Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
Yes, you need the Army but they need to BRING something with them to eat. That is skirting close to a breakdown in social order. If the infrastructure still works the UN brings in bakeries (like they did in Sarjevo).

I just read the news, and the government is doing just that: 400 millions Euro are being set aside to provide food for families everywhere. They devised a scheme that gives more money to the needy (basically, if your family income is lower that the national average you get more money for food).

I can't comment on the numbers. My feeling is that 400 millions Euro is too little - but it is a step in the right direction.

And I still wonder what this will mean for illegal workers. Can they honestly say that they are maintaining a family with - officially - zero or close to zero income?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Thomas Schäfer, the finance minister of the German state of Hesse (which includes Frankfurt), took his life. They say that the Coronavirus emergency put a heavy toll on his shoulders.

https://www.dw.com/en/german-state-finance-minister-thomas-sch%C3%A4fer-found-dead/a-52948976

Sad news.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
Yes, you need the Army but they need to BRING something with them to eat. That is skirting close to a breakdown in social order. If the infrastructure still works the UN brings in bakeries (like they did in Sarjevo).

I just read the news, and the government is doing just that: 400 millions Euro are being set aside to provide food for families everywhere. They devised a scheme that gives more money to the needy (basically, if your family income is lower that the national average you get more money for food).

I can't comment on the numbers. My feeling is that 400 millions Euro is too little - but it is a step in the right direction.

And I still wonder what this will mean for illegal workers. Can they honestly say that they are maintaining a family with - officially - zero or close to zero income?

At least it is a start. Once they get a better idea of how much is needed, then they can provide more money.

As far as the illegal workers go, maybe they will have to start being legal. Maybe going through a temporary agency to get a record of the earnings. Of course, the criminal element will still be criminal. I read about that community north of Naples where the African immigrants are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
Yes, you need the Army but they need to BRING something with them to eat. That is skirting close to a breakdown in social order. If the infrastructure still works the UN brings in bakeries (like they did in Sarjevo).

I just read the news, and the government is doing just that: 400 millions Euro are being set aside to provide food for families everywhere. They devised a scheme that gives more money to the needy (basically, if your family income is lower that the national average you get more money for food).

I can't comment on the numbers. My feeling is that 400 millions Euro is too little - but it is a step in the right direction.

And I still wonder what this will mean for illegal workers. Can they honestly say that they are maintaining a family with - officially - zero or close to zero income?

At least it is a start. Once they get a better idea of how much is needed, then they can provide more money.

As far as the illegal workers go, maybe they will have to start being legal. Maybe going through a temporary agency to get a record of the earnings. Of course, the criminal element will still be criminal. I read about that community north of Naples where the African immigrants are.

This whole economic mess has been building for decades because of two global factors:
1. The global population has been growing at an accelerating rate with more people living longer. That in itself is an economic demand on food/clothing/shelter and services like health care.

2. Economic disparity has been growing exponentially as a few powerful people concentrated more and more wealth in their hands while wiping out the median income middle class. This is NOT a cry for socialism - it is an observation that these people broke the capitalist system envisage by Locke and Adams and Smith.

The concept originally was for small, local businesses to compete with one another in a fair market for the ultimate benefit of the people. When the millionaires of last century decided they should be billionaires, they used their power to wipe out competing business by throttling the supply chain (demanding suppliers only deal with the big business or else) and buying up any small business that had innovative ideas (Microsoft did this extensively). And of course, they used political influence to ensure that the anti-trust laws were weak or not enforced.

So now we have a world disaster that requires financial resilience everywhere and it doesn't exist because the very rich hold the money that is needed and governments have to hope they can borrow from them. The masses have fewer financial reserves than they should because their well paying jobs have been eliminated and most are paid just enough to get by. This means greater dependence on the government which cannot handle the demands.

So what's next? What always happens when the masses cannot have their needs met - revolution by violent means, throwing out the old system, including parts of it that were working well. In Italy's example, the Mafia could take over the role of the government. Some would argue that organized crime might do that in other western countries as well. And Russia is waiting for opportunities, but might find itself busy holding down their own long-suffering peoples.

China? It has found stability in a capitalist economy by using cheap labour and adaptability to make wealthy nations dependent on it. The sudden downsize of the world economy is hurting them but they will get by for now. But if every country gets protectionist and cuts off dealing with China, we can expect all manner of troubles.

So I agree with RFalvo69 that handling this economic disaster as a worldwide wake-up call for getting away from the alligators and then draining the swamp to get a more equitable and resilient economy is crucial. And BTW, dealing with climate change might be a necessary part of that realignment of human effort. There is much work to be done, so there is money to be made and spent!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We've done a darned good job sticking to the topic, backing away from occasional unnecessary tangential subjects that would create friction and detract from reasoned analysis of this virus outbreak. I hope we can continue.

P.S. I am chief among sinners when it comes to the occasional dust-ups.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled
We as a family now eat about 1/2 as much meat as we used to, and make stews/curries/bolognese type dishes with lentils and meats.

Aye. Ours too. That's great. But it's a far cry from 'diversify your diet' to 'meat=murder' and 'big=bad'. Unfortunately, the militant vegan screed preys on an uncertain public to opportunistically promote their drivel.

quote:


Fauci suggested that the 100,000 to 200,000 death range is a moderate estimate, and that the possibility of 1 million or more Americans dying from the coronavirus is “almost certainly off the chart” — that “it’s not impossible, but very, very unlikely.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

Climate change? Yeah throw that in there right now. Revolution? Give me a break.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We've tossed around the seasonal flu numbers, usually focusing on around 40k.

The University of Washington came out with an estimate of 80k coronavirus deaths a few days ago.

On Sunday, Dr. Fauci offered a qualified 100k to 200k, noting that there are higher and lower estimates and that he's never seen a case where higher estimates come true. Of course, the press ran with that, AP offering headlines of "200k", followed by quite a few other outlets. Only a couple included the Doctor's qualifying comments. The press is absolutely terrible. Giving a smidgeon of truth but never the whole truth and in the process thereby offering a majestic distortion that bears no resemblance to the truth. General Sherman was absolutely right about the press.

Meantime, a world (and some forumites) are rattled by estimates that are considerably dampened compared to the apocalyptic numbers that were being floated two and three weeks ago.

And looking at the raw date, its still difficult to see how we get from where we are to anything like 100k to 200k mortality in the USA or any of the massive numbers once proposed worldwide.

Today, 264 deaths in the USA. Yesterday it was 501. We are most certainly not in the declining state. We are in the increasing stage. But mortality numbers are not going through the roof. Active cases are, but that appears to be more as a result of big increases in testing. The outbreak is mature enough in the US that we should be seeing huge numbers of death and massive increases each day.

How do we get from 264 or 500 to 200k when even the pessimistic folks are predicting a peak "in the second week of April"?

What's going on? What am I missing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Mortality chart for the USA. To get from here to 100k, we'd have to average 1k deaths a day for the next three months.

Nowhere has the virus outbreak had that kind of sustained impact. Not China. Not South Korea. And, judging from the strong trend in numbers, not Italy.

This critter seems to blow itself out in six weeks to two months - on its own or through a strong assist by mankind (medicine, countermeasures, etc.). Most of the recent prognostications from US authorities have placed the peak in "the second week of April." If that's true, then the cases will be level or tapering going into the latter half of April.

Of course, if we rise up to 5k or 10k or 15k mortalities a day, the numbers jump massively. But there's no evidence yet of such a jump kicking in. Washington State and California have had outbreaks much longer than NYC and haven't imploded - at least, not yet.

We took countermeasures earlier in our cycle than Italy did theirs; we are blessed with a a more robust nationwide healthcare system that's had more time to gear up and develop treatments and ideas; we have a much bigger (but also more dispersed) population than Italy's. But I can't envision a scenario where we fail utterly in comparison.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

A better example. Double a penny every day and in 20 days you have a few dollars. In 30 days you have something like 11 million dollars.

I understand exponents.

I do not understand the correlation between the numbers being reported and 100k or 200k in the USA.

How do we get from Governor Cuomo's peak "the second week of April" to a six month cataclysm? I know he's talking about New York, but still. Cities in California and Washington have dealt with it longer and didn't explode.

And with all the increases coming in hospital beds and ventilators, ideas for treatments and skill at treating, we're not gonna get on top of this?

I don't see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

A better example. Double a penny every day and in 20 days you have a few dollars. In 30 days you have something like 11 million dollars.

I understand exponents.

I do not understand the correlation between the numbers being reported and 100k or 200k in the USA.

How do we get from Governor Cuomo's peak "the second week of April" to a six month cataclysm? I know he's talking about New York, but still. Cities in California and Washington have dealt with it longer and didn't explode.

And with all the increases coming in hospital beds and ventilators, ideas for treatments and skill at treating, we're not gonna get on top of this?

I don't see it.

quote:

Today, 264 deaths in the USA. Yesterday it was 501. We are most certainly not in the declining state. We are in the increasing stage. But mortality numbers are not going through the roof. Active cases are, but that appears to be more as a result of big increases in testing. The outbreak is mature enough in the US that we should be seeing huge numbers of death and massive increases each day.

How do we get from 264 or 500 to 200k when even the pessimistic folks are predicting a peak "in the second week of April"?

What's going on? What am I missing?

Time(d) - Daily Peak - Total
--------------------------------
14d     -     13030  - 193444 
13d     -     10341  - 153527
12d     -      8207  - 121847
11d     -      6514  -  96704
10d     -      5170  -  76749
 9d     -      4103  -  60912
 8d     -      3256  -  48343
 7d     -      2584  -  38367

quote:

Everybody's playing with numbers and the numbers do not make sense. The key, as everybody once acknowledged, is critical care beds (and attendant ventilators). This was being discussed three weeks ago; a lot has been done since then and a lot more will be done (how much you want to bet that the US ends up exporting tons of ventilators to impacted countries?).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

[In reply to DurnedWolf, a few posts above]


That's using way too many highly unknown variables, so that the calculation becomes tortured.

If half the US population becomes infected (say 170,000,000), and if the death rate that "everybody that's anybody" acknowledges is 1%, that means 1.7 million deaths in the good ol' USA.

Of course, nobody's talking like that any more.

Everybody's playing with numbers and the numbers do not make sense. The key, as everybody once acknowledged, is critical care beds (and attendant ventilators). This was being discussed three weeks ago; a lot has been done since then and a lot more will be done (how much you want to bet that the US ends up exporting tons of ventilators to impacted countries?).