SARS-2-CoV (COVID-19)

[deerslayer]

Well, according to Van Jones, one reason is that black people ignored the disease:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/opinions/african-americans-covid-19-risk-jones/index.html

[FUJIMO]

5 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

Well, according to Van Jones, one reason is that black people ignored the disease:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/opinions/african-americans-covid-19-risk-jones/index.html

I remember for several mornings in a row after shelter-in-place orders in CA IL NY GA and NO the national news was showing video of backyard BBQ's in black neighborhoods, funerals at black churches, pick up basketball games in predominantly black neighborhoods, you get the point. Savannah Hoda Craig and Al were begging them to heed the warning of health officials. Combine that with underlying and preexisting health conditions and that can certainly makes stats look a lot different. 

[Raoul]

In fairness it wasn't only blacks....

[Luckyforward]

1 minute ago, Raoul said:

In fairness it wasn't only blacks....

Absolutely.  Excellent observation, Raoul.  Thank you.

[Chucktshoes]

Commerce in the age of social distancing is getting wild. 
 

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-atf-authorizes-drive-through-gun-sales-to-maintain-social-distancing/

[Ronald_55]

7 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

Commerce in the age of social distancing is getting wild. 
 

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-atf-authorizes-drive-through-gun-sales-to-maintain-social-distancing/

Local shop has already done the kiosk type thing.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1305794356296269&id=185948338280882

We are one step from local shops doing delivery. I see the ATF was ultra specific on the "on the licensee’s property" portion though. Local ammo deliveries would still be legal though. 

[RED333]

21 hours ago, TGO David said:

If you ignore people like her, they influence policy behind the scenes or outright get new laws passed.  Never ignore them.  NEVER.

DING, DING, DING we have a winner!

[DaveTN]

13 hours ago, deerslayer said:

Well, according to Van Jones, one reason is that black people ignored the disease:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/opinions/african-americans-covid-19-risk-jones/index.html

I don’t think blacks took it any less serious than whitey. Besides ignoring it, there were plenty whining that it was a violation of their rights.

[xsubsailor]

 I guess I'm guilty of taking the places I order from for granted. I keep forgetting that businesses on the other end of the internet have to comply with the essential/non-essential rules as everyone else.

[btq96r]

This piece is a bit long, but well worth the time to read.  It focuses on the long term financial horizon, but has some very astute political analysis to go alongside it as people try to theorize how governments and their actions will have to be accounted for with regards to financial market planning.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4337018-covidminus-19-will-accelerate-preexisting-trends

[bud]

.

Edited December 24, 2020 by bud

[Chucktshoes]

Split the Snowden discussion off here. 
 

https://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/114682-covid-19-authoritarianism-and-you/

[btq96r]

10 hours ago, bud said:

I read the article. More doom and gloom driven investment speculation. This commentors post after the article was more valuable, and more in line with reality, than much of the author's article-

I can see that take away.  From my perspective, I watch the Fed a lot.  What they do is mostly wonky, but it's without interference from Congress or the President, so they tend to be more proactive, and in larger force.  What they're doing is telling me we're not going to be as good as we hope when CoronaMania passes as people think.  Our economy had some serious warts that easy money was covering up...now we're seeing just how restrictive cash flow has been for businesses, along with how easy it's been for Uncle Sugar to come to the rescue.  If this is sustainable, someone needs to show me the reasoning, because I don't see it.

It's a bit of a stark contrast to 2008.  At least then we had conversations about which businesses should be allowed to fold completely, which ones we'd let fall than raise up, and which ones would get support before bankruptcy.  That debate was completely absent this time, and most folks in government are seemingly fine with it because the arguments over the bailouts were not focused on market ethics or moral hazard. 

[jgradyc]

The one organization that failed miserably is the CDC. It has one primary mission... disease control. It failed miserably. This is a far bigger failure than FEMA during and after Katrina. 

The advances in treatment aren't coming from the CDC. They're coming from individual doctors who are willing to try things like IV vitamin C, or hydroxychloroquine plus zinc sulfate. 

I honestly don't see how Fauci still has a job. He doesn't seem to accept that this is a war. It's not peacetime medicine. He wants everything to be blessed by clinical trials with his Big Pharma buddies while people are dying who could possibly be saved by over the counter medicines. I explained this to a friend yesterday by saying that tampons or duct tape can be used to stop bleeding out. There haven't been any double-blind clinical trials with humans to prove this works, but it's saved lives. 

There are lots of things people should be doing right now to boost their immune systems and reduce the risk of a cytokine storm due to infection if they get this disease. You're hearing NOTHING about this from the CDC... or from anyone in government. For example, the average American is deficient in Vitamin D, which helps reduce inflammation. Vitamin D is sunshine or an inexpensive supplement you can take in the winter when you can't get sunshine.

[peejman]

12 hours ago, btq96r said:

It's a bit of a stark contrast to 2008.  At least then we had conversations about which businesses should be allowed to fold completely, which ones we'd let fall than raise up, and which ones would get support before bankruptcy.  That debate was completely absent this time, and most folks in government are seemingly fine with it because the arguments over the bailouts were not focused on market ethics or moral hazard. 

I mostly agree. Most lessons learned best are learned hard. Businesses that couldn't last a couple weeks of shutdown should be allowed to fail, as that's just bad management. Businesses strong enough to weather the storm should be rewarded for better planning. 

But thats not what all these leaders learned in business school. They're taught that it's good to run it like a government, always in some level of debt. Cash should be put to work, not held in reserve for hard times. You just "adjust your workforce" when bad times come, never mind the impact to your minions. 

But no one could have foreseen this length of shutdown. So how do you choose who gets a bailout and who doesn't?  That's never going to end well, so the only solution is everyone gets a handout. 

[Erik88]

13 hours ago, btq96r said:

Our economy had some serious warts that easy money was covering up...now we're seeing just how restrictive cash flow has been for businesses, along with how easy it's been for Uncle Sugar to come to the rescue.  If this is sustainable, someone needs to show me the reasoning, because I don't see it.

It is obvious or economy wasn't nearly as strong as they made it seem. I feel like we've just told all these corporations that they can do whatever the hell they want and big mamma fed and the American people will bail them out. Companies like Boeing were already struggling horribly. They should not be bailed out. Airlines have had record years leading up to this and used all their money for stock buy backs. This money should at least come with stipulations that they can't do buy backs for a decade. It really seems like we care more about corporations than working class families. I don't get it. 

[btq96r]

4 hours ago, peejman said:

But no one could have foreseen this length of shutdown. So how do you choose who gets a bailout and who doesn't?  That's never going to end well, so the only solution is everyone gets a handout. 

All things being equal, I'd like to see a way for companies to keep a reserve fund at some level of their revenue/earnings.  For reasons in my reply to Erik, that's not plausible in the current operating environment, but it could be a first step if we change the way things are currently done.

As for choosing who gets a bailout...it's not the bailouts themselves I have a problem with, it's bailouts sans strings.  Boeing is the perfect example of a company that I'm very uncomfortable with right now, because their company's failures are in some level of blame right now as COVID-19.  Mark Cuban hits the 10 ring in this clip telling Boeing no way should they get a bailout free and clear.

If we're gonna bailout Boeing, it needs to be with some heavy conditions, or after a bankruptcy where we can put a better company to the old name.

 

2 hours ago, Erik88 said:

It is obvious or economy wasn't nearly as strong as they made it seem. I feel like we've just told all these corporations that they can do whatever the hell they want and big mamma fed and the American people will bail them out. Companies like Boeing were already struggling horribly. They should not be bailed out. Airlines have had record years leading up to this and used all their money for stock buy backs. This money should at least come with stipulations that they can't do buy backs for a decade. It really seems like we care more about corporations than working class families. I don't get it. 

So, a huge part of the problem is we incentivize share buybacks, and debt supported balance sheets.  Between the tax code and corporate culture where folks get compensated on performance of earnings to share, publicly traded companies really have no choice but to do what's best fiscally, because doing the right thing for other reasons leaves you at a competitive disadvantage, puts your job in jeopardy, or worse, makes you a takeover target for activist investors.

We're getting the behavior we reward, and we shouldn't be surprised by it. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by btq96r

[bud]

.

Edited December 24, 2020 by bud

[peejman]

37 minutes ago, bud said:

I wanted failure and rebuilding. This would teach business owners/execs, shareholders, and employees a valuable lesson in natural sustainability. There's plenty of capital in America to rapidly fill the void where profittable markets exist, which would rapidly replace jobs. Instead the government interfered with the markets in an unnatural way and no lessons were learned. 

Exactly. People freak out about job loses due to business failures, but it happens every day. If there's opportunity for a profitable business, smart people will make it happen. Dumb people need to learn hard lessons or find something else to do. 

[bud]

.

Edited December 24, 2020 by bud

[btq96r]

3 hours ago, bud said:

There's plenty of capital in America to rapidly fill the void where profittable markets exist, which would rapidly replace jobs.

Say it louder three times for the people in the back!

[MacGyver]

7 hours ago, Erik88 said:

It is obvious or economy wasn't nearly as strong as they made it seem. I feel like we've just told all these corporations that they can do whatever the hell they want and big mamma fed and the American people will bail them out. Companies like Boeing were already struggling horribly. They should not be bailed out. Airlines have had record years leading up to this and used all their money for stock buy backs. This money should at least come with stipulations that they can't do buy backs for a decade. It really seems like we care more about corporations than working class families. I don't get it. 

Any small business owner in America will tell you the economy wasn’t as rosy as everyone seemed to think it was. 

As to bailing out Boeing or the like - national security questions aside -$60 billion is a whole lot of money. For that same money, you could make $250,000 grants to 240,000 small businesses.  

I wonder which would create more sustainable value in the long run?

[Raoul]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

Any small business owner in America will tell you the economy wasn’t as rosy as everyone seemed to think it was. 

As to bailing out Boeing or the like - national security questions aside -$60 billion is a whole lot of money. For that same money, you could make $250,000 grants to 240,000 small businesses.  

I wonder which would create more sustainable value in the long run?

Government never appreciates us small business types. I honestly can't recall anything the .gov has done for me in the 30 years I've had my own business. 

[bud]

.

Edited December 24, 2020 by bud

[MacGyver]

9 minutes ago, bud said:

Perhaps being left alone is the best thing we can hope for when dealing with the government.  

If they’d actually leave me alone, I might agree to it.