Coronavirus

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Message
Author
User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Back in Santiago.

Re: Coronavirus

#681 Post by Larry B. » Sat May 16, 2020 5:51 pm

Hype wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:58 pm
I'm very concerned about police-overreach, a turn to fascism, etc., especially after the pandemic ends. Most of the powers come from emergency orders, so the assumption is that it won't continue. But it's not impossible that legislators start reworking permanent laws about contact-tracing, isolation, quarantine, etc., in a way that permanently affects rights. Especially minority rights, since the wealthy seem to be able to just break these rules with impunity.
In Latin America, that’s a given.

The first measure the Chilean government made was curfew from 10 PM to 5 AM, for at least 90 days. The only people allowed out were the military. What’s the point of that? Sure, you prevent parties and events... but you’re still letting people be exposed in public transport and their work throughout the day. And that’s (obviously) exactly what happened.

The American intervention in this part of the continent through the 1970’s is still unfortunately deeply rooted. Fascism and their distribution of ignorance is quite rampant. Today, one of the Ministers said that a general quarantine would’ve been harmful for public health if wr had gone with that in early March, because with so many children inside their homes, they would’ve caught the virus earlier.

It doesn’t make any sense.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Coronavirus

#682 Post by Hype » Sat May 16, 2020 6:40 pm

Larry B. wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 5:51 pm
Hype wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:58 pm
I'm very concerned about police-overreach, a turn to fascism, etc., especially after the pandemic ends. Most of the powers come from emergency orders, so the assumption is that it won't continue. But it's not impossible that legislators start reworking permanent laws about contact-tracing, isolation, quarantine, etc., in a way that permanently affects rights. Especially minority rights, since the wealthy seem to be able to just break these rules with impunity.
In Latin America, that’s a given.

The first measure the Chilean government made was curfew from 10 PM to 5 AM, for at least 90 days. The only people allowed out were the military. What’s the point of that? Sure, you prevent parties and events... but you’re still letting people be exposed in public transport and their work throughout the day. And that’s (obviously) exactly what happened.

The American intervention in this part of the continent through the 1970’s is still unfortunately deeply rooted. Fascism and their distribution of ignorance is quite rampant. Today, one of the Ministers said that a general quarantine would’ve been harmful for public health if wr had gone with that in early March, because with so many children inside their homes, they would’ve caught the virus earlier.

It doesn’t make any sense.
Yeah, I've heard from some colleagues that it's absolutely a fucking mess in Brazil right now.

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 9292
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Coronavirus

#683 Post by Artemis » Mon May 18, 2020 6:13 am

Hype wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 4:54 am
I found it difficult to take seriously after he broke the rules that apply to us all and then just kind of shrugged it off. He's clearly reading statements prepared by others 90% of the time and it bothers me that he could use this to gain favour from voters for the next election, despite being objectively bad for this province.
Agree! I posted it because it is so ridiculous and that it's meant to be so endearing and light. The entire Ford continue to believe that the rules don't apply to them. A couple of my friends have been rethinking Doug and seem to have softened on their opinions because of the way he's been handling the COVD situation. I agree that he's been doing a better job than i expected but I haven't forgotten who he is and what he was doing prior to this with cuts to health care and education.

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 9292
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Coronavirus

#684 Post by Artemis » Mon May 18, 2020 6:44 am

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/heal ... -ZdnjtrRyI
Coronavirus Vaccine Trial by Moderna Shows Promising Early Results

The company said its preliminary test in 8 healthy volunteers was safe. It is on an accelerated timetable to begin a larger human trial soon.

The first coronavirus vaccine to be tested in people appears to be safe and able to stimulate an immune response against the virus, its manufacturer, Moderna announced on Monday.

The findings are based on results from the first eight people who each received two doses of the vaccine, starting in March.

Those people, healthy volunteers, made antibodies that were then tested in human cells in the lab, and were able to stop the virus from replicating — the key requirement for an effective vaccine. The levels of those so-called neutralizing antibodies matched the levels found in patients who had recovered after contracting the virus in the community.

The company has said that it is proceeding on an accelerated timetable, with the second phase involving 600 people to begin soon, and a third phase to begin in July involving thousands of healthy people. The Food and Drug Administration gave Moderna the go-ahead for the second phase earlier this month.

If those trials go well, a vaccine could become available for widespread use by the end of this year or early 2021, Dr. Tal Zaks, Moderna’s chief medical officer, said in an interview. How many doses might be ready is not clear, but Dr. Zaks said, “We’re doing our best to make it as many millions as possible.”

There is no proven treatment or vaccine against the coronavirus at this time. Dozens of companies in the United States, Europe and China are racing to produce vaccines, using different methods. Some use the same technology as Moderna, which involves a segment of genetic material from the virus called messenger RNA, or mRNA.


Moderna said that additional tests in mice that were vaccinated and then infected found that the vaccine could prevent the virus from replicating in their lungs, and that the animals had levels of neutralizing antibodies comparable to those in the people who had received the vaccine.

Three doses of the vaccine were tested: low, medium and high. These initial results are based on tests of the low and medium doses. The only adverse effect at those doses was redness and soreness in one patient’s arm where the shot was given.

But at the highest dose, three patients had fever, muscles and headaches, Dr. Zaks said, adding that the symptoms went away after a day.

But the high dose is being eliminated from future studies, not so much because of the side effects, but because the lower doses appeared to work so well that the high dose is not needed.

“The lower the dose, the more vaccine we’ll be able to make,” Dr. Zaks said.

Moderna’s stock was up 40 percent in pre-market trading.

Some info about Moderna

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02 ... d-vaccines

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 9292
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Coronavirus

#685 Post by Artemis » Tue May 19, 2020 4:10 pm

So, my province, Ontario, will not be re-opening schools in June and Canada-USA border will be closed for another month. I think that was a good move by both the provincial and federal governments. :thumb:


Do you guys believe that Donald Trump is actually taking hydroxychloroquine??

I don't. I can't believe that a reputable doctor would prescribe it to him to use as a preventative measure. :bs:

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2889
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Coronavirus

#686 Post by mockbee » Tue May 19, 2020 5:55 pm

Artemis wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 4:10 pm
So, my province, Ontario, will not be re-opening schools in June and Canada-USA border will be closed for another month. I think that was a good move by both the provincial and federal governments. :thumb:


Do you guys believe that Donald Trump is actually taking hydroxychloroquine??

I don't. I can't believe that a reputable doctor would prescribe it to him to use as a preventative measure. :bs:
I was prescribed hydroxychloroquine before going to Guatemala and Java because I was going to be in the jungle for a while.
Maybe he thinks if he got the money, honey he don't want your disease.
And watch it bring him to his shun n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n knees, knees.....?

:noclue: :lol:

User avatar
kv
Posts: 7902
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: Coronavirus

#687 Post by kv » Tue May 19, 2020 6:17 pm

I think he is full of shit and hasn't taken it.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Coronavirus

#688 Post by Hype » Wed May 20, 2020 5:33 am

kv wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:17 pm
I think he is full of shit and hasn't taken it.
Yes.

Also, if he's reelected the US is in for an even worse time than the Great Depression.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2889
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Coronavirus

#689 Post by mockbee » Wed May 20, 2020 5:47 am

Hype wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 5:33 am
kv wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:17 pm
I think he is full of shit and hasn't taken it.
Yes.

Also, if he's reelected the US is in for an even worse time than the Great Depression.
Why different with Biden? In regards to the economy.

Trump has shown no restraint with opening the floodgates with cash for the market, that's all Biden could do as well... Sure, certain services will have more or less money, but I don't see that as making or breaking what happens in terms of the economy overall.... It's either going into freefall, or possibly stabilizing.
:noclue:

Amazon/Google/chain food distributers/large corporate retail with remote capacity are going to make out like bandits....
I could see UBI under Trump :nod: .....itll be weird for sure. :thumb:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Coronavirus

#690 Post by Hype » Wed May 20, 2020 3:21 pm

:confused: Social services.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2889
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Coronavirus

#691 Post by mockbee » Wed May 20, 2020 4:26 pm

Okay.

So you are agreeing on economy (meaning markets/unemployment/business solvency) being generally the same/similar trajectory either way?

Just Trump will not support social welfare programs, while Biden would?

I know there are a plethora of problems US has to deal with and to continue to be funded, just I think this SNAFU is going down the same way with either candidate. :noclue:

Most important thing for US society is keeping the unemployment checks coming, before anything else. I don't see Trump ending those if we still have 15-20% unemployment. :noclue:

User avatar
Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 4247
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: Coronavirus

#692 Post by Hokahey » Wed May 20, 2020 4:49 pm

Hype wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 3:21 pm
:confused: Social services.
Are you arguing that social services will stimulate the economy?

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Coronavirus

#693 Post by Hype » Thu May 21, 2020 1:07 pm

Hokahey wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 4:49 pm
Hype wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 3:21 pm
:confused: Social services.
Are you arguing that social services will stimulate the economy?
Yes. It's too easy to get hung up on government spending as somehow "taking people's money", while forgetting that it's a highly complex system that has systemic benefits that are not easy to see at a glance. It's worth remembering that governments, especially federal governments (but also state and local), can operate financially (and in terms of mobilization) in ways that no private business or individual can because they have access to financial resources and tools that only exist at that level (and also the backing of literally the entire taxpayer base of the country/jurisdiction).

So, yes, on the one hand social services (by which I mean government aid programs writ large) require the government to spend money now. But that money doesn't disappear into the ether. It goes to citizens. The benefits are manifold: ensuring that people are able to continue paying rent, mortgages, food, etc., now means that we don't face mass homelessness, starvation, hospitalization, criminality etc., later. The costs of not spending now are often far greater than spending now. What's more, public works projects and social investments often produce permanent value far in excess of the original costs.

There's a ton of literature on this, focusing broadly and narrowly. But here's some:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 2397.00180
As a result of the efforts of neo-liberal economists,economic issues are given more prominence in social policy debates today than ever before. While social policy has historically been viewed as a means of meeting social needs and promoting human well-being, its goals are increasingly subsumed under cost containment and efficiency considerations. The now widely accepted neo-liberal argument that social spending harms the economy and that global competitiveness requires reductions in social expenditures has also gained currency. The increasing emphasis on economic considerations has been accompanied by the growing acceptance of the commercialisation and marketisation of the social services. As economic issues have come to dominate social policy debates, social policy’s traditional commitments to altruism, social care and welfare rights have been relegated. Although advocates of state welfare bemoan this trend, they have offered few realistic proposals for countering neo-liberalism’s current hegemony. The notion of developmental social welfare challenges the neo-liberal claim that social welfare is incompatible with economic development. It also offers an opportunity to integrate economic andsocial policy considerations in ways that reassert social policy’s traditional commitments.
These strategies may be augmented by other programmes that invest in people and communities, and enhance their participation in the productive economy. However, all involve a major shift in conventional social-policy thinking from the provision of consumption and maintenance-oriented services to interventions that enhance capabilities, invest in people, facilitate economic involvement and contribute positively to economic development.

Although the strategies described earlier have focused on social-service clients, it is important to emphasise once again that social investment is not only concerned with the welfare system but requires a commitment to a wider, comprehensive economic development approach that addresses issues of growth, employment, incomes and standards of living in society as a whole. Social development is ultimately concerned with the well-being of all members of society. It is within this broader framework that developmental welfare and its emphasis on productivism and social investments is best able to address the needs of welfare clients, the poor and needy and the members of deprived, low-income communities.
Here's a more specific case: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=521656
The financial and economic crisis which originated in 2008 has had a severe impact on the population of the Southern European countries. The economic policies of austerity and public deficit control, as well as the neo-liberal and conservative social policies are redefining the public social protection systems, in particular the Social Services. In order to get to understand the current situation, we shall explain how the Social Services were developed in Spain and analyse the causes and consequences of the economic crisis. The working hypothesis is that the greater the increase on the population’s needs, the more developed the Social Services should be. We carried out a descriptive analysis of the situation as far as the social impacts of the crisis per region are concerned. We tested the hypothesis through a parametric model of analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) triangulating with the non-parametric Kruscal-Wallis test. The working hypothesis failed. The regions with better developed Social Services show a lower level of poverty and social exclusion. The challenges that the public Social Services system faces in times of crisis is three-fold: 1) re-modelling of local administration and transferring of the municipal Social Services responsibilities to the regional administration; 2) an increase of the population at risk of poverty and social exclusion 3) impact on social policies.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Coronavirus

#694 Post by Hype » Thu May 21, 2020 1:23 pm

Annoyingly, Biden/Obama are not particularly big "social" democrats. They're the left wing of neo-liberalism. So, Biden's not likely to go as far as could be really really great for the American people. But the progressive element in his party will at least have a better shot with him in power than not.

User avatar
Matz
Posts: 3865
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:58 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Coronavirus

#695 Post by Matz » Fri May 22, 2020 12:02 am

completely nuts to see two people in their seventies running for that job :crazy:

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2889
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Coronavirus

#696 Post by mockbee » Fri May 22, 2020 5:41 am

Hype wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 1:07 pm
Hokahey wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 4:49 pm
Hype wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 3:21 pm
:confused: Social services.
Are you arguing that social services will stimulate the economy?
Yes. It's too easy to get hung up on government spending as somehow "taking people's money", while forgetting that it's a highly complex system that has systemic benefits that are not easy to see at a glance. It's worth remembering that governments, especially federal governments (but also state and local), can operate financially (and in terms of mobilization) in ways that no private business or individual can because they have access to financial resources and tools that only exist at that level (and also the backing of literally the entire taxpayer base of the country/jurisdiction).

So, yes, on the one hand social services (by which I mean government aid programs writ large) require the government to spend money now. But that money doesn't disappear into the ether. It goes to citizens. The benefits are manifold: ensuring that people are able to continue paying rent, mortgages, food, etc., now means that we don't face mass homelessness, starvation, hospitalization, criminality etc., later. The costs of not spending now are often far greater than spending now. What's more, public works projects and social investments often produce permanent value far in excess of the original costs.
I agree with all this, but probably not in the way that a "traditional" progressive would strive for. I think all US citizens earning below a specified amount of money and certain undocumented individuals who can prove that they work full or part time in the US, should receive UBI. Funded from high taxes, (80-90%) on the upper 1-10% of income earners and implement Warrens capital gains tax. "Social services" should not be substantially altered. Still have SNAP, HUD, FEMA, Medicaid (expanded though), single payer option as well, Social Security can be wrapped into UBI. But some govt assistance services can be cut that would be redundant with the cash guarantee of UBI. Also certain populations need additional assistance like Veterans and disabled and would maintain those. But overall, the main function of social services should be to fairly distribute capital and guard against fraud , Additionally, govt should prevent monopolies and only allow multinational corporations to do business in the US if there are fair taxes on their earnings from US business.

Main point being, expand cash payments, not programs. Families/mothers can use payment for child care, college fund, food, rental assistance, start a business, booze, drugs.....whatever makes most sense.
:tiphat:

Some people will use their benefit wisely and some will not. I think people overall are not helpless. They just need the means to stay afloat and not be crushed by the rampantly crony capitalist system we currently have going on. Lazy people will be lazy and ambitious people will be ambitious. At least they will have the means and the liberty to do so, and we can maintain our major strength, which is a diverse and liberal society.

Maybe COVID can help us get there..... :noclue:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Coronavirus

#697 Post by Hype » Fri May 22, 2020 7:08 am

One of the problems with pushing UBI hard is that it is basically a conservative policy in its intent to replace social programs. The problem is that providing everyone with a base level of income doesn't solve problems of inequality of access or quality or efficiency. This can be seen in more common cases when former socialized systems are privatized. The aim is usually to "cut costs" and "save taxpayer dollars", but generally what will happen is that private companies who take on formerly public services will prioritize cost-cutting over the services themselves, leading to long-term issues of quality, increases in low-wage workers and employment instability (higher turnover), and a race to the bottom (see, e.g., garbage pickup). The hidden costs here are things like increased use of other social programs to offset the costs cut in the newly private sector. It's difficult to prove that simply privatizing or removing social programs actually lowers net cost.

And in fact, there's just a ton of evidence that social programs can reduce overall costs, when implemented wisely. Single-payer insurance is one way. Shelter housing is another.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2889
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Coronavirus

#698 Post by mockbee » Mon May 25, 2020 2:47 am

100,000 dead in US of COVID :wavesad:

COVID is certainly a thing, killing 5 times the average rate of people over 80 and responsible for 13% of total deaths over 80 and needs to be controlled, and it's terrible for the individuals and families to not be able to be with them and not to mention the younger people afflicted.

At the same time, our notion of statistics is skewed. In that figure is a good portion who were at high risk of death, regardless of COVID... :noclue:

In 2017 (a typical year) over 5 million people over the age of 80 in the US died..... which includes all causes -disease, accidents, etc.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241 ... in-the-us/

User avatar
Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 4247
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: Coronavirus

#699 Post by Hokahey » Mon May 25, 2020 6:12 am

mockbee wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 2:47 am
100,000 dead in US of COVID :wavesad:

COVID is certainly a thing, killing 5 times the average rate of people over 80 and responsible for 13% of total deaths over 80 and needs to be controlled, and it's terrible for the individuals and families to not be able to be with them and not to mention the younger people afflicted.

At the same time, our notion of statistics is skewed. In that figure is a good portion who were at high risk of death, regardless of COVID... :noclue:

In 2017 (a typical year) over 5 million people over the age of 80 in the US died..... which includes all causes -disease, accidents, etc.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241 ... in-the-us/
I was recently looking at the death by age range stats for my state.

Out of almost 700 deaths, 50% were over 80, and 85% were over 60. All in all, 17 deaths were under 50.

The overwhelming majority were also clustered in the absolute poorest area of St. Louis and in nursing homes.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Coronavirus

#700 Post by Hype » Tue May 26, 2020 8:48 am

Hokahey wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 6:12 am
Out of almost 700 deaths, 50% were over 80, and 85% were over 60. All in all, 17 deaths were under 50.

The overwhelming majority were also clustered in the absolute poorest area of St. Louis and in nursing homes.
I think it's important not to take this information too positively -- not you specifically, I mean in general. A lot of people who are fairly healthy and young, especially men, seem to think that because the data shows that deaths are primarily in the >65 range we can worry a bit less about ourselves. But this misses a big part of the equation. Even if you aren't going to die from it, you can spread it to your loved ones, or someone else's loved ones, who may become very sick or die, or who may themselves spread it to someone else... etc. The reason we shut everything down was to try to slow the spread way down so that we could get on top of the plans for managing outbreaks, especially when vulnerable people inevitably catch it.

I also think it's gross that deaths are clustering in poor neighbourhoods. That's an indictment of the American healthcare system if I've ever seen one.

Another concern is that there seem to be younger folks who aren't dying, and maybe aren't even hospitalized, but who seem to be suffering fairly serious organ damage (kidneys, heart, lungs). We don't yet know if this damage is permanent, or how severe it will be, but it seems that some people are taking months to recover, and some don't seem to be getting back to 100% at all.

Post Reply