make less than $1104/wk, but more than $504/wk then you get a partial top-up benefits.

It's based off of your YEARLY income. Not monthly or weekly. So that doesn't work.

And, again, that's only for people who make a regular wage. How do you propose those of us who don't get that calculated? Do you know how many waiters are out of work right now?

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

It's based off of your YEARLY income. Not monthly or weekly. So that doesn't work.

And, again, that's only for people who make a regular wage. How do you propose those of us who don't get that calculated? Do you know how many waiters are out of work right now?

By using the same base calculations as they already do today; the only thing different is the max benefit amount. I used a weekly comparison since benefits are typically referenced in weekly amounts; use daily, weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, annual, or whatever you prefer, but the weekly unemployment benefits would come out the same. How do you think they already determine if you quality for the full basic amount of $504/wk or something less?

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by danman227460

That is a slippery slope. So you are allowing certain people out but people who are high risk to stay home. So you expect people to not feel snubbed, excluded or forced to stay home while everyone else is out there.

Why should low risk Bob with no kids, no parents be able to work but Old Bob who has to feed his family can't because he is classified as high risk?

That is the rub. There is no way to enforce people who should be out VS people shouldn't. As that has been made clear, no one listens to the rules.

To expect people to obey certain rules set for them and them only requires a lot of acceptance and tolerance of their role. As one would say, act unselfishly. That is putting a lot of faith in people.

You're already on a slippery slope by keeping everyone locked up.

Given the majority of people are low risk, which scenario would you prefer:

a) Keep the majority of people locked up including the majority of people that are low risk. The majority of businesses stay closed, some to many will permanently close up shop, but while businesses are closed their is no profit so employees do not get paid. Since their is no profit and thus no pay there is no payroll tax. Since employees aren't collecting a paycheck they need to file for unemployment, but because of the mass amounts of people out of work and thus the reduced payroll taxes coming in their isn't enough funds to pay unemployment benefits which eventually runs dry. More people permanently lose their jobs which keeps the number of people on unemployment extremely high. People now don't have money to pay for the basic necessities. With people not having money for basic necessities supply chains start to break down. From there it continues to snowball.

b) Allow the majority people who are low risk to go back to work, but allow high risk individuals to stay home. Most businesses open back up (although not at 100% capacity), businesses have revenue coming in and most people start earning a paycheck again. This leads to more payroll taxes and less people on unemployment. The reduced number of people on unemployment (i.e. high risk, etc.) can be better sustained with the fresh flow of payroll taxes. Due to businesses running at higher capacity than those in option A, supply chains can be maintained. Those that are low risk may get infected, but they build immunity quicker which then leads to what is referred to herd immunity where the virus "burns itself out" and can be managed. This would allow higher risk individuals to then resume normal activities.

Either way, those that are high risk could choose to go out, but then that is the risk that they have personally accepted.

[Batman1980]

I choose rdodolak's option B.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Know what else ruins lives?

Death.

Are people going to hide in their homes forever?

I guess people think this magical vaccine is going to come out. It isn’t going to happen. This is going to be seasonal, and society will have to deal with it in ways other than crawling under their bed for the rest of their lives.

Are people going to die? Yes.

Is everyone hiding out in their homes for months on end going to save them?

No. Because international travel will make sure the virus stays in circulation for a long time. People want to believe that this is a virus they can just wait out. Not going to happen.

A Great Depression (that will also add to the death total) will just add another problem.

All of this for a virus that will probably have a death rate of 1% or less.

People think their fear allows them to trample on other people’s civil liberties.

Sorry for the rant. I just need to get somethings off my chest.
S

[Waboman]

First we hear alcohol may kill the virus. Now research suggests the opposite, then we are told heat and humidity has no effect, but wait... sunlight may kill it. So if you come across me standing in my yard, intoxicated and naked, leave me alone. I'm conducting important medical research.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

Are people going to hide in their homes forever?

...

For the next 2-3 years? Yes.

[Hitman Horton]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

You're already on a slippery slope by keeping everyone locked up.

Given the majority of people are low risk, which scenario would you prefer:

a) Keep the majority of people locked up including the majority of people that are low risk. The majority of businesses stay closed, some to many will permanently close up shop, but while businesses are closed their is no profit so employees do not get paid. Since their is no profit and thus no pay there is no payroll tax. Since employees aren't collecting a paycheck they need to file for unemployment, but because of the mass amounts of people out of work and thus the reduced payroll taxes coming in their isn't enough funds to pay unemployment benefits which eventually runs dry. More people permanently lose their jobs which keeps the number of people on unemployment extremely high. People now don't have money to pay for the basic necessities. With people not having money for basic necessities supply chains start to break down. From there it continues to snowball.

b) Allow the majority people who are low risk to go back to work, but allow high risk individuals to stay home. Most businesses open back up (although not at 100% capacity), businesses have revenue coming in and most people start earning a paycheck again. This leads to more payroll taxes and less people on unemployment. The reduced number of people on unemployment (i.e. high risk, etc.) can be better sustained with the fresh flow of payroll taxes. Due to businesses running at higher capacity than those in option A, supply chains can be maintained. Those that are low risk may get infected, but they build immunity quicker which then leads to what is referred to herd immunity where the virus "burns itself out" and can be managed. This would allow higher risk individuals to then resume normal activities.

Either way, those that are high risk could choose to go out, but then that is the risk that they have personally accepted.

I apologize in advance to this poster. It is not my intention to call you out. Your post was just the easiest for me to find. My intention is to prove my point that this is not the place to get your information.

In this example "herd immunity" is talked about. This could lead to many people getting upset, thinking that governments should open their countries up and allow this "herd immunity" to fix the world.

The fact is that experts suspect that people that have had the virus do have some type of immunity. What they don't know is what type of immunity they have and how long it lasts. those two unknowns are the reason that herd immunity is not being considered as a viable option.

Again, I am not centering out this poster. There are any number I could use. This one just happened to be right here. I absolutely meant no harm. If moderators feel it is is wrong, they will delete it and I will not repost it.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by Hitman Horton

I apologize in advance to this poster. It is not my intention to call you out or to make an example of you. My intention is to prove my point that this is not the place to get your information.

In this example "herd immunity" is talked about. This could lead to many people getting upset, thinking that governments should open their countries up and allow this "herd immunity" to fix the world.

The fact is that experts suspect that people that have had the virus do have some type of immunity. What they don't know is what type of immunity they have and how long it lasts. those two unknowns are the reason that herd immunity is not being considered as a viable option.

Again, I am not centering out this poster. There are any number I could use. This one just happened to be right here. I absolutely meant no harm. If moderators feel it is is wrong, they will delete it and I will not repost it.

Agreed.
Clearly people didn't read my post from today. I went and got the antibody test. The nurse and the doctor essentially said that it don't mean ****.

[Waboman]

For all us married men during the lockdown. Here's a chart to help us survive. Believe me, I learned the hard way.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

Are people going to hide in their homes forever?

I guess people think this magical vaccine is going to come out. It isn’t going to happen. This is going to be seasonal, and society will have to deal with it in ways other than crawling under their bed for the rest of their lives.

Are people going to die? Yes.

Is everyone hiding out in their homes for months on end going to save them?

No. Because international travel will make sure the virus stays in circulation for a long time. People want to believe that this is a virus they can just wait out. Not going to happen.

A Great Depression (that will also add to the death total) will just add another problem.

All of this for a virus that will probably have a death rate of 1% or less.

People think their fear allows them to trample on other people’s civil liberties.

Sorry for the rant. I just need to get somethings off my chest.
S

There's something lots of you continue to forget.

We were hit unexpectedly and were not prepared. Hospitals were overflowing with patients and they were coming in by the tens of thousands and dying 24/7. No place to put bodies in some cases there were so many. They didn't have proper supplies or equipment. Not enough beds. No idea what they were dealing with. If they had not locked things down, it would have spiraled ever further out of control. It has slowed down because of the shutdown.

Because of this shutdown, it is giving hospitals time to prepare. They're still treating tens of thousands of patients, many who will die before this is over. But this is allowing them time to learn about what they are dealing with, and time to get supplies in, without the number of patients skyrocketing further. So that when (when, not if) we get another wave this fall/winter, they will be better prepared to handle it. Opening things up all at once, too soon, or letting people flock to beaches and theatres and malls, could very well put us right back to square one. We need to get things open again, yes - slowly, but it needs to be thought through carefully, and malls and beaches should not be the first priority.

Also, people say "some will die" without giving a moment's thought to how they will die. Yes, people die all the time. These are tens of thousands of deaths in a very short period of time, with great suffering, being terrified, and often dying without their families even being allowed to be there during their final moments. How would some of you like to die alone without your family even being allowed to be next to you? It's not just the dying, it's the horrible way that they're dying - scared and alone without anybody beside them.

So maybe some of these experts know a bit more about what they're doing than some of the forum posters and Yahoo commenters and Fox news. There are no easy answers. I can understand worrying about jobs. I can understand worrying about the economy (but not at the expense of lives). But some are out there whining just because the beaches are closing again. Talk about having the wrong priorities.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

Let the people that want to stop living “stay home” while the rest go out and provide for themselves and their families. If you feel that that your vulnerable, stay at home.

I’m glad that you find constitutional rights to be humorous though.

I'm getting real tired of people claiming their constitutional rights are being trampled.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I'm getting real tired of people claiming their constitutional rights are being trampled.

Maybe the issue is people not just bowing down and accepting silly draconian measures for a virus that will have a 1% death rate or less.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by mar3o

There's something lots of you continue to forget.

We were hit unexpectedly and were not prepared. Hospitals were overflowing with patients and they were coming in by the tens of thousands and dying 24/7. No place to put bodies in some cases there were so many. They didn't have proper supplies or equipment. Not enough beds. No idea what they were dealing with. If they had not locked things down, it would have spiraled ever further out of control. It has slowed down because of the shutdown.

Because of this shutdown, it is giving hospitals time to prepare. They're still treating tens of thousands of patients, many who will die before this is over. But this is allowing them time to learn about what they are dealing with, and time to get supplies in, without the number of patients skyrocketing further. So that when (when, not if) we get another wave this fall/winter, they will be better prepared to handle it. Opening things up all at once, too soon, or letting people flock to beaches and theatres and malls, could very well put us right back to square one. We need to get things open again, yes - slowly, but it needs to be thought through carefully, and malls and beaches should not be the first priority.

Also, people say "some will die" without giving a moment's thought to how they will die. Yes, people die all the time. These are tens of thousands of deaths in a very short period of time, with great suffering, being terrified, and often dying without their families even being allowed to be there during their final moments. How would some of you like to die alone without your family even being allowed to be next to you? It's not just the dying, it's the horrible way that they're dying - scared and alone without anybody beside them.

So maybe some of these experts know a bit more about what they're doing than some of the forum posters and Yahoo commenters and Fox news. There are no easy answers. I can understand worrying about jobs. I can understand worrying about the economy (but not at the expense of lives). But some are out there whining just because the beaches are closing again. Talk about having the wrong priorities.

What I’ve seen from these so called “experts” is mostly nothing. Inaccurate models, often conflicting info, overreaching outside of their field (health people offering their input in economic matters). If it was up to the “experts” we be locked down for 6 months or more and that isn’t doable.

I haven’t forgotten anything. There are states that didn’t go into lockdown mode or put lockdowns later and did not have hospitals overwelmed. Everywhere is not NY or some other densely populated area. With the exception of some places, hospitals being overwhelmed is more fear based than actual reality.

I just had an appointment with my doctor last week. She said many of doctors at the hospital having nothing to do and are being sent home or whatever.