Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

The Coronavirus - a virus from eating bats, an accident or something sinister gone wrong?

Recommended Posts

The Constitution Isn’t Suspended Because of Coronavirus: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-constitution-isnt-suspended-because-of-coronovirus/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

Quote

The city of Newark is cracking down on “coronavirus disinformation,” warning that any “false reporting” — which includes misleading “allegations” on social media — will lead to criminal prosecution. What exactly makes Newark think it has the authority to threaten speech?

And how exactly is this kind of speech code going to be enforced? How will Newark police know if the person spreading “disinformation” even lives in their city? Will they subpoena the IP address of @Goldilox5073540586732 to find out? Will they extradite people from other cities who are making false statements about Newark? What if someone on Facebook tells Newarkites — Newarkians? — that coronavirus isn’t that big of a deal? Or what if they have an unprovable theory? Will the city’s department of safety consider those illegal “allegations?”

It’s likely that the threat is simply meant to discourage despicable people and conspiracy theorists from spreading rumors. If so, I suspect it will likely have the opposite effect. Threatening randos on Twitter reeks of panic.

To a lesser extent, I also find Washington governor Jay Inslee’s decision to “ban” gatherings of over 250 people in the Seattle area concerning. Of course, it makes sense for government officials to implore citizens to stay away from large groups. And the governor has wide-ranging powers — hard to believe how wide-ranging, to be honest — to enact restrictions in times of emergency. But what if 250 individuals want to get together to protest Inslee’s ban or the Trump administration’s handling of coronavirus? What if 250 individuals want to get together to pray? What constitutional right does a governor have to stop them?

Obviously, most people aren’t going to concern themselves with civil-liberty questions as the threat of a pandemic hangs over them, but they should. Because, as we’ve seen, while some threats are real, it’s easy to scaremonger — think “climate emergency” or “gun-violence epidemic” — in an effort to chip away at our rights.

Bingo.  And once those rights are chipped away the state doesn't want to give them back.  Ever.   See Patriot Act and FISA.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/10/21171481/coronavirus-us-cases-quarantine-cancellation

FTA:

Yet the speed at which the outbreak plays out matters hugely for its consequences. What epidemiologists fear most is the health care system becoming overwhelmed by a sudden explosion of illness that requires more people to be hospitalized than it can handle. In that scenario, more people will die because there won’t be enough hospital beds or ventilators to keep them alive.

A disastrous inundation of hospitals can likely be averted with protective measures we’re now seeing more of — closing schools, canceling mass gatherings, working from home, self-quarantine, self-isolation, avoiding crowds — to keep the virus from spreading fast.

Epidemiologists call this strategy of preventing a huge spike in cases “flattening the curve,” and it looks like this:

image.png.8b1c2ce62d2edc0a986ce5912b5675d0.png

“Even if you don’t reduce total cases, slowing down the rate of an epidemic can be critical,” wrote Carl Bergstrom, a biologist at the University of Washington in a Twitter thread praising the graphic, which was first created by the CDC, adapted by consultant Drew Harris, and popularized by the Economist. The chart has since gone viral with the help of the hashtag #FlattenTheCurve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about a chill going down the spine ... and as for "We haven't discussed that yet," color me skeptical.  Note the lines "If somebody gets a little bit out of control ..." and "But people know they're being watched."  That has Milleresque DNA all over it ... if you hear Barr utter it, be afraid.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-restricting-travel-u-s-possibility-if-coronavirus-pandemic-gets-n1156851

President Donald Trump said Thursday it's a "possibility" that the administration could impose travel restrictions within the U.S. to limit exposure to the coronavirus if certain areas get "too hot."

"We haven't discussed that yet," Trump said when asked about the option at a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. "Is it a possibility? Yes. If somebody gets a little bit out of control, if an area gets too hot.

"You see what they're doing in New Rochelle, which is good frankly," Trump continued, referring to the city just north of Manhattan where there is a growing cluster of coronavirus cases. "It's the right thing, but it's not enforced, it's not very strong. But people know they're being watched. New Rochelle, that's a hot spot."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, foxbat said:

Talk about a chill going down the spine ... and as for "We haven't discussed that yet," color me skeptical.  Note the lines "If somebody gets a little bit out of control ..." and "But people know they're being watched."  That has Milleresque DNA all over it ... if you hear Barr utter it, be afraid.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-restricting-travel-u-s-possibility-if-coronavirus-pandemic-gets-n1156851

President Donald Trump said Thursday it's a "possibility" that the administration could impose travel restrictions within the U.S. to limit exposure to the coronavirus if certain areas get "too hot."

"We haven't discussed that yet," Trump said when asked about the option at a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. "Is it a possibility? Yes. If somebody gets a little bit out of control, if an area gets too hot.

"You see what they're doing in New Rochelle, which is good frankly," Trump continued, referring to the city just north of Manhattan where there is a growing cluster of coronavirus cases. "It's the right thing, but it's not enforced, it's not very strong. But people know they're being watched. New Rochelle, that's a hot spot."

Show me your papers, macht schnell!

 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Markets vs. Socialism: Why South Korean Healthcare Is Outperforming Italy with COVID-19: https://mises.org/wire/markets-vs-socialism-why-south-korean-healthcare-outperforming-italy-covid-19

Quote

Everyone is vitally aware of the spread of the novel COVID-19 pandemic as it rages in early stages across the globe. Travel restrictions are everywhere as people are trying to get tested, prepare for possible quarantines, and worrying about their jobs and their families. Events involving large groups of people are canceled, and in some cases entire countries are being locked down.

But in all this flurry of reaction over the crisis, there is an almost natural experiment in how well a socialized healthcare system can respond to such a problem. And the answer appears to be…not well. To demonstrate, we can look at the two cases of Italy and South Korea. As of the time of this writing (3/12/2020), Italy has experienced 15,113 cases while South Korea has confirmed 7,869. However, the South Korean number is rising at a relatively tepid ~100 cases a day to Italy’s roughly 2,500 added today. (Data on the spread of the novel coronavirus was obtained from this site tracking the outbreak.) Overall, Italy and South Korea have similar populations (around 60 million and 50 million, respectively), although the South Korean half of the Korean Peninsula is about a third of the size of Italy in terms of land area.

Italy is experiencing a quickly spiraling exponential growth in confirmed cases despite shutting down the entire country with curfews and travel restrictions and heavily focusing on the provision of care. By contrast, even with a cult that essentially spread the disease on purpose, South Korea has gained a strong foothold in containing COVID-19. There are many reasons for this difference in outcome, but some of them are directly related to the far more socialized healthcare system in Italy.

South Korean Healthcare

Although South Korea does have a state-monopolized system providing a universal health insurance, this state-provided insurance is not able to set prices in the market for healthcare. Hospitals and clinics routinely charge patients more than the state insurance will pay, which has caused many Koreans to take out private insurance to cover the difference. TheKorea Bizwire reports that eight out of ten Koreans take out such insurance, with the average Korean paying just over 20,000 won (about $120) a month for it.

Care is provided by a set of hospitals that are 94 percent privately owned, with a fee-for-service model and no direct government subsidies. Many of these hospitals are run by charitable foundations or private universities. Private hospitals in the country exploded in number from 1,185 in 2002 to 3,048 in 2012. The result is that South Korea has 10 hospital beds per 1,000 people, more than twice the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average (and nearly three times as many as Italy’s 3.4 beds per capita). These private hospitals also charge significantly less (between 30–85 percent of the price) than US hospitals (which are also often required to get a “certificate of need” from the government before construction, depending on what state they are built in).

Italian Healthcare

In Italy, by contrast, surgeries and hospitalization provided by public hospitals or by conventional private ones are completely free of charge for everyone regardless of their income. This is entirely paid for by the the national health service, the Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN) (as are family doctors' services). Waiting times can be up to a few months for large public facilities, though they are somewhat shorter for small private facilities with contracts to provide services through the SSN. Public and private medical providers offer “free market” options in which the patient pays directly, but this is rarely taken up and thus contributes very little to hospital revenues. Emergency medical service is always free of charge.

Wait times and other quality markers are significantly worse in the north of the country, with patients often going to southern Italy for better care. Doctors graduating from Italian medical schools often go elsewhere for work, and Italian officials are seeking to respond by reducing openings in medical programs. Italy experienced an ongoing health worker shortage even before COVID-19 struck the country. The number of hospitals in the country has been on a steady decline over the last couple of decades, from 1,321 in 2000 to 1,063 in 2017.  SSN prices for payments to hospitals were set below market rates for the purpose of saving money on healthcare, and the results were as expected for a de facto price control.

Conclusion

Currently, the Italian healthcare system is overwhelmed by the tens of thousands of COVID-19 cases it is already facing. They have turned to rationing care to prioritize the young, leaving those most at risk of the virus to essentially fend for themselves. Most just chalk this up to the severity and danger of the pandemic. However, the evidence tells a different story. It portrays a situation made far worse by a reliance on government-centralized healthcare that manages costs by de facto price rationing rather than a free market system. Although South Korea provides a basic safety net, it is also one of the closest healthcare systems in the world to a free market, outpacing to a significant degree even the US system (which includes a great number of supply-restricting regulations that only drive up costs and hurt availability). As a result, South Korean healthcare did what Italy’s already undersupplied system could not do—cope effectively with the pandemic and manage to get it under control without shutting down the entire country in the process. 

If US officials wish to effectively handle the rising number of cases in big cities, they would do well to take lessons from South Korea and start freeing the market for healthcare rather than bungling a monopolized testing protocol that did not need to be monopolized, and thereby preventing people from getting tested. This would not immediately resolve the problems created by bad regulation in the past, but it would certainly reduce its negative consequences while improving the healthcare system's ability to deal with these sorts of crises going forward. It would also have the benefit of reducing the cost of healthcare generally.

 

  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China hints at denying Americans life-saving coronavirus drugs: https://www.foxnews.com/world/chinese-deny-americans-coronavirus-drugs

Quote

Now that the number of new people infected with the coronavirus in China is slowing down, the country's Communist Party is ratcheting up threats against the West, with a particularly nasty warning about access to life-saving drugs aimed at the United States.

In an article in Xinhua, the state-run media agency that's largely considered the mouthpiece of the party, Beijing bragged about its handling of COVID-19, a virus that originated in the city of Wuhan and has spread quickly around the world, killing nearly 5,000 people and infecting thousands more. The article also claimed that China could impose pharmaceutical export controls which would plunge America into "the mighty sea of coronavirus."

The disturbing threats made during a global pandemic as well as the scary consequences if that threat becomes real highlight just how tight China's grip is on the global supply chain. Already, the Food and Drug Administration has announced the first drug shortage related to the coronavirus. Though it did not disclose which drug was in short supply, the FDA did say it could not access enough raw components needed because they are made in China.

That doesn't come as a surprise to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla, who told Fox News on Thursday that America is "dangerously reliant" on China for the production of critical goods, including parts for technologies needed to fight COVID-19.

....

lol. Now that is has been proven that Russia had nothing to do with the manipulating the 2016 elections the MSM, particularly Fox News,  has to find another boogeyman/enemy to scare the American public.  China is now on the block.

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

68AD7542-DD53-40DF-9AA9-DDBCB55FBC08.jpeg

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COVID-19 Is Not a Good Reason to Enact a Permanent Federal Paid-Leave Entitlement: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/covid-19-is-not-a-good-reason-to-enact-a-permanent-federal-paid-leave-entitlement/

Quote

Many progressives and conservatives have long supported a federal paid-leave policy. And the intense concern brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic may make it harder for an already-too-tempted Trump administration to resist the large number of calls for this new entitlement — at least as it would apply to workers who may become sick or must stay home to care for family members. As a Washington Post reporter recently worried, the absence of such a policy “could make a widespread coronavirus outbreak here worse than it would be in a comparable country that takes sick leave seriously.”

 

It’s one thing to support temporary provision of sick leave paid for by the government when we face a public-health crisis. During emergencies, taxpayers, workers, employers, and Americans in general may be willing to bear a short-term burden that would be unacceptable during normal times. (This explains why even private companies such as Uber are temporarily offering paid leave to their drivers.) But it would be deeply misguided to use COVID-19 as an excuse for a permanent policy change.

Panic is no friend to sound policymaking. If Congress rushes through a universal paid-leave plan, it could fail to target those people who actually lack such a benefit from their employers — a smaller number of workers than many paid-leave advocates acknowledge — and overwhelmingly benefit those companies that already provide paid leave. And if it permanently adopts such a measure, many employers will reduce their privately supplied coverage in response. Such crowding-out is what has already happened in states where paid-family-leave programs were adopted, with many companies that once voluntarily provided paid leave as part of their workers’ employment packages now requiring employees to first tap all the available taxpayer-provided benefits, which in turn has produced larger-than-expected budgetary costs for state governments.

Of more immediate concern, several features of the various current proposals out there make them poorly suited to help control the spread of the coronavirus. For instance, the Healthy Families Act (HFA) proposed by Senator Patty Murray (D., Wash.) and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.) would require “all employers to allow workers to accrue seven days of paid sick leave and to provide an additional 14 days available immediately in the event of any public health emergency, including the current coronavirus crisis.” That sounds good in theory, but symptoms manifest themselves between two days and two weeks after contraction of the virus, a period of time during which asymptomatic carriers will not take leave and may unknowingly spread the disease. This is particularly important in the absence of widely available testing for those who fear they may have been infected.

Of course, it’s true that when workers without paid leave don’t work, they aren’t paid, so they may be reluctant to stay home even if they start to exhibit symptoms. It’s also true that if more workers had paid sick leave, fewer sick workers would show up to work and fewer people would become infected. Considered in isolation, this outcome is, of course, good. But it cannot be considered in isolation.

Obliging companies to permanently provide paid sick leave to workers who don’t currently have it would impose eventual reductions on their take-home pay. The provision of such benefits isn’t costless. We can be sure that in the long run — after the coronavirus fades from the headlines — mandated paid leave would inflict a pricey and permanent toll on workers who would prefer to receive more of their compensation as take-home pay and less as paid leave. Such workers, being disproportionately low-income, would be the least able to bear even marginal reductions in take-home pay.

This negative effect would exist even if leave benefits were paid for through the government and financed with a payroll tax split between employers and employees, as they would be in the Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act also proposed by DeLauro and Murray (and in other such proposals). Payroll taxes are highly regressive, and existing ones already impose a heavy burden on a majority of Americans. Unfortunately, the requirement that part of the tax be paid by employers is a legalistic formality: Economics dictates that the cost of this part of the tax, too, will over time fall on workers in the form of lower wages.

Yet many support the FAMILY Act, probably because, like the HFA, it’s been around as a proposal for years. As currently designed, it would provide payments for up to three months at a time to eligible people who, among other things, take leave from work because they have serious health conditions or need to care for immediate-family members who are seriously ill. But it would do little to encourage coronavirus-related leave.

Why? For one thing, it does not include a requirement that all employers extend paid leave. For another, it does not provide job protection to workers who don’t already qualify for the similarly titled Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (and who must work mostly full-time for firms with over 50 employees). That means it wouldn’t cover many workers who currently don’t have paid leave. For a third, it would almost certainly take a weeks-long or months-long application process before benefits could start being paid out. That is what’s happening in Washington state, where, only a few weeks into the adoption of a new paid-leave program, the huge volume of applications has led to wait times of at least a month to process claims — a month during which workers without enough savings are unlikely to forgo work and the vital income it provides.

The spread of coronavirus is a serious problem, and it requires a serious policy response. We must not further enfeeble American workers by using it as an excuse to enact permanent government mandates and entitlements that risk unleashing unintended negative consequences.

Agreed. Fear frequently results in bad long-term decisions.

 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2020 at 12:38 PM, Impartial_Observer said:

Corona in cans is my go to at the beach, should be a win/win!

image.png.f11175972dc44f11900fb4e356faca64.png

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nrhtzj6mtpm41.jpg

 

my5zudyghpm41.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&a

 

w9kzlkgsimm41.jpg

 

eqnc759vdnm41.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&a

 

on4npxrc0km41.jpg

q5jji6u13nm41.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&a

ycnpiysatpm41.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&a

d0wl9G0WLhfZZaDjxFVZEpMG3wH6FVh5zAGwfSnA

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Impartial_Observer ... the guy in the back has his priorities straight wouldn't you say?

image.png.859279c485ec55c1ac73b4c0a286db63.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m in Clearwater Beach, just left Publix, plenty of water, plenty of TP. I didn’t see any hand sanitizer but I didn’t really look. We walked around last night, while there were certainly people out and about, it was far from packed like you would expect. Friend of mine got tickets to Clearwater/St Pete for 21.40 yesterday on Spirit I believe out of Indy, bag was only 30 bucks. The sun is hot, the water is fine, why not take advantage. I think we’re going to plan a long weekend down here again next month.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America Doesn't Have Enough Hospital Beds To Fight the Coronavirus. Protectionist Health Care Regulations Are One Reason Why.: https://reason.com/2020/03/13/america-doesnt-have-enough-hospital-beds-to-fight-the-coronavirus-certificate-of-need-laws-are-one-reason-why/

Quote

By now, it's fairly obvious that federal bureaucrats slowed America's response to the new coronavirus outbreak. As university researchers and private-sector labs tried to develop tests that might have given health care providers a jump start on containing the virus, they were repeatedly stymied by the Centers for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration.

As the focus shifts from testing to treating, yet more red tape is poised to cause yet more problems.

The most acute of those problems: America simply doesn't have enough hospital beds to handle the expected influx of patients suffering from COVID-19. In many places, that shortage of beds is the result of state-level regulations—known as "certificate of need" laws, or CON laws—that artificially limit the supply of medical equipment. Those laws help politically powerful hospital chains limit regional competition and inflate health care costs, but they also create shortages of medical equipment that could prove disastrous during a pandemic.

Certificate of need laws are on the books in 35 states, but they differ from place to place. Their stated purpose is to keep hospitals from overspending, and thus from having to charge higher prices to make up for unnecessary outlays of capital costs. But in practice, they mean hospitals must get a state agency's permission before offering new services or installing a new medical technology. Depending on the state, everything from the number of hospital beds to the installation of a new MRI machine could be subject to CON review.

"There have been artificially imposed restrictions on the number of beds, ventilators, and facilities in general that can exist. Some states might find themselves having a real problem," says Jeffrey Singer, a medical doctor and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. (Singer is also a contributor to Reason Foundation, which publishes this website.)

In 28 states, hospitals must get state regulators' permission before adding beds, according to data collected by researchers at the Mercatus Center, a think tank at George Mason University. Bed space in nursing homes and long-term care facilities are subject to CON regulations in 34 states. CON laws limit long-term acute care services—the sort of thing that many coronavirus victims may need as they recover—in 30 states. Specific medical equipment, such as ventilators, could be subject to CON laws covering the purchases of new devices.

Those laws are one reason why America has fewer hospital beds than most other developed countries.

The United States has only 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That's even less than the 3.2 hospital beds per 1,000 people in Italy, where the COVID-19 outbreak has been particularly devastating. In China, the figure is 4.3 beds per thousand people, and South Korea (whose response to the virus seems to have been the most effective so far) has a whopping 12.3 beds for every thousand people.

After the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China, a new hospital with 1,000 beds was built in less than two weeks. It would be nearly impossible to duplicate that feat in America, says Singer—not because America lacks China's top-down authoritarian structure, but because regulations (including CON laws) routinely prioritize protectionism over health. In recent years, a CON board in Virginia has blocked a hospital from building a needed neonatal intensive care unit because a nearby hospital complained about unwanted competition. A similar board in Michigan tried to restrict cancer treatments for reasons that had nothing to do with medical efficacy or patient safety.

Even when there isn't a dangerous virus on the loose, CON laws are bad for patients. In 2016, researchers at the Mercatus Center found that hospitals in states with CON laws have higher mortality rates than hospitals in non-CON states. The average 30-day mortality rate for patients with pneumonia, heart failure, and heart attacks in states with CON laws is 2.5 to 5 percent higher even after demographic factors are taken out of the equation.

Singer says governors and state lawmakers should suspend any CON laws that might limit hospitals' ability to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak. It's likely too late to quickly expand the number of hospital beds available in the United States, but removing these impediments to expanding medical facilities should be a no-brainer.

After the coronavirus crisis has passed, those suspensions should be made permanent, so the market can adequately prepare for future pandemics without running up against protectionist rules.

"Let's learn from this," Singer says, "and not make this mistake again."

Common sense.  Too bad we the people have given all levels of government so much power that corruption/cronyism/protectionism like this is rampant.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty long article, but broken up into several components that can be individually digested ... https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca.   Probably take with a grain of salt as the piece is not specifically a news article and the author is an engineer, not a medical professional; however, I find the non-medical aspects, tracking the numbers and the data elements, to be of interest.  Fairly informative items that are typically not reported in most places as they are more of a behind-the-scenes kinds of things that planners/logicians might find of interest.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, foxbat said:

Pretty long article, but broken up into several components that can be individually digested ... https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca.   Probably take with a grain of salt as the piece is not specifically a news article and the author is an engineer, not a medical professional; however, I find the non-medical aspects, tracking the numbers and the data elements, to be of interest.  Fairly informative items that are typically not reported in most places as they are more of a behind-the-scenes kinds of things that planners/logicians might find of interest.

The difficulty in tracking this is that due to lack of testing kits/supplies, only really sick people will be tested. So, a number of cases, because of mild symptoms, will go untested. There will also be some that will still not be tested and will suffer significantly. The reaction to this outbreak will forever be labeled as a HUGE over reaction; and I am afraid the reality is that we did not act soon enough; primarily when it comes to being ready to test people, but also being ready to treat a large number of cases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Irishman said:

The difficulty in tracking this is that due to lack of testing kits/supplies, only really sick people will be tested. So, a number of cases, because of mild symptoms, will go untested. There will also be some that will still not be tested and will suffer significantly. The reaction to this outbreak will forever be labeled as a HUGE over reaction; and I am afraid the reality is that we did not act soon enough; primarily when it comes to being ready to test people, but also being ready to treat a large number of cases. 

I agree.  I watched a couple of special reports last night including one with Richard Engle who usually does war/fighting reporting right in harm's way.  Also saw another report earlier in the week where someone was talking about testing issues and mentioned that, at that time, South Korea was testing about 10,000 people daily whereas, at that point, the US has only tested about 10,000 total.  That number now is almost up to 20,000 daily and, South Korea even has this "perfected" down to doing it as "drive through" testing.  The South Korea COVID progression looks different than, for example, Spain and Italy, and unfortunately the NYC charting and some suggestion seems to be tied to the testing.  In a couple of special reports that I watched, there was focus on the issue of, without the testing, it makes it harder to figure out various responses and thus, like you mentioned, there may well be an over-reaction at this point.  However, in the absence of broader understanding/testing, direct options are a bit more limited.  Here are a couple of articles highlighting South Korea's testing approach.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51836898'

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/13/815441078/south-koreas-drive-through-testing-for-coronavirus-is-fast-and-free

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-south-korea-scaled-coronavirus-testing-while-the-us-fell-dangerously-behind 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I agree.  I watched a couple of special reports last night including one with Richard Engle who usually does war/fighting reporting right in harm's way.  Also saw another report earlier in the week where someone was talking about testing issues and mentioned that, at that time, South Korea was testing about 10,000 people daily whereas, at that point, the US has only tested about 10,000 total.  That number now is almost up to 20,000 daily and, South Korea even has this "perfected" down to doing it as "drive through" testing.  The South Korea COVID progression looks different than, for example, Spain and Italy, and unfortunately the NYC charting and some suggestion seems to be tied to the testing.  In a couple of special reports that I watched, there was focus on the issue of, without the testing, it makes it harder to figure out various responses and thus, like you mentioned, there may well be an over-reaction at this point.  However, in the absence of broader understanding/testing, direct options are a bit more limited.  Here are a couple of articles highlighting South Korea's testing approach.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51836898'

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/13/815441078/south-koreas-drive-through-testing-for-coronavirus-is-fast-and-free

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-south-korea-scaled-coronavirus-testing-while-the-us-fell-dangerously-behind 

I saw a quote from a doctor on facebook, who was critical of people who only felt minor symptoms coming in to look at testing. I thought, ummmmmmm, isn't that what we want to have happen? I know with a few health issues that have come up, I want to know all details beyond a shadow of a doubt. Besides that, the more people we test, the better idea we have of what we are dealing with. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Gets What He Wants as Federal Reserve Interest Rate Target Drops to Zero: https://reason.com/2020/03/15/trump-gets-what-he-wants-as-federal-reserve-interest-rate-target-drops-to-zero/

Quote

The Federal Reserve announced Sunday afternoon that it will shift its target interest rate to the zero to 0.25 range, as well as launching a new shades-of-2008 phase of "quantitative easing"—injecting $700 billion of new money into the economy via buying financial assets.

The idea, along with their announcement earlier this week of over a trillion of rotating repo loans to financial institutions with a wide variety of bonds for collateral, is intended to keep the financial end of the economy rolling as other sectors are brought to a halt by COVID-19 safety measures.

A wide variety of financial instruments are being accepted at the discount window for such loans from the Fed, including everything from Treasury bonds to state and city obligations to commercial, industrial, and agricultural loans to corporate bonds to commercial real estate and consumer loans.

In addition, as CNBC reports:

The Fed also cut reserve requirement ratios for thousands of banks to zero [and] said the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, and the Swiss National Bank took action to enhance dollar liquidity around the world through existing dollar swap arrangements…The actions by the Fed appeared to be the largest single day set of moves the bank had ever taken…The quantitative easing will take the form of $500 billion of Treasurys and $200 billion of agency-backed mortgage securities. The Fed said the purchases will begin Monday with a $40 billion installment.

Yahoo! Finance gives some context, noting that:

the Fed said the financial institutions should feel comfortable tapping into the discount window as a tool for addressing "potential funding pressures." In the past, banks have been hesitant to tap into the direct lines of funding because of the stigma associated with relying on the Fed for emergency funds….The Fed also said firms could use their capital and liquidity buffers to lend, and reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective on March 26.

President Donald Trump had been jawboning and hectoring Fed chief Jerome Powell to make this drastic interest rate move for a long time to boost "his" economy in an election year.

But under current conditions, the move has a high risk of merely extending unnatural bubbles in certain asset values that will eventually crash, leaving monetary policy powerless to help. It has the additional risk of seeding high overall short-term price inflation of the sort we haven't seen in America in over three decades. The last time we've seen an annual price inflation rate over 5 percent, for example, was 1990.

The Fed says it will likely keep to these policies until it feels the economy is on the other end of the COVID-19 crisis.

Keep buying Gold.  And seeds.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitigating short term uncertainty and hardship for almost future economic disaster.  And of course it will affect our children and grandchildren more than us.  'Tis the American Way.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Mitigating short term uncertainty and hardship for almost future economic disaster.  And of course it will affect our children and grandchildren more than us.  'Tis the American Way.

Proud to do my part in upholding the American Way. Traditions are important.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/health/2020/03/16/indiana-coronavirus-updates-covid-19-news/5024713002/

Quote

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb announced on Monday that all restaurants, bars and nightclubs must close to in-person customers, and may only offer take-out and delivery through the end of the month. Indiana residents will also need to adhere to CDC standards and limit gatherings to 50 people or fewer.

....

Nice way to put some small establishments out of business.  

Slabby's Food & Freedom, we hardly knew ya..........................

 

Edited by Muda69
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...