- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/26/20 at 10:39 am to TxTiger82
quote:
The market will come back because the fundamentals of the economy have been and will continue to be strong.
They will not be strong if 10+% of Americans are unemployed
Posted on 3/26/20 at 10:41 am to Centinel
quote:
Millenials will pay for it.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 10:42 am to Pettifogger
quote:
We all know it's a balancing act
I don't understand the urge to plant firmly and inflexibly on one side or the other, aside from it being our national tradition to do so
I think until testing is more readily available, we focus on saving lives and preventing its spread. I think any talk of re-opening businesses is irresponsible until we have a firmer grasp on the underlying problem. More testing, more PPE for front line workers, etc. As those come more in line, then we can start the conversation on lifting curfews, re-opening non-essential businesses, relaxing social distancing measures, etc.
I think we're still at least a few weeks away from that though, unfortunately.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 10:43 am to Armymann50
It’s not about saving the economy, it’s about preventing a recession. There’s a difference. Hiring people and starting projects back up takes a lot longer then canceling them and laying people off.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 10:44 am to Pettifogger
quote:
I don't understand the urge to plant firmly and inflexibly on one side or the other
with this, it's b/c one policy is based on "firmly planting" or else the policy fails
the policy based in flattening the curve requires full adherence over a long period of time. period.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 10:45 am to baldona
There’s also tons of data out there that many more people have this then we think and therefore we are much more over it then we think. The next 7-10 days are going to be bad no matter what, but there’s a great chance we improve drastically after that.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 10:47 am to baldona
quote:
t’s about preventing a recession
I think it's too late for that - we are in a recession already. It's about preventing a depression, and we can't really focus on that if this virus is still rapidly spreading. Our healthcare system just can't handle it.
The 3 relief bills will be a huge help to stave off a depression, but if people continue to ignore social distancing guidelines, and hospitals still struggle to get testing kits and PPE, the fight may be futile.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 10:48 am to The Spleen
quote:
I think until testing is more readily available, we focus on saving lives and preventing its spread. I think any talk of re-opening businesses is irresponsible until we have a firmer grasp on the underlying problem
How can we possibly do that when the experts keep changing their predictions and we are turning away people from testing?
“We are looking at a mortality rate of 4%.”
*Spongebob one week later*
“Okay it’s 2%.”
*two days later*
“Okay 1.4%”
*two more days later*
“Okay so it’s most likely well below 1%. It was never about that anyways.”
Posted on 3/26/20 at 10:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
with this, it's b/c one policy is based on "firmly planting" or else the policy fails
the policy based in flattening the curve requires full adherence over a long period of time. period.
This.
The only way this strategy has any sort of endgame in the next year is if we can ramp up production of ventilators, PPE, tests, etc. to get to where we can treat sick people as necessary. We should also be testing random samples of the population, not just the really sick people. We need a better handle on the actual mortality rate, and we need it yesterday.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 10:53 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Conservatives only care about bringing the stock market back so Trump will win the election. They are also anti-intellectual, so PhDs and expertise don't impress them. They only care about winning and this will not persuade them otherwise
MAGA, PUSSY
Posted on 3/26/20 at 11:27 am to OKtiger
What do you do for a living?
Posted on 3/26/20 at 11:44 am to baldona
quote:
It’s not about saving the economy, it’s about preventing a recession.
It is more fundamental than that. It is about saving the republic. If you think this country can just shut down for multiple months with people cowering in their homes until all risk is eliminated, you're crazy. A two or three week hiatus to see if we can stem the worst of this--probably the right thing to do. Much beyond that and you are doing serious damage to this nation. And that damage is going to be far more serious than anything this virus presents.
This post was edited on 3/26/20 at 11:49 am
Posted on 3/26/20 at 11:47 am to OKtiger
quote:
I'm gonna go with the PhD economists and say we shouldn't go back to work right now..
My fiancee has a Ph.D. in cellular and molecular pathology and says the reaction to this disease is greatly overblown. You, of course, are a halfwit.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 11:48 am to OKtiger
These same guys who said Trump would crash economy?
Dumbasses.
Dumbasses.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 11:58 am to SabiDojo
quote:
How can we possibly do that when the experts keep changing their predictions
Limited data do to the lack of testing leads to wide ranges in predictions
quote:
we are turning away people from testing?
b/c testing is still not as readily available as needed
quote:
“We are looking at a mortality rate of 4%.”
*Spongebob one week later*
“Okay it’s 2%.”
*two days later*
“Okay 1.4%”
*two more days later*
“Okay so it’s most likely well below 1%. It was never about that anyways.”
“Okay so it’s most likely well below 1%.
I think very few people ever thought the actual mortality rate was 4%. While that may have been the 'number' at one point, most people knew it wasn't accurate b/c the US shite the bed when it came to testing. Even when the numbers were above 2%, Fauci was saying it would be closer to 1%.
quote:
It was never about that anyway.
From the moment I started following the coronavirus news, the was biggest concerns were being significantly more lethal than the flu and overwhelming the medical system.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 12:08 pm to OweO
quote:
Solid argument.
As opposed to the original “they just want trump to win” argument?
Stupid comments typically beget stupid responses.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 12:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the policy based in flattening the curve requires full adherence over a long period of time. period.
Does it though?
By balance, I mean something along the lines of complete shutdown until Easter/whenever, followed by structured and coordinating easing of less-crucial restrictions, followed by gradual reopening that relies on individual fear/avoidance to continue the efforts even after things have begun to resume semi-normal operations.
I've not seen anything (besides outliers) to indicate that "flattening the curve" can't include a graduated series of efforts.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 12:14 pm to ashy larry
Agreed
Since the serious measures in the US began, the media/governmental/average person consensus is that the real mortality rate is probably around 1% (or lower).
Sure, there were people on the edges claiming .05% or 4% but I've not seen any policy or decision making that seems premised on the idea this is a 3% or 4% situation.
I don't know why the goalpost shifting arguments have popped up, because for at least two weeks most media and most governmental voices have discussed in relative nuance that the issue was less about people dying at a particular rate. Rather, it was/is more about taxing the healthcare system, high hospitalization and the resulting (somewhat artificial) increase in mortality that could result both for coronavirus and other ailments that would become more difficult to treat due to overburdening of the system.
None of that is new.
Since the serious measures in the US began, the media/governmental/average person consensus is that the real mortality rate is probably around 1% (or lower).
Sure, there were people on the edges claiming .05% or 4% but I've not seen any policy or decision making that seems premised on the idea this is a 3% or 4% situation.
I don't know why the goalpost shifting arguments have popped up, because for at least two weeks most media and most governmental voices have discussed in relative nuance that the issue was less about people dying at a particular rate. Rather, it was/is more about taxing the healthcare system, high hospitalization and the resulting (somewhat artificial) increase in mortality that could result both for coronavirus and other ailments that would become more difficult to treat due to overburdening of the system.
None of that is new.
Posted on 3/26/20 at 12:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the policy based in flattening the curve requires full adherence over a long period of time. period.
Stupid. Curve is already flattening without even close to full adherence. You are being willfully ignorant in your blind adoration for your rhetoric.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News