COVID-19 (Coronavirus)

[Jaded-Fan]

 

[Factorial]

How long will it take to get your results?

 

[KIRK]

Ignore the headline . . . it's actually a good article . . .

Those coronavirus vaccines leading the race? Don't ditch the masks quite yet

“We should anticipate the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to be similar to the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Kathleen Neuzil, director of the Center for Vaccine Development at the University of Maryland. “That vaccine may or may not keep people from being infected with the virus, but it does keep people out of the hospital and the ICU.”

Even with expectations scaled back, the development of a vaccine against a virus that no one knew about seven months ago is considered remarkable. One assessment calls it “the compression of six years of work into six months.”

 

[Jaded-Fan]

 

[Jaded-Fan]

 

[Empoleon8771]

Yeah, it seems like closing bars and limiting people at restaurants is exactly what Allegheny County needed to do. After the first re-opening went so poorly, I don't think they should attempt it again.

I think what they're doing now is appropriate, I hope they don't make massive changes just because people want to start going to bars again or something like that.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Yeah, it seems like closing bars and limiting people at restaurants is exactly what Allegheny County needed to do. After the first re-opening went so poorly, I don't think they should attempt it again.

I think what they're doing now is appropriate, I hope they don't make massive changes just because people want to start going to bars again or something like that.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I agree, but it is not black and white. As I posted before, 60% of all restaurants closed temporarily are not going to permanent closure. That number will only grow.



There has to be a middle ground. Where it is enforced that people not be complete idiots and strongly enforce social distancing and mask wearing when not at the tables, limited capacity.

Although even that, restaurants can not survive at 1/4 capacity.

Maybe there is no solution.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

I agree, but it is not black and white. As I posted before, 60% of all restaurants closed temporarily are not going to permanent closure. That number will only grow.



There has to be a middle ground. Where it is enforced that people not be complete idiots and strongly enforce social distancing and mask wearing when not at the tables, limited capacity.

Although even that, restaurants can not survive at 1/4 capacity.

Maybe there is no solution.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I agree, but it is not black and white. As I posted before, 60% of all restaurants closed temporarily are not going to permanent closure. That number will only grow.



There has to be a middle ground. Where it is enforced that people not be complete idiots and strongly enforce social distancing and mask wearing when not at the tables, limited capacity.

Although even that, restaurants can not survive at 1/4 capacity.

Maybe there is no solution.

Idk a fine solution to me seems to be staying open at a capacity where it's safe to operate, but then the government funds whatever is needed beyond that to keep businesses from going under.

 

[KIRK]

I agree, but it is not black and white. As I posted before, 60% of all restaurants closed temporarily are not going to permanent closure. That number will only grow.



There has to be a middle ground. Where it is enforced that people not be complete idiots and strongly enforce social distancing and mask wearing when not at the tables, limited capacity.

Although even that, restaurants can not survive at 1/4 capacity.

Maybe there is no solution.

I'm not sure they can survive at half capacity. @pixiesfanyo, I think you said your family was in this business in the past. What's the capacity rule or need or whatever one calls it vis a vis an owner of bar or restaurant breaking even?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I'm not sure they can survive at half capacity. @pixiesfanyo, I think you said your family was in this business in the past. What's the capacity rule or need or whatever one calls it vis a vis an owner of bar or restaurant breaking even?

“If we had to lose 10% of our capacity… we would lose our derriere financially,” says Ti Martin, co-proprietor of Commander’s Palace, an 1893 New Orleans landmark. “The profit margin is so thin in restaurants. At 25% or 50%, it doesn’t work.”

“I can’t imagine any business could successfully and profitably operate under those circumstances,” says Jeff Stockton, SE Market Manager, Spiribam, and a former bar manager in Atlanta. “There will be added challenges to ordering parts and prepping necessities. You’d have to run a skeleton crew to maintain balance on the volume. Seems like a hasty decision with much more risk than reward.”

 

[Gurglesons]

I'm not sure they can survive at half capacity. @pixiesfanyo, I think you said your family was in this business in the past. What's the capacity rule or need or whatever one calls it vis a vis an owner of bar or restaurant breaking even?

120%? lol.

I mean, it really depends on the restaurant, but every successful restaurant is likely operating on razor thin margins and the solution is going to be cutting staff and self sustaining it through salaried employees (corporate) or yourself (mom and pops).

 

[Empoleon8771]

Just saw this picture that's apparently the first day of school photo in Georgia

Live look at coronavirus:



A lot of people are going to die as a result of schools opening, I feel horrible for teachers who have to be sentenced to that.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

The only solution is to pay places to not be open. That will never, ever happen in this country.

 

[Fordy]

wow look at these evil people enjoying their life

 

[Jaded-Fan]

The long snd short of it is a choice between killing people one way or another.

That quote from The Big Short from Brad Pitt's character is from a real statistic. For every one percent unemployment 37,000 people die as a direct result. Google it.

So do you want to bankrupt 60 percent of restaurants and kill people without jobs or kill people with the virus.

It is why anyone making definitives about this issue is wrong. You simply can't help hurting and killing people whichever choice you make.

 

[Fordy]

do you want to have a couple hundred people in pittsburgh die at age 86 instead of 88, or do you want to eliminate local restaurant and bars, keep your kids out of school and train them to avoid socializing forever, pass on an even more broken and desperate economy than ever, and spend years walking around in fear living a ghost of a life?

this thread has always picked the latter

 

[Empoleon8771]

The long snd short of it is a choice between killing people one way or another.

That quote from The Big Short from Brad Pitt's character is from a real statistic. For every one percent unemployment 37,000 people die as a direct result. Google it.

So do you want to bankrupt 60 percent of restaurants and kill people without jobs or kill people with the virus.

It is why anyone making definitives about this issue is wrong. You simply can't help hurting and killing people whichever choice you make.

No it isn't, because you can have the government pay businesses so they can stay afloat while shutting down or safely operating.

Just because it goes against your own fiscal policies doesn't mean that it's not an option. Acting like the two options are "kill people due to business closures or kill people due to a virus" is just false. It's not true, it's you not wanting to say there's an expensive 3rd option that would result in much fewer deaths.

 

[Fordy]

No it isn't, because you can have the government pay businesses so they can stay afloat while shutting down or safely operating.

Just because it goes against your own fiscal policies doesn't mean that it's not an option. Acting like the two options are "kill people due to business closures or kill people due to a virus" is just false. It's not true, it's you not wanting to say there's an expensive 3rd option that would result in much fewer deaths.

what's the material reality of the situation?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

No it isn't, because you can have the government pay businesses so they can stay afloat while shutting down or safely operating.

Just because it goes against your own fiscal policies doesn't mean that it's not an option. Acting like the two options are "kill people due to business closures or kill people due to a virus" is just false. It's not true, it's you not wanting to say there's an expensive 3rd option that would result in much fewer deaths.

Is it reasonable though?

I get that you can just print money, but there is a cost to that too. We already spent an additional $3.2 trillion, on top of the $2 trillion dollar deficit we already were running, and going to add between $1 and $3 trillion more. Now add another what? $5 trillion? $10 trillion? to pay all small businesses to remain closed?

I just don't see how that is done.

 

[Empoleon8771]

One thing this thread has taught me is who is worth putting on ignore, because if you really have the opinion of "I don't care if old people die younger than they should because I want to go to bars", you're not someone I want to see post on this site.

Just pure selfishness.

Is it reasonable though?

I get that you can just print money, but there is a cost to that too. We already spent an additional $3.2 trillion, on top of the $2 trillion dollar deficit we already were running, and going to add between $1 and $3 trillion more. Now add another what? $5 trillion? $10 trillion? to pay all small businesses to remain closed?

I just don't see how that is done.

Yes, it's completely reasonable. Again, just because it disagrees with what fiscal policies you believe in doesn't make it unreasonable.

You're framing the situation as having 2 options, killing people due to a virus or killing people due to unemployment. That's just not the actual situation at all. Acting like adding more to the national deficit is worse than killing people is something I just can't wrap my head around. Like it's so obviously the best option. Everything has a downside, but "adding more to national debt" seems way better than "tens to hundreds of thousands of people dying".

This isn't even liberal vs conservative, this is spending money or people dying. You seem to think it's fine for the government to spend massive amounts of money on a vaccine to get it fast tracked, but you don't apply that to keeping businesses afloat? Acting like there is some certain limit that is okay to spend to keep people alive is basically assigning a dollar value to a person's life, which is something I morally can't agree with.

 

[Fordy]

it's always "you just want to go to bars" with you people. do you have any conception of how much permanent damage is being done to future generations, economically, socially, intellectually? in some countries the elderly walked into melting down nuclear reactors to save younger lives, here, you can't even broach the subject because people completely shut down and refuse to even engage on the topic. guess they're all working from home and paying tutors for their children so it's not worth thinking about

i would love to pay people not to go to work and keep their businesses afloat... but uh take a look around? where do you see that happening here? it's fantasy land, i'd like to stick to reality rather than handwaving all consequences away because theoretically we'd like to do something better and you don't want to think about what is actually happening to millions of people

 

[Jaded-Fan]

One thing this thread has taught me is who is worth putting on ignore, because if you really have the opinion of "I don't care if old people die younger than they should because I want to go to bars", you're not someone I want to see post on this site.

Just pure selfishness.



Yes, it's completely reasonable. Again, just because it disagrees with what fiscal policies you believe in doesn't make it unreasonable.

You're framing the situation as having 2 options, killing people due to a virus or killing people due to unemployment. That's just not the actual situation at all. Acting like adding more to the national deficit is worse than killing people is something I just can't wrap my head around. Like it's so obviously the best option. Everything has a downside, but "adding more to national debt" seems way better than "tens to hundreds of thousands of people dying".

This isn't even liberal vs conservative, this is spending money or people dying. You seem to think it's fine for the government to spend massive amounts of money on a vaccine to get it fast tracked, but you don't apply that to keeping businesses afloat? Acting like there is some certain limit that is okay to spend to keep people alive is basically assigning a dollar value to a person's life, which is something I morally can't agree with.

You are making a lot of assumptions about me which aren't reflected in my post. I am in favor of deficit spending to help during this crises.

That doesn't mean that at some point you do more harm than good. You cant add $10 trillion to the debt in one year and not have more bad come of it than good. It is not cost free as many countries have found out.

We have an enormous advantage in the dollar being the world's currency. That would be the first thing to go. It would get worse from there.

 

[Fordy]

when did it become verboten to say a young life is worth more than an old one? like, have you talked to an old person? they agree, unless they’re completely self involved