Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


James Daulton

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

But clothing retailers and department-store chains are "non-essential" and therefore have no choice but to close. Macy's Inc M.N, Nordstrom JWN.N, Nike NKE.N, Urban Outfitters URBN.O, Abercrombie & Fitch ANF.N, and Lululemon LULU.O have closed their stores across the United States.

In the gray zone are electronic stores, bookstores and hotels.

President Donald Trump on Sunday said he had spoken to the CEOs of large retailers like Walmart Inc WMT.N and Kroger Co KR.N and that they were "working hand-in-hand" with the federal government, as well as the state and local leaders, to ensure food and essentials are constantly available."

 

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

I think he's distinguishing "laws being passed" from an emergency order from a City's director of public health, which is what you just linked.   

Thanks, keep reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tonydead said:
Quote

 

But clothing retailers and department-store chains are "non-essential" and therefore have no choice but to close. Macy's Inc M.N, Nordstrom JWN.N, Nike NKE.N, Urban Outfitters URBN.O, Abercrombie & Fitch ANF.N, and Lululemon LULU.O have closed their stores across the United States.

In the gray zone are electronic stores, bookstores and hotels.

President Donald Trump on Sunday said he had spoken to the CEOs of large retailers like Walmart Inc WMT.N and Kroger Co KR.N and that they were "working hand-in-hand" with the federal government, as well as the state and local leaders, to ensure food and essentials are constantly available."

 

Expand  

Link

This is the opposite of what SC was arguing....that larger retailers got to stay open, which killed mom and pop stores.   Macy's, Nordstrom, Nike, etc.  aren't "mom and pop" stores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, -fish- said:

No "laws being passed" in anything you quoted or linked.  

Don't be disingenuous.  None of these businesses went bankrupt on their own volition while Walmart made out like bandits.

On 5/7/2021 at 8:06 AM, Doug B said:

Were those ma & pa stores closed by law or by their own volition?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

This is the opposite of what SC was arguing....that larger retailers got to stay open, which killed mom and pop stores.   Macy's, Nordstrom, Nike, etc.  aren't "mom and pop" stores.

C'mon!   If they shut down Macy's then they obviously shut down Milda's Dress Shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tonydead said:

C'mon!   If they shut down Macy's then they obviously shut down Milda's Dress Shop.

He claimed that laws were passed that favored big retailers over mom and pop stores.   What you just posted shows that this is false.   They both closed.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, -fish- said:
20 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Google down?  Takes 5 seconds.   Page 4, fabric and craft stores - Nonessential. 

I think he's distinguishing "laws being passed" from an emergency order from a City's director of public health, which is what you just linked.   

Thanks for the assist. I am happy to treat a local executive order as having the force of law. The Boone Co, MO link above and the Dallas/Hobby Lobby link reasonably fit the conditions. A cursory review of these orders makes it look like they came fairly early in the pandemic, and at least ended relatively quickly (a month or so) -- perhaps coincident to when mask mandates started gaining traction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If a mom and pop store provided essential services, they stayed open.   It wasn't big v. small.  It was essential v. non-essential.  There were no laws passed favoring large retailers over mom and pop stores.    

 

Edit:  there were some guidelines about how many people could be in a  particular space, so I suppose if you had a business that wasn't physically large enough to have customers, you were effectively shut down while a store with more square footage could stay open.   I'm sure that happened here and there with very small spaces.

Edited by -fish-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

If a mom and pop store provided essential services, they stayed open.   It wasn't big v. small.  It was essential v. non-essential.  There were no laws passed favoring large retailers over mom and pop stores.    

Except these are the two posts that started the exchange before Doug (and maybe SC too) moved the goalposts:

On 5/6/2021 at 8:44 AM, Stealthycat said:

Wal-Mart and Lowes and Home Depot etc made billions off the pandemic by lobbying to stay open while at the same time killing their competition with laws that shut those businesses down

Yes - money is normally the root of everything, power is a close second root

 

On 5/6/2021 at 9:03 AM, Doug B said:

Did not happen. Competitors to Wal-Mart, Lowes, etc. absolutely stayed open in the U.S. I don't believe ANY retail of any type was shut down anywhere in the U.S.

So, yes, Walmart's competitors were shut down.  Big and small.  They all flocked to those that were allowed to remain open in delight to my WMT, COST and HD holdings.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

If a mom and pop store provided essential services, they stayed open.   It wasn't big v. small.  It was essential v. non-essential.  There were no laws passed favoring large retailers over mom and pop stores.    

From what I can tell, also ... it looks like the forced closures that occurred were typically brief and early in the pandemic. Still, within some narrow constraints in time and place, Stealthycat and tonydead have a point. I'm not necessarily ready to concede that these March/April orders and mandates sent shockwaves throughout the U.S. economy ... but I do understand that at local and personal levels, some number of businesses were devastated and real human beings were impacted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, tonydead said:
On 5/6/2021 at 11:03 AM, Doug B said:

Did not happen. Competitors to Wal-Mart, Lowes, etc. absolutely stayed open in the U.S. I don't believe ANY retail of any type was shut down anywhere in the U.S.

So, yes, Walmart's competitors were shut down.  Big and small.  They all flocked to those that were allowed to remain open in delight to my WMT, COST and HD holdings.  

I was wrong on the "ANY retail" part. That much, I'll concede.

While I think you and Stealthy (and I guess para?) are likely tempted to exaggerate the bird's-eye-view effects of the closures on the overall U.S. economy ... again, I understand that at local and personal levels, some businesses were devastated and some human beings had their lives turned upside down.

Edited by Doug B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Except these are the two posts that started the exchange before Doug (and maybe SC too) moved the goalposts:

 

So, yes, Walmart's competitors were shut down.  Big and small.  They all flocked to those that were allowed to remain open in delight to my WMT, COST and HD holdings.  

Home Depot was allowed to remain open because it provided essential services.   So was the small hardware store down the street from me.   It had nothing to do with the size of their business.   Targets remained open, but so did the neighborhood grocery store.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I dispute that the parts in red happened due to laws being passed shutting these places down. It may well have happened somewhere, but I'd need to see the law that's said to have caused the closures.

FWIW, our Michaels and Jo-Ann Fabrics never closed at any point, though in truth both are also big-box retailers.

Wisconsin safer at home order closed all the places I mentioned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

Home Depot was allowed to remain open because it provided essential services.   So was the small hardware store down the street from me.   It had nothing to do with the size of their business.   Targets remained open, but so did the neighborhood grocery store.   

Try reading the two posts I quoted for you there.  The original dispute, that Doug has corrected you himself, wasn't about small vs. large. I never said anything about small vs. large. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy to agree that the determination as to what was essential versus non-essential not only seemed arbitrary, but was a dumb way to regulate businesses.    Businesses should have been allowed to stay open if they could provide adequate ventilation and required mask wearing and social distancing.   

But the argument that large businesses got to stay open and their smaller competitors didn't based on laws being passed is just false.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I was wrong on the "ANY retail" part. That much, I'll concede.

While I think you and Stealthy (and I guess para?) are likely tempted to exaggerate the bird's-eye-view effects of the closures on the overall U.S. economy ... again, I understand that at local and personal levels, some businesses were devastated and some human beings had their lives turned upside down.

My Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, parasaurolophus said:
43 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I dispute that the parts in red happened due to laws being passed shutting these places down. It may well have happened somewhere, but I'd need to see the law that's said to have caused the closures.

Wisconsin safer at home order closed all the places I mentioned. 

Conceded.

...

New point, as you've successfully moved me off my mark: What were the impacts of these closures? How long did they last, roughly? Did these places re-open in conjunction with CDC mask recommendations and/or local mask mandates? Did any places never come back, and if so, was it in numbers or a handful (again, personal impacts understood and lamented)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tonydead said:

Try reading the two posts I quoted for you there.  The original dispute, that Doug has corrected you himself, wasn't about small vs. large. I never said anything about small vs. large. 

SC claimed that large retailers were allowed to stay open while mom and pop stores were closed based on laws being passed.   That's the only statement I'm saying in demonstrably false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

SC claimed that large retailers were allowed to stay open while mom and pop stores were closed based on laws being passed.   That's the only statement I'm saying in demonstrably false. 

Then why did you start quoting and responding to me with all that crap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Conceded.

...

New point, as you've successfully moved me off my mark: What were the impacts of these closures? How long did they last, roughly? Did these places re-open in conjunction with CDC mask recommendations and/or local mask mandates? Did any places never come back, and if so, was it in numbers or a handful (again, personal impacts understood and lamented)?

Now this is more of a small vs. large problem, imo.

Also, you could ask the reverse question: How many companies never shut down and made huge profits during the pandemic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug B said:

Conceded.

...

New point, as you've successfully moved me off my mark: What were the impacts of these closures? How long did they last, roughly? Did these places re-open in conjunction with CDC mask recommendations and/or local mask mandates? Did any places never come back, and if so, was it in numbers or a handful (again, personal impacts understood and lamented)?

WI is an outlier. Our state legislature went to court to overturn order. So it was lifted early. But then democratic counties slapped it right back on. So in some cities some of these places opened after 2 months. In others they opened and could have 5 people. In some they didnt open at all for a while. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tonydead said:

Then why did you start quoting and responding to me with all that crap?

You literally jumped into the middle of a discussion where SC claimed laws were passed that favored big retailers over mom and pop stores and caused them to close.  Guess it would have saved us both some typing if I just assumed that you didn't know what you were responding to.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the best article written yet on the origin of Covid-19.  Very long and technical at times, but it does seem to paint a damning picture that the virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  The article also implicates Fauci and some other American scientists in a whitewashing due to their funding of the research.

https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

You literally jumped into the middle of a discussion where SC claimed laws were passed that favored big retailers over mom and pop stores and caused them to close.  Guess it would have saved us both some typing if I just assumed that you didn't know what you were responding to.   

Wrong.  I was I part of the discussion when it started on May 6th. Thats how I knew it wasn't just about small retailers.

You still dont know what you're talking about, just arguing for the sake of arguing.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Doug B said:

 

ok fine I give in, you are right

shutting down places where groups over 5 or 10 gathered but allowing Wal-mart open to thousands daily was a great idea with no health hazards 

weeks/months of closed doors didn't affect all the businesses that closed at all and none of those businesses were competing with Wal-mart, Lowes, Costco, Kroger etc

Amazon and Walmart, the country’s two largest companies. Together, they have earned an extra $10.7 billion over last year’s profits during (and largely because of) the pandemic—a stunning 56% increase - .Krogers 90% and others profited hugely ................and they didn't have any political say in staying closed or open - (google how much those profiting companies donate politically)

 

nope, you're right, all just wild coincidence 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s true that every time there are government restrictions on business, for whatever reason, big chains are able to absorb and withstand them better than the little guys. Sadly, the result is often that small businesses are forced to close while the big guys do better than ever. 

But this is never deliberate. And in the case of COVID the government had very few choices if they wanted to save lives. Of course they made errors at times. Of course, in hindsight, there are things they could have done better. But it’s important to note that most of the folks who are the loudest in their criticism are the same folks who wanted no restrictions in the first place and who refused last year to take the disease seriously at all. So their credibility is nil. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s true that every time there are government restrictions on business, for whatever reason, big chains are able to absorb and withstand them better than the little guys. Sadly, the result is often that small businesses are forced to close while the big guys do better than ever. 

But this is never deliberate. And in the case of COVID the government had very few choices if they wanted to save lives. Of course they made errors at times. Of course, in hindsight, there are things they could have done better. But it’s important to note that most of the folks who are the loudest in their criticism are the same folks who wanted no restrictions in the first place and who refused last year to take the disease seriously at all. So their credibility is nil. 

Chains already had the mitigation ability built in. The big box stores have the bigger square footage, higher ceilings and better ventilation already. They have the capacity to run at 25% and still have a significant amount of customers. For restaurants, many of the chains already had drive-thru or delivery service setup. Their size and resources made the transition into restrictions much easier and safer than the family owned places. Restrictions weren’t picking on the little guys, it’s just that the big guys were setup to succeed in this environment.

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

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

It’s true that every time there are government restrictions on business, for whatever reason, big chains are able to absorb and withstand them better than the little guys. Sadly, the result is often that small businesses are forced to close while the big guys do better than ever. 

But this is never deliberate. And in the case of COVID the government had very few choices if they wanted to save lives. Of course they made errors at times. Of course, in hindsight, there are things they could have done better. But it’s important to note that most of the folks who are the loudest in their criticism are the same folks who wanted no restrictions in the first place and who refused last year to take the disease seriously at all. So their credibility is nil. 

it absolutely WAS deliberate

 

small business was shut down while allowing Wal-Mart and Lowes and Costco etc to stay open

that's 100% deliberate and intentional

 

if lives were the target, then you'd want to disperse people into small groups and NOT allow large gatherings - which is why churches were shut, schools, concerts, restaurants etc right ?

 

there were no errors in allows the giants who contribute the most money to political campaigns to stay open and reap massive profits - that was all intentional too 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

it absolutely WAS deliberate

 

small business was shut down while allowing Wal-Mart and Lowes and Costco etc to stay open

that's 100% deliberate and intentional

 

if lives were the target, then you'd want to disperse people into small groups and NOT allow large gatherings - which is why churches were shut, schools, concerts, restaurants etc right ?

 

there were no errors in allows the giants who contribute the most money to political campaigns to stay open and reap massive profits - that was all intentional too 

 

 

 

Large gatherings in large places. Big box stores offer many services in one place. Image if it was flipped and only the small businesses were open. You may need to go to 5 different stores to get everything you needed. And since the big box stores were closed everyone else is trying crowd into these much smaller stores. Social distancing would be impossible and capacity restrictions would be extremely restrictive. Now imagine that you find out your COVID positive and just went to those 5 stores in a crowded environment during a time when masks were not readily available.

Not everything is a conspiracy theory, some things just take critical thinking. I can go to a big box store, wear a mask the entire time and keep 6 feet away everyone most of the time while not staying around the same people for very long. Can you say that about churches, schools and restaurants?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

it absolutely WAS deliberate

 

small business was shut down while allowing Wal-Mart and Lowes and Costco etc to stay open

that's 100% deliberate and intentional

 

if lives were the target, then you'd want to disperse people into small groups and NOT allow large gatherings - which is why churches were shut, schools, concerts, restaurants etc right ?

 

there were no errors in allows the giants who contribute the most money to political campaigns to stay open and reap massive profits - that was all intentional too 

 

 

 

Weird my small hardware store and grocery store stayed open

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

... allowing Wal-mart open to thousands daily was a great idea with no health hazards

As a matter of fact ... yes. WalMart (and other big box retailers) being open was generally not a health hazard. At least around here, it's nothing to put 1,000 (maybe 1,500 or more) people in a WalMart with sufficient social distance.

In practice, WalMart stores are cavernous and rarely ever get THAT crowded inside where you can't maintain personal space. Six feet is a piece of cake. Even ten to twelve, IMHO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, tonydead said:

Wrong.  I was I part of the discussion when it started on May 6th. Thats how I knew it wasn't just about small retailers.

You still dont know what you're talking about, just arguing for the sake of arguing.  

 

funny, SC is still making the same false argument.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, belljr said:

Weird my small hardware store and grocery store stayed open

Seems some places experienced things differently. If I'm reading right, SC and para don't live in urban or suburban communities ... and it seems that in both their locales, there was local political wrangling affecting what could and couldn't stay open. Parasaurolophus went into some detail about this upthread.

I still think that whatever small-retail closures they experienced locally were outliers when looking at the U.S. from the top of a mountain. Of course, I reiterate that the rarity of small-retail closures was obviously of no comfort to those who lost their businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

if lives were the target, then you'd want to disperse people into small groups and NOT allow large gatherings - which is why churches were shut, schools, concerts, restaurants etc right ?

Not right -- density and exposure time matters more than raw number of bodies. Schools, churches, restaurants, etc. situate people close together for relative long periods of time.

In a big-box store or a supermarket, people keep away from one another and stay in more or less constant motion (brief exception at checkout). It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Seems some places experienced things differently. If I'm reading right, SC and para don't live in urban or suburban communities ... and it seems that in both their locales, there was local political wrangling affecting what could and couldn't stay open. Parasaurolophus went into some detail about this upthread.

I still think that whatever small-retail closures they experienced locally were outliers when looking at the U.S. from the top of a mountain. Of course, I reiterate that the rarity of small-retail closures was obviously of no comfort to those who lost their businesses.

Oh we had 100% political wranglings of what could or could not stay open, it had nothing to do with size but service.

Local hardware, groceries, even the local convenience store stayed open. But they couldn't have self service coffee etc 

I got my mulch delivered from the local guy. We ordered takeout pizza but no indoor seating.

Parks closed, gyms, bars, movie theaters, churches, restaurants except takeout. But home Depot didn't take business from my mom and pop store

:shrug:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just placing this here for future reference.

Quote

But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused why we're posting articles from over a year ago.  I readily admit I may be missing something (too lazy to find the whoosh emoji), but is this because of the Rand Paul zaniness today?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Uwe Blab said:

I'm confused why we're posting articles from over a year ago.  I readily admit I may be missing something (too lazy to find the whoosh emoji), but is this because of the Rand Paul zaniness today?

Yeah, basically Fauci directly denied ever providing funding for gain-of-function research at WIV, which seems to be a bald-faced lie.  Either Newsweek and a bunch of other people have their facts wrong, or Fauci is lying.  And since federal grants are public record . . . 

I'm not going to MMQB gain-of-function research.  A year ago, I didn't realize that it was as controversial as it was -- I just sort of assumed that it was a commonly accepted part of virology research which is, in part, why BSL3 and BSL4 labs exist in the first place.  To be clear, that's not why I'm posting this.  I'm posting it because it's very likely to blow up into a major story over the next few hours.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Yeah, basically Fauci directly denied ever providing funding for gain-of-function research at WIV, which seems to be a bald-faced lie.  Either Newsweek and a bunch of other people have their facts wrong, or Fauci is lying.  And since federal grants are public record . . . 

I'm not going to MMQB gain-of-function research.  A year ago, I didn't realize that it was as controversial as it was -- I just sort of assumed that it was a commonly accepted part of virology research which is, in part, why BSL3 and BSL4 labs exist in the first place.  To be clear, that's not why I'm posting this.  I'm posting it because it's very likely to blow up into a major story over the next few hours.

Why? The article is a year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, jobarules said:

I guess Im missing the reason why you think an article from over a year ago is going to blow up into a major story in the next few hours?

Oh, sorry.  It's relevant because Fauci denied ever funding any such research just today while testifying before Congress. 

That's important for two reasons.  First, because it's bad when government officials lie to us.  Especially public health officials who absolutely need to maintain credibility.

Second, for some reason the whole "lab leak" hypothesis has been treated from the start like some weird, fringe conspiracy theory, and it's never been at all clear to me why that should be the case.  It fits the fact of the pandemic -- as we know them -- extremely well.  Also, it doesn't rely on any kind of actual conspiracy.  We know with 100% certainty that gain of function research is a thing that exists.  We know with 100% certainty that WIV conducted research on bat coronaviruses like SAR-CoV-2.  We "knew" from prior reporting that the NIH funded gain of function research on coronaviruses at WIV.  All this hypothesis requires is for a researcher to get a little sloppy in a lab or cave somewhere, which can and does happen.

But mainly I'm baffled as to why Fauci would lie about something that can easily be proved or disproved in publicly available grant applications.  Either he's lying, which would be kind of bizarre, or a bunch of reporting has been wrong for well over a year, which would also be kind of bizarre given the "public records" thing.   

Edit: I'm not finding a good link for this or I would post one.  The MSM has collectively been abysmal when it comes to reporting on WIV.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 2
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...