You realize Trump did the same right? He consistently downplayed the threat until the recent stockmarket crash.

People are dying because of this. — NOS4A2

What I heard was that massive companies aren’t getting reimbursed for the sick leave because they should be offering it anyway and they didn’t want to give a hand out to those megacorps.

Trump did the same as the CCP? That’s a massive lie.

:yawn: He didn't literally do the same as the CCP. In terms of what matters in the substance of your criticism, he did though.

Feck off, this thread's about Coronovirus, not Trump...

Good call, I'm done on this anyway.

Oh, he figuratively did the same. Utter nonsense.

You are not on the same page as humanity if you cannot look past our political differences at a crisis moment like this. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I like this better anyway.

Anyway, China and South Korea aren't experiencing new cases according to a paywalled NYT report.

According to them chloroquine is the answer.

Feck off, this thread's about Coronovirus, not Trump...

Oh, I brought up Trump. Hilarious.

Sorry, I'm with the adults in the room.



I doubt it's that simple. But it's worth looking into.

On 16 March 2020, advisor to the French Government on COVID-19, Professor Didier Raoult, announced that a non-randomized unblinded trial[34] involving 24 patients from the south east of France supported the claim that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment for COVID-19.[35] The trial is yet to be peer-reviewed.[34] An amount of 600 mg of hydroxychloroquine (brand name Plaquenil) was administered to these patients every day for 10 days. They reported "a significant decrease in viral load".[34] The drug appeared to be responsible for a "rapid and effective speeding up of their healing process, and a sharp decrease in the amount of time they remained contagious".[36] 70% of patients were "considered cured", compared with 12.5% of those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combination.[34] The antibiotic azithromycin - which is known to be effective against secondary infections from bacterial lung disease - led to even better outcomes. Professor Raoult said the results showed there was "a spectacular reduction in the number of positive cases" with the combination therapy. At 6 days, among patients given combination therapy, the percentage of cases still carrying SARS-CoV-2 was no more than 5%.[37][38]

A non-peer reviewed trial with a tiny sample isn't going to cut it except as a spur for further studies. Ray of hope though.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2161QQ

Promising results.

So, what if people are out of work and have not enough to pay rent/ mortgages?

Banks in Ireland have agreed to give a three month mortgage holiday and evictions for non-payment of rent have been banned. Do that, U.S.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/coronavirus-banks-agree-mortgage-breaks-and-repossession-deferrals-1.4205750
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0319/1124168-evictions-ban-coronavirus/

Ray of hope though. — Baden

I put all my hope in a scientific solution, not in a policy one. My trust isn't in some politician of any party of any country to figure out how to fix this.

put all my hope in a scientific solution, not in a policy one. My trust isn't in some politician of any party of any country to figure out how to fix this. — Hanover

I don't think you understood the problem regarding flattening the curve.

So, what if people are out of work and have not enough to pay rent/ mortgages? — Janus

I'm not sure if you're saying "so what" as in "whatever, no big deal", or if you're asking me what should be done to help in those cases. Your punctuation suggests it's not the former, but I literally already answered the latter at the end of the very post you're responding to:

we could solve the whole financial crisis just by forcing money to flow from where it is concentrated to where it is lacking, from where it will flow back into concentrations again. Like CPR for the economy. — Pfhorrest

The government should just give people money so that they can keep paying for access to the plentiful resources we already have, through the usual means that are already in place; and then later take money from people in proportion to how much they have (i.e. tax the rich) to cover that expenditure, once this crisis is over.

So, what if people are out of work and have not enough to pay rent/ mortgages?

The US is suspending HUD foreclosures and evictions for at least 60 days.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/18/hud-suspends-foreclosures-evictions-coronavirus-135783

The government should just give people money — Pfhorrest

You do realize that "the government" can only "give" the money to people that it takes from the people in the first place, or do you not? This seems a problem with people like e.g. Bernie voters.... they seem to think that "the government" sits on a giant pot of gold can make every "free" for everyone, without any other effects on the country.

You realize Trump did the same right? He consistently downplayed the threat until the recent stockmarket crash. — Baden

Not true. It is correct that Trumps original response was bad PR; he was too overly optimistic, as is his natural reflex. But he corrected that pretty quickly. The stock market would have gone down anyway, as it was looking for a correction.
You might want to consider taking your TDS tunnel vision glasses off sometimes; not everything bad in the world is the fault of the orange monster.

Bernie voters.... they seem to think that "the government" sits on a giant pot of gold can make every "free" for everyone, without any other effects on the country. — Nobeernolife

Other voters think that tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, building a multi-billion dollar wall, driving up the deficit, blah blah... won’t have any effects???

Other voters think that tax cuts for the rich, building a multi-billion dollar wall, driving up the deficit, blah blah... won’t have any effects??? — praxis

I have seen you have feeing on party-ine propaganda talking points. But interesting that you mention the "deficit" in the same breath while demanding that the government spends money. Cognitive dissonance?

That is good, but only postpones the problems, because it doesn’t get people out of the obligation to pay those months’ rent/mortgage eventually, so when the crisis is over and people get their jobs back and able to be evicted or foreclosed upon again, they’re still months behind on their rent/mortgage and up shit creek if they can’t magically manifest that money from somewhere.

Apparently you can’t read to the end of a sentence, because I already addressed this later in the same sentence you quoted only the beginning of.

Bernie voters.... they seem to think that "the government" sits on a giant pot of gold can make every "free" for everyone, without any other effects on the country. — Nobeernolife

No they don't. They are well aware that the money comes from taxation. They want to fund this by increasing the tax on businesses and the wealthy (e.g. by reverting Trump's $1.5 trillion tax cut) and cutting spending elsewhere.

No they don't. They are well aware that the money comes from taxation. — Michael

Well, depends on who "they" are. With a lot of that crowd, I do have the feeling they really do not understand that the government does not have a magical pot of gold.

They want to fund this by increasing the tax on businesses and the wealthy (e.g. by reverting Trump's $1.5 trillion tax cut) and cutting spending elsewhere. — Michael

Yeah, OK, I know the party political slogans. The reality is of course more complicated, but that is not really a topic for the Corona thread.

With a lot of that crowd, I do have the feeling they really do not understand that the government does not have a magical pot of gold. — Nobeernolife

Well, technically they do (as that's how there is a currency at all).

The government can create all the money we need: an explanation

Although I believe abusing this leads to inflation.

Well, technically they do (as that's how there is a currency at all). — Michael

It'd perhaps be more accurate to say that the a society could, if necessary, suspend the use of markets and money to direct economic output and instead pour all output directly into a problem.

Markets are useful because they are low-maintenance cybernetic systems that allow a relatively high amount of individual freedom. Money is useful because it makes markets even better at what they do. But we don't need to rely on either to solve a problem.

Well, technically they do (as that's how there is a currency at all). — Michael

Of course, but since I assume that you are not a complete idiot (like the infinite pot-of-money crowd), you of course know that that simply means inflation, i.e. taxation of everybody. So why bring this up?