> Yes, most places in the country have a massive deficit this year because states are spending money to protect their citizens and stimulate the economy.
This is Stockholm syndrome.
Are citizens being protected? Because last I checked, the "smart" people have largely outlawed working, destroyed any semblance of normal life, the average person is $5k behind on rent, and all the old people died.
The federal government has all but given up pretending money is a finite resource. Likewise states are much the same. There really is no such thing as fiscal discipline nowadays.
You can't stimulate an economy if no one is allowed to work besides the already well-off that can work from home.
It's just class war under the guise of public health.
California is a geographically large state, but the bulk of the population lives in dense coastal areas. Given that, you'd expect California to have a very high death rate from Covid. But it's actually ranked 38th on a per capita basis (where higher is better), right behind West Virginia.
California has about half the deaths per capita as Florida does, another warm climate, fairly dense large state. It has a quarter of the deaths per capita as New Jersey, the densest state.
San Francisco has one of the lowest rates of any city in the country, despite being the nation's second most dense city.
Agreed - I think one of the things most depressing about the misinformation narrative from the current govt and the far right narrative is that they are hurting their own voting base the most. In that rural counties that should have the lowest rates of transmission and mortality because of the amount of space are actually getting some of the worst outcomes per capita.
All of it much more manageable and probably many fewer businesses would have had to have been closed, jobs lost, people dying if we just adopted some straightforward measures at the beginning. Super depressing.
> California has about half the deaths per capita as Florida does, another warm climate, fairly dense large state.
That's not a fair comparison!
Florida's age demographic skews elderly because it's an extremely popular retirement destination for folks living along the eastern seaboard.
This census website is a little out of date [1], but it has good proportional data:
* California 62 years and over = 4,253,854 (12.6% total population)
* California 65 years and over = 3,595,658 (10.6%)
* Florida 62 years and over = 3,245,806 (20.3% total population)
* Florida 65 years and over = 2,807,597 (17.6%)
Florida is a retirement home. The reason it has double the deaths is because it has double the old people. That counts for a lot when age is the largest risk factor.
It's a long game guys, come on. It's not this year's budget or next years -- it's a multi year cycle. The stress off our health care system as a result of lockdowns and the lives saved is enormous. If California adopted a libertarian approach to the pandemic it would be in a step change of pain compared to where it is. I do get the sense that right now I am just feeding the trolls - it's a bad feeling.
> The stress off our health care system as a result of lockdowns and the lives saved is enormous.
This is all supposition that says nothing about the horrific costs.
You could be right, but this won’t be apparent for a while and it’d be nice if people at least had the humility to admit they’re making a bet and forcing a plan on people that will destroy their livelihoods.
What makes this particularly offensive is that the authorities have little accountability and skin in the game. The “libertarian” approach at least respects the dignity of people to assess risks they’re willing to take and assume the responsibility for the costs of the measures they take.
I don't think any authorities have taken these decisions flippantly and if you have seen the amount of hate fired specifically towards them and their families I challenge your assumption that they have no skin in the game.
Is it a well educated bet based on science? Yes. No one is saying it is proven to be successful, no one has had a pandemic or a virus this dangerous replicate itself globally in an incredibly short period of time. This isn't a panacea it's survival mode. We've been in a pretty unknown unprecedented state since February with some pretty bad information coming from the Feds to sow doubt into the equation.
What is your solution given the benefit of hindsight? Go the Texas approach? If you look at death per capita in CA it's highest in the red counties that didn't do any lockdowns and have the lowest population density. Meanwhile the second most dense city in North America (SF) has an incredibly low rate of mortality and infection with some pretty tough measures in place.
> Is it a well educated bet based on science? Yes.
Was it well educated when the surgeon general said don't wear masks?
The takeaway is that practically no one should be feeling sure-footed right now about their understanding of something as complex as the net-effect of a pandemic and counter-measures.
The hubris I see in practically everyone nowadays suggests to me people are more politically devoted to their opinions and defending them.
It is totally possible that lockdown measures will be shown to be marginally effective or net-negative in terms of life-years lost in several years time, factoring in the disruption to everyone's lives, children in particular.
Your gambit is a bit tough to swallow. Saving the lives of people currently and reducing the spread of a virus quickly vs a speculative view that in the long term the pandemic will have a worse out-come factoring in all the costs. Thats a very tough operational decision to make. Though, to be fair, I think we will have a good sense of how that factored out in comparing Texas to California over the next medium to longer term. I don't feel sure footed in the pandemic. I do feel absolutely certain in the science that masks work, vaccines work as do social distancing measures for reducing the spread.
If you are implying that the surgeon general said don't wear masks then yes I would say it was an uneducated statement or alternatively that he was under political duress to appease the president's administration. After all the Surgeon General is a political appointee serving at the whim of the president.
Are there better ways to implement shutdowns? Probably yes. Are those difficult decisions to make? Absolutely. Are they made with imperfect information? Yes.
I'm not politically devoted to my position - what part of my comments have been political?
> Is it a well educated bet based on science? Yes.
I'd like to see that scientific research that proved that it's definitely permissible to continue filmmaking in LA County, while dining outside a small restaurant is an intolerable risk.
I think you are conflating what I am talking about being the general scientific consensus that says that masks, social distance and vaccines work compared to specific local rules on shutdowns.
You are using one locations shutdown rules to make a broad unfounded statement against the broader scientifically proven base of research.
ok, I'd like to see a scientific research that proves that face coverings (not medical face masks within the first couple of hours in a hospital environment, and not n95 masks, but all these various "face coverings" that are mandatory in the majority of places across the nation) that people use on a daily basis, without access to proper washing and cleaning facilities available at hospitals, are indeed effective at preventing the spread of the virus.
> You are using one locations shutdown rules to make a broad unfounded statement against the broader scientifically proven base of research.
Does it mean that in the context of this particular location and this particular ruling, you condemn Newsom and Garcetti and are willing to inform your elected government representatives about it?
Go do your research, I’m not here to do the research that you can’t be bothered to do yourself. And I’m not here to get into a political argument with you about lockdown in LA. You brought both those things up and clearly have an ax to grind. Best of luck sorting it out.
I will spare your time, there's no such a research. I've done my research and I'm just exposing your unsubstantiated broad claims about scientific basis of the lockdown measures introduced by the government figures of that locality, as well as your bias and hypocrisy. If your standard is scientific, you'll have no problem condemning the authors of the initiatives that ruin individuals' lives in the name of "safety proven by science".
My bias and hypocrisy - if that was your goal you have failed. All you have shown is that you have an ax to grind. I haven't talked about lockdown measures at all, only in response to you bringing them up. And at that I haven't even said anything. Like I said before, you have an ax to grind and aren't reading what I am writing.
I will wade in here. Lock down measure do restrict the spread of covid - that I won't refute - and that is scientific in nature and if you are of scientific worth you can't deny that. It's merely physics - if people don't see each other there is no ability to transmit the illness. The debate that you are referring to is whether the severity of the lockdown measures are worth the cost. Thats a political calculation. I haven't waded into that in any of my comments and don't intend now.
> Thats a political calculation. I haven't waded into that in any of my comments and don't intend now.
you literally began this thread by posting under the comment that questions the degree of "responsibility for the costs of the measures they [authorities] take", and you proceeded with defending authorities' actions and stating that they have their skin in the game and that they follow the science. Your comment was about politicians making political decisions and enacting certain rulings regarding the lockdown.
> Lock down measure do restrict the spread of covid - that I won't refute - and that is scientific in nature and if you are of scientific worth you can't deny that.
What lockdown measures are you talking about? Generic lockdown measures or particular measures like enforcing "face coverings"?
> It's merely physics - if people don't see each other there is no ability to transmit the illness.
If people don't see each other, there's still a physical world they interact with. They can still pass stuff around and to each other, like food and clothing, right? Or do you live in a vacuum world of abstractions where no one sees nobody and lies still like a rock?
Are you trying to refute physics of breathing? Most of the virus spreads by air. The world of physics goods can be accomplished without breathing on other people hence the physical distancing. What world are you living in?
Yes the restrictions work at reducing spread. Literally all of them do reduce the spread of the virus. The question is the efficacy vs the cost not whether they reduce the spread of the virus.
> Paying for it now with future growth, health and improved revenues coming our way.
If the majority of the people dying are at the end of their lives (or at least at the end of their working lives), doesn't that mean we're shutting down society with no return in the future?
Healthy immune systems seem to be able to handle the coronavirus fine. That's the science.
You can't get revenues (or future health/growth) from the dead.
I don't mean this in a heartless way, but if we're going to say we all believe in science, you can't claim future benefits where there are none.
Are you implying that older people don't have value? They teach the younger generations, they work and produce value, they help raise families and communities. I don't know what kind of jaded economic math you are trying to conjure.
The thought that we could let our older and at risk population get decimated because we didn't think they had economic value is a crass oversimplification and belies a lack of understanding of how our systems work.
> Are you implying that older people don't have value?
No I was explaining the contradiction that you're saying there's some large future benefits from locking everyone inside and essentially halting public life to protect people who are defined by their very much bounded future.
And we've essentially failed to protect the elderly even with lockdowns.
This is Stockholm syndrome.
Are citizens being protected? Because last I checked, the "smart" people have largely outlawed working, destroyed any semblance of normal life, the average person is $5k behind on rent, and all the old people died.
The federal government has all but given up pretending money is a finite resource. Likewise states are much the same. There really is no such thing as fiscal discipline nowadays.
You can't stimulate an economy if no one is allowed to work besides the already well-off that can work from home.
It's just class war under the guise of public health.