Trump's Response to COVID-19

The plan is easy to explain, followed by a few paragraphs of useless hot air that makes no attempt to explain the plan


Everyone locks themselves inside for 6 weeks, twiddles their thumbs, maxes out their credit cards, they think cases go down because of that, open back up, cases go up...then you are back in the same place you were three months ago anyway and it cost the world about $US24 trillion so far

....the, what repeat?

....how many times?

There's nothing that's going to get rid of the virus, you are all trying to fight nature and evolution

 

it's possible that the 50% vaccines will do something, isn't it?

 

You didn't explain anything either. Science can find vaccines and just because nature evolves that doss not mean humans should do nothing to help each other and prevent as many deaths as we can. Don't try to use your lack of empathy as an excuse. Many humans don't think like that.

You want to argue evolution but you don't understand the number one thing about it.

The species that adapts will survive. Because our environment has changed humans must too. Those that are not are not going to pass on genes or compete for our resources,

Do you even Darwin bro?

 

The truth about the plan is that there never was one

Every country that locked down the hardest in early 2020 are just the ones that have screwed themselves the hardest for 2021 and beyond (don't worry, that includes my country)

Criticize Bolsonaro because you think he is right wing and CNN tells you, you are supposed to hate him

But don't criticise Modhi or Obrador because you don't know who the hell they are and you never gave a shit about India or Mexico

Everyone of these chief medical officers the world over, are all boomers, all in that 60+ age range, worried about saving their own skin foremost

At the same time some of those world leaders just managing the panic, not the virus

 

What do they have to do with Trump and American polocy and why do you think I would not care?

A lot of nothing to fill in your lack of an argument.

The benefits of locking down are proven in numerous studies. Are you arguing that had nothing shut down there would be no economic impact? That's not true.

 

You keep throwing out these vague non qualifiers

"The benefits of locking down are proven in numerous studies"

What benefits? Predictive modelling isn't a study. No modelling exists that says you are going to stop the virus, no study tells you how many unemployed you will have, what the crime rate will be in 2021/22/23

If you believe in "the plan" why is it so friggin hard to even get you to articulate what that plan actually is?

 

Benefits of lives saved and money saved in health care costs. You are misusing the term study with predictive modelling. Of course by the nature of what it is you can not study the future. Unknown outcomes are unknown. But likely outcomes are the most likely outcomes. Because X does y it often equals Z. So one would assume Z.

If you want to compare actual results look at America vs other countries. Why is it that although life is not 100% the same elsewhere it's so much closer. Your neighbor New Zealand is doing pretty good. Did they do whatever the hell they wanted because life evolves?

The plan is to social distance and restrict things in various degrees until a vaccine is available or the virus or when people in America listen enough for it to not spread everywhere. Once an infection rate is low enough maybe America could do some things again. Right now they are getting worse because the stupid people are winning.

 

Love your brown shirts vanilla.

 

Yes - true. And it's also proven that even the areas that have "re-opened" aren't having much business ........................ because people are afraid to go out and around because of Covid-19. So FEAR is the determining factor for slow business - not state government so-called "lock-downs." My own area went "green" and still businesses are suffering. The "boomers" are not willing to die early just to "save" anyone's economy, and make ANY person look good politically.

 

Mike DeWine: Ohio governor warns people against seeing Covid-19 tests as unreliable after he received a false positive - CNNPolitics

Ohio governor warns people against seeing Covid-19 tests as unreliable after he received a false positive

CNN)Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine on Sunday warned Americans against seeing coronavirus tests as unreliable days after he received a false positive result before a scheduled meeting with President Donald Trump.

"I think what people should not take away from my experience (is) that testing is not reliable or doesn't work," DeWine, a Republican, told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union."
DeWine said the antigen test he took last Thursday that yielded the false positive "should be looked at as a screening test" and that the PCR test, which he said over 1,300,000 Ohioans have taken, "is very, very, very reliable."

 

It has been "proven" has it

No it hasn't
Of course there is going to be more business once restrictions are lifted

 

That post lets me know how much "science" you haven't read

That is basically why it has spread everywhere now, a plan along those lines was never going to be enough

 

Is there anything wrong with a tax deferral, and is $400 unemployment boost enough? & what about the stimulus checks?

Talks between democrats and republicans fell apart. From the looks of things President Trump has actually tried to do something positive by executive order. Personally, I can't stand him or his leadership style - you can't even call it that because it often doesn't even resemble leadership - but aside from being totally unconstitutional (power of the purse aside...) I like the ideas I know. It sounds like I'm on board.

I like the payroll tax cut if it's going to be paid back. However, I don't like the idea that it would be made permanent if he's reelected; which I also don't like at all the idea of...

Also, $400 is a genuine boost. It's not $600, but it's a compromise. What's not fair is that they're compromising on someone's livelihood and potentially the ability to put food on the table. If $600 seemed to work/people didn't complain or go hungry, I don't know why it can't resume. I guess they think it's too expensive and don't want to play catchup later.

 

First of all... It's stealing money fro Social Security/Medicaid.

Second... It's not going to be paid back. Trump wants to make it permanent.

Basically it's just defunding Social Security.

 

De-funding social security and medicaid: Republicans dream for the further screwing of Americans. They've wanted to get their filthy mitts on them as long as I can remember. Trump re-elected: Kiss em' good bye. Any reason to de-fund the post office and bring lawsuits against mail in voting around the nation and close hundreds of polling stations, regardless of the pandemic? Of course-------The republicans will do ANYTHING to keep their beloved emperor in office. Again: it's embarrassing to realize that there are so many "americans"that are so stupid. And so many cowardly republicans who have put party above democracy/country. Can't we just get back to the usual rigged economic system/facade that we had. That would be better than what we're heading toward.

 

Yeah. I didn't like the part about them not paying it back either. If they're going to borrow it, fine! They can have it and pay it back in April until the cows come home... However, he is saying as I pointed out that he wants to make that payroll tax cut stick.

It's not so cut and dried. Under these circumstances there's no problem at all borrowing using that mechanism - a payroll tax deferment. It's the possibility of defunding like you're saying that's sort of draconian.

We can sit here and criticize him, but I know a good idea when I see one. Using the payroll tax cut only helps working people though.

So the other part of that is the unemployment "boost". I'm not collecting any of that, but I think what that means is the $600 was in addition to ordinary sums that are disbursed. If that's the case, what they need to do is expose the amount that is typically given, compare it to the living wage, and demonstrate how $400 is somehow adequate. If it is - and that's an if - then fine. $400 is ok. If it isn't - and the $200 is a pretty narrow margin I'd say - is life and death between 4 and 6? I'm thinking if we're tightening our belts together, that $400 might be just ok. It's not great, but it won't cost anyone their mortgage. Just no peanut butter until dad goes back to work. But when's that? There are so many variables at play.

Also, I feel like they try to incentivize something that's detrimental to the health of the workforce at large. It's not good to go back to work, but the move to limit unemployment payouts makes living harder. It's punishment.

 

yes. so now i'm wondering what the end-game is. It's pointless. Why would you want to defund that? I don't get it. I mean, it's like you said.. It's screwing us. We're obviously not going to just allow that to happen. It effects voters. It doesn't make sense.

 

* Shrugs

Where did you think the money was going to come from?

You had a 32.9% drop on GDP this quarter, probably get a similar figure next quarter

That will be mirrored in the loss to state and federal tax revenue

Keep locking down and they are going to have to make up for 1/3 of what they were spending before

It's going to get worse

 

Well... When you have something intelligent to say, make sure you come back and let us know.

 

You had 2.84 million Americans die in 2017 from everything

They are now estimating 300,000 Covid deaths in the US by the end of the year

So all, you need is the financial impact of the lockdowns to result in 10% more deaths than usual to match the people you think you saved becuase of the lockdowns

Bear in mind, 42% of your deaths were in Nursing homes, median life expectancy once placed in a nursing home is 6 months

So 50% of 42% of 300,000; 60,000 would have died by December anyway