Cont: The all-new "US Politics and coronavirus" thread pt. 2

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah. He and Eisenhower were the only ones who looked like the really can throw.

ETA: And if Trump is worried he'll look much worse than Obama, then he's in a really pathetic shape.

Ha! Obama might have thrown it high and wide, but I'd bet Trump couldn't get it all the way to the plate.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Businesses that reopen in states where the government is pushing it probably should be immune to COVID-19 lawsuits since not reopening leaves them open to being destroyed by competitors that do. They should still do everything they can to protect their employees, but if the government claims reopening is safe - even if they're completely wrong - I don't know how businesses can be held to a higher standard.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Most states have no fault worker's comp laws. You can't sue but proving you got infected on the job is easier to do. So liability immunity would do little for workers.

Not protecting workers could lead to big OSHA* fines. (*Some states have their own agencies like WISHA and CalOSHA.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... I would have preferred "wear masks and social distance" but at least he got the mask memo.

Baby steps.

 

[Resume]

At least one politician is doing something about the COVID pandemic.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards announced last week that he was calling for three days of prayer and fasting because of the coronavirus pandemic in the state.

Louisiana's numbers have continued to climb statewide. If the state continues on its current trajectory, it could see 100,000 cases by the end of this week.

During Edwards' Thursday press conference, he said he would be doing a lunch fast and praying for three days in a row and encouraged others to do so as well.

Should be over in no time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know why they didn't pray for it to end sooner.

 

[Babbylonian]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It's not all that complicated.

Let's say you have two businesses that sell the same widget. As long as both businesses remain closed, neither has an advantage in that respect. If the government is ordering continued closure, both will hopefully have access to the same avenues of relief.

Now, let's say some idiot governor decides it's time to allow the widget businesses to reopen despite the pandemic worsening. If business A opens but business B remains closed (for good reason), the former now has the advantage. Also, since there is no longer a government mandate for closure, business B will likely not be offered anymore relief (from the government, creditors, landlords, etc.) despite making a responsible choice. Business B isn't going to last long under those conditions unless they relent and reopen despite the risks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not all that complicated.

Let's say you have two businesses that sell the same widget. As long as both businesses remain closed, neither has an advantage in that respect. If the government is ordering continued closure, both will hopefully have access to the same avenues of relief.

Now, let's say some idiot governor decides it's time to allow the widget businesses to reopen despite the pandemic worsening. If business A opens but business B remains closed (for good reason), the former now has the advantage. Also, since there is no longer a government mandate for closure, business B will likely not be offered anymore relief (from the government, creditors, landlords, etc.) despite making a responsible choice. Business B isn't going to last long under those conditions unless they relent and reopen despite the risks.

I'm not sure.

One opens, anything can happen from an outbreak related to the business or people simply not coming.

Later after time goes by, say the business was successful and the second one opens. Why would people not go to both businesses equally like they did before?

 

[Segnosaur]

It's not all that complicated.

Let's say you have two businesses that sell the same widget. As long as both businesses remain closed, neither has an advantage in that respect. If the government is ordering continued closure, both will hopefully have access to the same avenues of relief.

Now, let's say some idiot governor decides it's time to allow the widget businesses to reopen despite the pandemic worsening. If business A opens but business B remains closed (for good reason), the former now has the advantage. Also, since there is no longer a government mandate for closure, business B will likely not be offered anymore relief (from the government, creditors, landlords, etc.) despite making a responsible choice. Business B isn't going to last long under those conditions unless they relent and reopen despite the risks.

I'm not sure.

One opens, anything can happen from an outbreak related to the business or people simply not coming.

If its a product people want or need, that they either can't get on-line (or they don't want a delay) then they will go to the store that is open.

And even if they don't get ALL the customers they would normally get, having some customers is better than having no customers (since having some income is better than having no income).

Later after time goes by, say the business was successful and the second one opens. Why would people not go to both businesses equally like they did before?

2 possibilities...
- There is no guarantee that the closed store will actually survive, with no income for an extended period of time
- Even if the second store survives the closure, once it opens up it may not get as many customers. Some of its customer base may have started to go to the store that was open earlier and decided that they like the service, or have established some sort of relationship that is not easy to change.

 

[Bob001]

Repubs don't think people are dying of covid:

But the number of Americans now doubting the death toll (31%) has risen sizably from the 23% who questioned the numbers in May, Axios reported.

What’s more, this skepticism is largely divided along political lines. Most Republicans in this survey (59%) believe that the death count is inflated, which is up from 40% in May. The number of independent doubters also rose, climbing from 24% to 32%. Democrats, on the other hand, are the most likely to trust the official count, with just 9% thinking it’s too high — a slight uptick from 7% in May.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/r...-reported-2020-07-21?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

 

[newyorkguy]

I read something similar in a blog that was linked here. The blogger wrote that, in the U.S. according to public health officials there are roughly 7,500 deaths per day. The right wing blogger wondered, because 1,039 people died from coronavirus yesterday in the U.S. why is that so important? How about the other almost 6,500 people who died. We're not suggesting businesses shut down for them. Why do we have to shut down the economy for people who die of coronavirus?

The one statement he made I agreed with was, when he added, "It makes no sense." Agreed, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Meadmaker]

I read something similar in a blog that was linked here. The blogger wrote that, in the U.S. according to public health officials there are roughly 7,500 deaths per day. The right wing blogger wondered, because 1,039 people died from coronavirus yesterday in the U.S. why is that so important? How about the other almost 6,500 people who died. We're not suggesting businesses shut down for them. Why do we have to shut down the economy for people who die of coronavirus?

The one statement he made I agreed with was, when he added, "It makes no sense." Agreed, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I read a story about Angela Merkel yesterday, and the success Germany has had with the coronavirus. The big thing that was featured in the story as a secret to her success was that she got on television and explained things, accurately.


I don't mind that people ask questions like the above. If you don't think about it too much, it almost makes sense. The big problem is that in the US, there's no one to answer them.

And, of course, there's lots of people to answer them, but there isn't an authoritative voice to provide a coherent and consistent answer. Even if the White House doesn't provide an answer to that question, Fox News could, if they wanted to. CNN could. So could NBC. For all I know, they already have, but probably it was put out as a political story, not a scientific one. We don't have non-partisan media here to provide that sort of information.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

We don't have non-partisan media here to provide that sort of information.

Yes we do. We just also have partisan media constantly screaming that we don't.

 

[Bob001]

I'm not sure.

One opens, anything can happen from an outbreak related to the business or people simply not coming.

Later after time goes by, say the business was successful and the second one opens. Why would people not go to both businesses equally like they did before?

Business operates on quarterly results and market share. If customers get accustomed to going to Widgeter A instead of B, A will make more money, giving it an advantage over B, and it will attract B's customers. Those customers would have no obvious reason to switch back, unless B offered lower prices or better service, which they would have less money to provide.

Imagine Home Depot closing for six months and Lowe's operating full-blast. You think that wouldn't have long-term consequences?

One reason for having national regulations on matters like safety and pollution is that if compliance is voluntary, the businesses who would spend money to do the right thing would be underpriced by the corner-cutters and shady operators. Regulation puts everybody on the same footing.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes we do. We just also have partisan media constantly screaming that we don't.

I just don't see it. Fox is certainly partisan. CNN in print isn't horribly awful. My biggest exposure to CNN before Covid was their prime time lineup that I saw at the gym. They were terrible. Just as bad as Fox.

Maybe Google News isn't the best way to consume media. That's where I see most reporting. What I see there in the national news segments is almost all highly partisan, and that's even after I blocked WaPo and NYT.

The stories that come from ABC/NBC/CBS and Usa Today seem ok.

 

[Bob001]

I read a story about Angela Merkel yesterday, and the success Germany has had with the coronavirus. The big thing that was featured in the story as a secret to her success was that she got on television and explained things, accurately.
.....

The smartest thing Trump could have done -- and the best for the country -- would have been for him to hold a press conference around March 1 to introduce Dr. Fauci and say "He's the expert. He's in charge. I'm doing what he says, and everybody else should do the same." Then sit down.

 

[newyorkguy]

I don't agree that news sources like NBC News or CBS or USAToday are partisan news organizations that politicize everything they report. I don't agree that the average American was uninformed by mainstream media as to the nature of an epidemic, the contagiousness of Covid-19, that it was and is many times more deadly than common flu. That unless society took extraordinary steps there was a danger of mass illness on a scale that would wreak havoc.

The information was and is out there. I find it ridiculous to blame the media or political leaders in general because some idiot blogger doesn't understand the dynamics of an epidemic. That's the Catch-22. How much do you want bet the blogger DOES understand the difference between people dying everyday of natural causes, of heart disease or cancer and a new and frightening virus for which there is no effective treatment nor a vaccine. He's pretending not to understand because he's a right winger and he wants to attack 'the establishment.' He's writing for other right wingers who want to READ attacks on the establishment.

 

[Bob001]

I just don't see it. Fox is certainly partisan. CNN in print isn't horribly awful. My biggest exposure to CNN before Covid was their prime time lineup that I saw at the gym. They were terrible. Just as bad as Fox.

Maybe Google News isn't the best way to consume media. That's where I see most reporting. What I see there in the national news segments is almost all highly partisan, and that's even after I blocked WaPo and NYT.

The stories that come from ABC/NBC/CBS and Usa Today seem ok.

The key difference between Fox and CNN is that Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo etc. report actual facts and comment on them, and talk to experts about the issues. Fox spouts blatant, provable lies and promotes ranting fools as important sources.

Telling you facts that you don't like or don't want to hear is not partisan. It's journalism.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If its a product people want or need, that they either can't get on-line (or they don't want a delay) then they will go to the store that is open.

And even if they don't get ALL the customers they would normally get, having some customers is better than having no customers (since having some income is better than having no income).

2 possibilities...
- There is no guarantee that the closed store will actually survive, with no income for an extended period of time
- Even if the second store survives the closure, once it opens up it may not get as many customers. Some of its customer base may have started to go to the store that was open earlier and decided that they like the service, or have established some sort of relationship that is not easy to change.

This is silly, IMO. If a store can open, most will. Some businesses are not going to survive this economic hit no matter what.

I can't see many people switching stores/restaurants because they get into the habit of going to a different one. They are going to go back to the places they went before because there were reasons they went to the primary business in the first place: closer, has the ambiance the customer likes, sells the products the customer likes and so on.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Imagine Home Depot closing for six months and Lowe's operating full-blast. You think that wouldn't have long-term consequences?....

Nonsense. You think people are that shallow?

I drove out of my way to go to Lowes while HD is right down the street. It was a political decision. Now that Lowes is closed. It's too far for me to go to other Lowes.

If a Lowes opens back up nearby, I'll go there.

HD has different items and lower prices. The reason Lowes went out of business here was because of their location off the main traffic area and prices.

No one is attached to one or the other because they are used to going there.

 

[Bob001]

This is silly, IMO. If a store can open, most will. Some businesses are not going to survive this economic hit no matter what.

I can't see many people switching stores/restaurants because they get into the habit of going to a different one. They are going to go back to the places they went before because there were reasons they went to the primary business in the first place: closer, has the ambiance the customer likes, sells the products the customer likes and so on.

The premise was that one business opens and the competitor remains closed for an extended time, not a weekend. Customer loyalty only goes so far, especially if the one with the advantage uses it effectively.