COVID-19

Laketravis

Well-Known Member
I don’t understand how anyone can believe that. I get the political side of making that argument, but I can’t believe anyone actually believes that.

I don't understand where you are getting that from. If you are referring to comments in this thread, I haven't seen where anyone claimed the economy would have continued "to hum along" without the government shutting it down.

Have you seen those claims somewhere else?
 

Ponderer

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Usually dismissed by those who have lost neither of those. Those sitting in their homes with regular paychecks showing up in the bank. Wagging their fingers at those concerned with such mundane economic things.

So far we have lost both my husband's job and our health insurance. I guess we're just supposed to wait for Aunt Nancy to get past the election and offer us a few hundred extra bucks.

Well, I have multiple friends at the end of their rope. They've burned through the little savings they had, and are facing eviction. And health insurance? Ha! My freelance work has dried up 95 percent, my wife has had multiple unpaid furloughs. Most people I know are in similar situations. Many of us were on the edge before the frigging virus ever hit. (We're lucky because we live in MA and have (not exactly cheap but doable) health insurance through the state's HealthNet portal.) So it's bad. But you know what's worse? DYING FROM A VIRUS. Especially one that you got because you just HAD to go to Chuck E. Cheese or the Smashmouth concert.

And yes, if we had a functioning government, this wouldn't even be a choice. We would be using the full faith and credit of the United States to treat this as a war footing, and fund small businesses so they wouldn't go under and families, and individuals too. That's the whole point when the Consititution dictates our government to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare." We should be keeping everyone afloat just like we'd be building endless fleets of bombers and aircraft carriers. And we'd be funding triple pay to every essential and front-line worker in America.

What I hate about the other side of this argument is because we don't want to risk our lives to go to a bar, the other side wags their finger and says, well, you don't care about businesspeople, you don't get it. And when we say, we sure do, and here's what we we would do about it because no one should be forced to choose between surviving a virus and surviving their business, we get a sneering response of, "Ohhhh, so you just want a handout from Nancy?" It's a perfectly despicable no-win situation.
 

Laketravis

Well-Known Member
What I hate about the other side of this argument is because we don't want to risk our lives to go to a bar, the other side wags their finger and says, well, you don't care about businesspeople, you don't get it. And when we say, we sure do, and here's what we we would do about it because no one should be forced to choose between surviving a virus and surviving their business, we get a sneering response of, "Ohhhh, so you just want a handout from Nancy?" It's a perfectly despicable no-win situation.

I don't care if you go to a bar or not, and I won't sneer at you and accuse you of "wanting a handout from Nancy".

What I would like to know, however, is if what you are proposing is for the government to pay everyone to stay home? For how long?

Can you elaborate on how you think that would all work?
 

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
Well, I have multiple friends at the end of their rope. They've burned through the little savings they had, and are facing eviction. And health insurance? Ha! My freelance work has dried up 95 percent, my wife has had multiple unpaid furloughs. Most people I know are in similar situations. Many of us were on the edge before the frigging virus ever hit. (We're lucky because we live in MA and have (not exactly cheap but doable) health insurance through the state's HealthNet portal.) So it's bad. But you know what's worse? DYING FROM A VIRUS. Especially one that you got because you just HAD to go to Chuck E. Cheese or the Smashmouth concert.

And yes, if we had a functioning government, this wouldn't even be a choice. We would be using the full faith and credit of the United States to treat this as a war footing, and fund small businesses so they wouldn't go under and families, and individuals too. That's the whole point when the Consititution dictates our government to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare." We should be keeping everyone afloat just like we'd be building endless fleets of bombers and aircraft carriers. And we'd be funding triple pay to every essential and front-line worker in America.

What I hate about the other side of this argument is because we don't want to risk our lives to go to a bar, the other side wags their finger and says, well, you don't care about businesspeople, you don't get it. And when we say, we sure do, and here's what we we would do about it because no one should be forced to choose between surviving a virus and surviving their business, we get a sneering response of, "Ohhhh, so you just want a handout from Nancy?" It's a perfectly despicable no-win situation.
I don't really see people clamoring to go to Chuck E. Cheese. Regardless, that Chuck E. Cheese business is owned by somebody, right? Somebody trying not to lose all they have invested in it, right? I wasn't even a fan of Chuck E. Cheese when my kids were little, but still I would love for them to be able to find a way to safely reopen.

I'm not a fan of government handouts, but in this case, where businesses have been shut down through no fault of their own, I am more supportive. It's just a shame that Pelosi has decided it's more of a political advantage to have the issue than it is to address it.
 

Wendy Pleakley

Well-Known Member
I don't think any losses due to the pandemic are inconsequential. They're all devastating...especially for the person experiencing the loss.

To add to this, the response should have been focused on those most in need.

Canada and other countries quickly issued benefits to people directly impacted and out of work.

The USA issued stimulus funds to everyone regardless of employment status. I saw so many people say “I’m going to Disneyland” because they were still working and this was a bonus.
 

Laketravis

Well-Known Member
To add to this, the response should have been focused on those most in need.

Canada and other countries quickly issued benefits to people directly impacted and out of work.

The USA issued stimulus funds to everyone regardless of employment status. I saw so many people say “I’m going to Disneyland” because they were still working and this was a bonus.

Yup. Boats, cars, dirt bikes, jet skis, RV's and campers, all flying off the lots........

Almost $3T flooded the economy in a single quarter.

Ultimately we have limited control over what someone does with the proceeds and much of it was spent on foolish excess and impulse buys, but it's probably still a good thing because the alternative would have been catastrophic.

We are still faced with some very steep challenges ahead, though. For instance, mortgage and rent delinquencies are very high and protections run out at the end of the year.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
To add to this, the response should have been focused on those most in need.

Canada and other countries quickly issued benefits to people directly impacted and out of work.

The USA issued stimulus funds to everyone regardless of employment status. I saw so many people say “I’m going to Disneyland” because they were still working and this was a bonus.

In Canada our government subsidized (I believe) 70% of a businesses wages if they had a significant revenue loss due to COVID, and they retained their employees and did not lay anyone off. My company utilized that, and we all stayed employed during the peak lockdown.

They also issued rent subsidies, mortgage subsidies, the CERB was available for anyone who lost their job due to Covid ($2,000 a month while eligible. Program just ended in September).

and of course our health care isn’t tied into our employment, so anyone who lost their job due to COVID still had access to health care.

Of course, we have debt now. Lots of it. But I truly believe that’s the price of a pandemic. Our country and the citizens will come out from this hopefully stronger mentally, and I hope we have a faster recovery.
 

Ponderer

Well-Known Member
I don't really see people clamoring to go to Chuck E. Cheese. Regardless, that Chuck E. Cheese business is owned by somebody, right? Somebody trying not to lose all they have invested in it, right? I wasn't even a fan of Chuck E. Cheese when my kids were little, but still I would love for them to be able to find a way to safely reopen.

I'm not a fan of government handouts, but in this case, where businesses have been shut down through no fault of their own, I am more supportive. It's just a shame that Pelosi has decided it's more of a political advantage to have the issue than it is to address it.

But that's the key - safely. We'd all love for places to open safely. I'm a filmmaker. I live for going to films, it's my favorite thing in the world. But people are making the same risk assessment - if I come into your establishment, can you tell me definitively that I might not get sick from a highly contagious virus, might die or suffer from long-term effects? (People are now getting diabetes and lupus from COVID, for starters.)

It's like if a restaurant said, hey, we're 95 percent sure there aren't lead chips in our food, people aren't gonna say, wow! I'm definitely going to support your business with such a small risk! :) People are scared of the unknown, even when that unknown thing could HELP them - much less dealing with a virus that may have already killed someone they loved. So yeah, keep those businesses secure until we can *really* say things are safe out there.

As for Nancy...really? Much of the GOP caucus has declared they will not support any new deal, period. Trump pulled out of negotiations the day after he got out of the hospital, and then the next day said he wanted a much bigger deal than the Dems wanted. I mean, hell, Mnuchin and Pelosi HAD A DEAL last week and Mitch killed it. And you know why? Because the GOP now wants to shift into austerity mode so they can cripple Biden as soon as he gets into office. But let's blame Nancy.

 
Last edited:

unmitigated disaster

Well-Known Member
But that's the key - safely. We'd all love for places to open safely. I'm a filmmaker. I live for going to films, it's my favorite thing in the world. But people are making the same risk assessment - if I come into your establishment, can you tell me definitively that I might not get sick from a highly contagious virus, might die or suffer from long-term effects? (People are now getting diabetes and lupus from COVID, for starters.)

It's like if a restaurant said, hey, we're 95 percent sure there aren't lead chips in our food, people aren't gonna say, wow! I'm definitely going to support your business with such a small risk! :) People are scared of the unknown, even when that unknown thing could HELP them - much less dealing with a virus that may have already killed someone they loved. So yeah, keep those businesses secure until we can *really* say things are safe out there.

As for Nancy...really? Much of the GOP caucus has declared they will not support any new deal, period. Trump pulled out of negotiations the day after he got out of the hospital, and then the next day said he wanted a much bigger deal than the Dems wanted. I mean, hell, Mnuchin and Pelosi HAD A DEAL last week and Mitch killed it. And you know why? Because the GOP now wants to shift into austerity mode so they can cripple Biden as soon as he gets into office. But let's blame Nancy.

Well, sure. She's female, Californian, powerful and a Democrat. That makes her responsible for everything, including the massacre of the Rohingyas in Myanmar. Also the fire at the Notre Dame Cathedral.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Well we had our largest 3 day positive numbers ever (we don’t get updates Saturday and Sunday, so on mondays we find out Friday-Saturday, Saturday to Sunday, and Sunday-Monday) at 817 total new cases.

We now have a public health order in effect banning private gatherings in our homes that are more then your immediate household and 6 other guests.
 

Lensman

Premium Member
Not great news. Eli Lilly's monoclonal antibody cocktail known as bamlanivimab (LY-CoV555) is ineffective and will be discontinued for use in hospitalized patients. It will be continued to be studied for efficacy when administered earlier.

Eli Lilly's clinical trial of their other main candidate monoclonal neutralizing antibody, etesevimab (LY-CoV016), continues, as do combination trials.

Regeneron also continues trials of it's monoclonal antibody cocktail, REGN-COV2.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Yup. Boats, cars, dirt bikes, jet skis, RV's and campers, all flying off the lots........

Almost $3T flooded the economy in a single quarter.

Ultimately we have limited control over what someone does with the proceeds and much of it was spent on foolish excess and impulse buys, but it's probably still a good thing because the alternative would have been catastrophic.

We are still faced with some very steep challenges ahead, though. For instance, mortgage and rent delinquencies are very high and protections run out at the end of the year.
I like the fact that if people have money to go out to support the economy and or buy stuff to support. But at the same time to not meet financial obligations to pay the mortgage or rent on time or not at all is not right.
 

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
I like the fact that if people have money to go out to support the economy and or buy stuff to support. But at the same time to not meet financial obligations to pay the mortgage or rent on time or not at all is not right.
There really is no indication the ones buying boats and RVs are the ones who lost jobs and have economic uncertainty. There is an entire class of people whose jobs are safe working from home (Government workers, teachers, lots of white collar workers). It's the ones who can't work from home who have the uncertainty. It has really turned into 2 classes in this pandemic.
 

Laketravis

Well-Known Member
I like the fact that if people have money to go out to support the economy and or buy stuff to support. But at the same time to not meet financial obligations to pay the mortgage or rent on time or not at all is not right.

There really is no indication the ones buying boats and RVs are the ones who lost jobs and have economic uncertainty. There is an entire class of people whose jobs are safe working from home (Government workers, teachers, lots of white collar workers). It's the ones who can't work from home who have the uncertainty. It has really turned into 2 classes in this pandemic.

Many of those purchases were impulse buys, driven by the desire to be able to get out and "do something" during a pandemic lockdown.

And those impulse buys come with a carrying cost. When those buyers realize it's not cheap to keep, they will be unloading those boats, jet skis, travel trailers, RV's, dirt bikes, etc.
 

kong1802

Well-Known Member
I don't understand where you are getting that from. If you are referring to comments in this thread, I haven't seen where anyone claimed the economy would have continued "to hum along" without the government shutting it down.

Have you seen those claims somewhere else?

Thanks for clarifying. For a second there it seemed like we were heading towards that argument.
 

unmitigated disaster

Well-Known Member
There really is no indication the ones buying boats and RVs are the ones who lost jobs and have economic uncertainty. There is an entire class of people whose jobs are safe working from home (Government workers, teachers, lots of white collar workers). It's the ones who can't work from home who have the uncertainty. It has really turned into 2 classes in this pandemic.
That's too broad a stroke of the brush; many people who cannot work from home have secure jobs: vets, many in the medical field, mechanics, some hotel workers - including myself - grocery store personnel, some retail, etc., etc.

As someone who has needed the services of a vet clinic, a mechanic and grocery store employees this pandemic: I would be screwed and my poor kitty would have had a long, painful death without them. Also I would be dead from starvation.
 

Laketravis

Well-Known Member
Thanks for clarifying. For a second there it seemed like we were heading towards that argument.

No, not at all. Besides, it's an entirely unrelated supposition.

The fact is the economy was (and to some extent still is) shut down. And we have yet to face the full consequences of that.
 

kong1802

Well-Known Member
No, not at all. Besides, it's an entirely unrelated supposition.

The fact is the economy was (and to some extent still is) shut down. And we have yet to face the full consequences of that.

The full consequences are still on the way, we agree there.

It doesn't matter who wins next week, the next few years are going to be rough economically.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom