Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


James Daulton

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Extremely.

It appears their government and population take it seriously and are seeing results. 

NZ was just brought up because they hit this impressive milestone.

How’s South Korea or Japan. Do they work better? They have like 30 new cases a day.

Not sure why this is even a discussion unless you think that we are doing some awesome job here. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

I would think voters in Florida and Texas would be particularly concerned about this.

Waiting for states with emergencies to be told they’re on their own and the Feds aren’t responsible any more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Would withholding completely be at the discretion of the employer?  If so, I’m not sure what they’d decide.  

That’s how I understand it. From what I’ve read, employers are hesitant to halt withholdings without a guarantee that the tax will be forgiven. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/08/06/why-you-might-not-see-a-payroll-tax-cut-even-if-trump-demands-it.html

"Maybe people won't want to do it," said Pete Isberg, vice president for government relations at ADP.  "There's a possibility that Congress won't follow up with legislation that's consistent with the executive order and forgive the taxes that are deferred."

In that case, employers' attorneys will likely advise them that they are still liable for those payroll taxes, he said.

Distributing those taxes to employees could be a costly mistake for employers if the levies are only deferred. They may have to come up with the money at a time when their own finances are still precarious.

"It's a significant obligation that in today's environment would be difficult for employers to assume," said Michael Trabold, director of compliance risk at Paychex.

Uncertainty over forgiveness might deter companies from participating in the payroll tax cut altogether – executive order notwithstanding.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is new — the lowest-earning 10-15% of UI recipients will not qualify for the bonuses laid out in Trump’s EO. WTF. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/08/09/trump-executive-actions-economy-democrats/

“Even if state governments sign onto the program, the jobless benefits might be out of reach for Americans in greatest need: Only out-of-work Americans receiving more than $100 a week in state unemployment insurance are eligible for the federal aid. That means those at the bottom of the income distribution — particularly workers who rely on tips and the self-employed — could see no additional federal benefit at all, said Andy Stettner, an unemployment insurance expert at the Century Foundation.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

:lmao: Don't think that was happening buddy.

You never answered.  Who on this forum is anti America?

 

6 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

New Zealand doesn't have 1000s of people gathering to loot and vandalize things either.  Merica!!

 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, caustic said:

This is new — the lowest-earning 10-15% of UI recipients will not qualify for the bonuses laid out in Trump’s EO. WTF. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/08/09/trump-executive-actions-economy-democrats/

“Even if state governments sign onto the program, the jobless benefits might be out of reach for Americans in greatest need: Only out-of-work Americans receiving more than $100 a week in state unemployment insurance are eligible for the federal aid. That means those at the bottom of the income distribution — particularly workers who rely on tips and the self-employed — could see no additional federal benefit at all, said Andy Stettner, an unemployment insurance expert at the Century Foundation.”

Sounds like the partially employed people are boned too. Talk about incentive to not work....

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gianmarco said:

It’s actually 250,000 and many locals are expecting that to be higher. This combined with schools re-opening will bring outbreaks to a lot of places that haven’t been hit hard, many of which will strongly resist social distancing and masks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mookie said:

Moronic, but it mirrors the messaging coming from Republicans.  "It's a hoax", "It's going to go away", "It's about my freedom and my right to choose".  So selfish.  165K dead.

I see the pendulum has swung back toward "large outdoor gatherings are bad" again.  Good.  Let's stick with that this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I see the pendulum has swung back toward "large outdoor gatherings are bad" again.  Good.  Let's stick with that this time.

Seems to me that all those people will be eating in restaurants and getting ####ty drunk in bars.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the moops said:
3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I see the pendulum has swung back toward "large outdoor gatherings are bad" again.  Good.  Let's stick with that this time.

Seems to me that all those people will be eating in restaurants and getting ####ty drunk in bars.

Also, there's a pretty significant difference between 1000 people and 250,000 people. Seems a wee bit misleading to describe them both as "large".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Gottlieb said over the weekend  that he does NOT think that's the case with Covid.  While he served the US was never concerned about another nation releasing a pathogen because it would almost certainly blow back against that nation.  However given the response (selfish, my word) in the US there are probably rogue nations that are including this in their game plan against the US. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:
3 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Also, there's a pretty significant difference between 1000 people and 250,000 people. Seems a wee bit misleading to describe them both as "large".

Do the 250k all get together at one place? 

In Sturgis, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

And don't forget EVERY SINGLE protester wore a mask.  Like all of them.  

Certainly not. But would you like to guess which gatherings had a higher percentage of mask wearers? 

There is also the difference between protesting and just sort of hanging with 250,000 of your closest friends and getting #### faced

Edited by the moops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, the moops said:

Certainly not. But would you like to guess which gatherings had a higher percentage of mask wearers? 

There is also the difference between protesting and just sort of hanging with 250,000 of your closest friends and getting #### faced

Yeah I totally agree.  Covid is probably all like "Hey that guy is protesting, I'm not gonna infect him!: Whereas when Covid sees a biker it probably gets excited!!! I'm sure that is what happens.

MY GOD...People think like this. They really do.  It's utter insanity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:
3 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Also, there's a pretty significant difference between 1000 people and 250,000 people. Seems a wee bit misleading to describe them both as "large".

And don't forget EVERY SINGLE protester wore a mask.  Like all of them.  

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you're not attempting to create a false equivalency here.

I haven't seen anyone attempt to claim that 100% of protesters wear masks 100% of the time.

I have, however, seen a clear disparity between the ratio of mask usage at Sturgis and the ratio of mask usage at protests.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Yeah I totally agree.  Covid is probably all like "Hey that guy is protesting, I'm not gonna infect him!: Whereas when Covid sees a biker it probably gets excited!!! I'm sure that is what happens.

MY GOD...People think like this. They really do.  It's utter insanity.

Literally nobody on this board is thinking like that...or even implying it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you're not attempting to create a false equivalency here.

I haven't seen anyone attempt to claim that 100% of protesters wear masks 100% of the time.

I have, however, seen a clear disparity between the ratio of mask usage at Sturgis and the ratio of mask usage at protests.

Oh I have...So here we go with first hand accounts trumping every single thing you can say.  My sister in law, when the protests were happening  Literally said EVERYONE was wearing masks.  I told her that was absurd, but she said it man.  And she meant it.   So there ya go. 

My brother in law's wife, just 2 weeks ago, said she "heard" protesters were all wearing masks.  So that.

I'm not gonna get onto this debate AGAIN..But it was bad then and it's bad now.  Do NOT try to make it out that this event is worse than the protests  It isnt. And if you say it is, then you are being hypocritical. Period.

Own it.  Large gatherings are unsafe.  They aren't any more or less unsafe because of the theme of that gathering. 

Edited by supermike80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

Yeah I totally agree.  Covid is probably all like "Hey that guy is protesting, I'm not gonna infect him!: Whereas when Covid sees a biker it probably gets excited!!! I'm sure that is what happens.

MY GOD...People think like this. They really do.  It's utter insanity.

Okay, now you're creating a false equivalency. I should have known better than to give you the benefit of the doubt before. :lol:

Researchers: protests did not cause spike in COVID cases

Study: little data to suggest COVID surge caused by protests

Healthline: protests didn't contribute to COVID surge

For further evidence, look no further than the city of Portland, which has been described in these very forums as being overrun with protesters. And yet Portland's COVID rate is 3x lower than the national average. Meanwhile, the worst COVID hotspots in Oregon are all in the deep-red anti-mask counties in the eastern side of the state.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Okay, now you're creating a false equivalency. I should have known better than to give you the benefit of the doubt before. :lol:

Researchers: protests did not cause spike in COVID cases

Study: little data to suggest COVID surge caused by protests

Healthline: protests didn't contribute to COVID surge

For further evidence, look no further than the city of Portland, which has been described in these very forums as being overrun with protesters. And yet Portland's COVID rate is 3x lower than the national average. Meanwhile, the worst COVID hotspots in Oregon are all in the deep-red anti-mask counties in the eastern side of the state.

Sweet..then Sturgus will be the same.  If one gathering didn't spread covid, it's reasonable to assume this one wont either.

That's encouraging.

Edited by supermike80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Sweet..then Sturgus will be the same.  If one gathering didn't spread covid, it's reasonable to assume this one wont either.

That's encouraging.

Guess we will find out soon enough, since 250k are there with very few wearing mask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, the moops said:

There is also the difference between protesting and just sort of hanging with 250,000 of your closest friends and getting #### faced

That's not a meaningful difference when it comes to public health.  All else equal, there is literally no epidemiological difference at all between people hanging out in a group protesting and people hanging out in a group getting ####faced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

That's not a meaningful difference when it comes to public health.  All else equal, there is literally no epidemiological difference at all between people hanging out in a group protesting and people hanging out in a group getting ####faced.

It was actually said..SAID.....Mind boggling.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Okay, now you're creating a false equivalency. I should have known better than to give you the benefit of the doubt before. :lol:

Researchers: protests did not cause spike in COVID cases

Study: little data to suggest COVID surge caused by protests

Healthline: protests didn't contribute to COVID surge

For further evidence, look no further than the city of Portland, which has been described in these very forums as being overrun with protesters. And yet Portland's COVID rate is 3x lower than the national average. Meanwhile, the worst COVID hotspots in Oregon are all in the deep-red anti-mask counties in the eastern side of the state.

You should tell this to @mookie so he can on the same page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Yeah I totally agree.  Covid is probably all like "Hey that guy is protesting, I'm not gonna infect him!: Whereas when Covid sees a biker it probably gets excited!!! I'm sure that is what happens.

MY GOD...People think like this. They really do.  It's utter insanity.

By "this" do you mean capable of coming up with the bold?  If so, yeah...I agree...utter insanity.  Well done?

ETA:  To be clear, I've said both are incredibly stupid and irresponsible on their face as they were/are happening.

Edited by The Commish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

That's not a meaningful difference when it comes to public health.  All else equal, there is literally no epidemiological difference at all between people hanging out in a group protesting and people hanging out in a group getting ####faced.

I assume the difference he's referring to is that he believes it is more morally justifiable to risk public health by participating in the protests than participating in "10 days and nights of riding, food, and music".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dgreen said:

I assume the difference he's referring to is that he believes it is more morally justifiable to risk public health by participating in the protests than participating in "10 days and nights of riding, food, and music".

Maybe, but once you start carving out exceptions for activities that you personally find worthwhile, it shouldn't be too surprising when other people start carving out exceptions for the activities that they personally find worthwhile.  It's very difficult to argue that the Sturgis rally is stupid if you were endorsing similar mass gatherings a couple of months ago.  (I endorse neither FTR).

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

That's not a meaningful difference when it comes to public health.  All else equal, there is literally no epidemiological difference at all between people hanging out in a group protesting and people hanging out in a group getting ####faced.

Wasn't meant to be said as there was a public health difference (dicounting the sheer # of people though), just a moral/ethical difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

It's very difficult to argue that the Sturgis rally is stupid if you were endorsing similar mass gatherings a couple of months ago.  (I endorse neither FTR).

Most non-family outdoor gatherings are stupid during the time of COVID.

Why is it so hard for people to say that some gatherings are more stupid than others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuine question....have we had mass gatherings of 250K+ in the last few months other than this one? FWIW...it's dumb to go to this thing without a mask as well as the protests, but the volume of people seems beyond comparison (and by all accounts, quantity seems to matter..this virus survives on opportunity) :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, [scooter] said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you're not attempting to create a false equivalency here.

I haven't seen anyone attempt to claim that 100% of protesters wear masks 100% of the time.

I have, however, seen a clear disparity between the ratio of mask usage at Sturgis and the ratio of mask usage at protests.

Lots and lots of masks

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ee7PCV8U0AE7bKQ?format=jpg&name=medium

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...