Care minister literally laughing when being told that 4,000 people have died in care homes. Just in case anyone thought un was being paranoid. Horrible human being.

More bad news:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-destroys-lungs-but-doctors-are-finding-its-damage-in-kidneys-hearts-and-elsewhere/2020/04/14/7ff71ee0-7db1-11ea-a3ee-13e1ae0a3571_story.html?tid=pm_pop&itid=pm_pop

And (!):

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coronavirus-china-mcdonalds-black-people-home-evictions-a9465776.html

Who's the totalitarian Marxist by the way? I want to meet that guy. We need the gulag back in fashion.

If you raise minimum wage, you reduce minimum wage jobs — Hanover

Not true. We have raised the minimum wage in Ireland consistently (at above inflation rates, you know, to reflect economic growth and actually give everyone a share of it) over the past 30 years and also consistently increased employment. And, besides, reducing minimum wage jobs as a proportion of overall jobs would be great for obvious reasons as long as overall employment levels remained steady.

Whether you're a right wing libertarian or a totalitarian Marxist, this pandemic is not cause for you to lose your religion, and that is the gist of my (recent) objection to this meandering conversation. This whole "let's take advantage of every crisis in order to advance our political agenda" thing is what I'm objecting to. — Hanover

You can't disentangle the crisis from politics. The fuck ups we're in are political fuck ups. The bailout was political. Different solutions have different political implications. Your characterisation that some here are "taking advantage" of the crisis is also political. It could easily be interpreted as "don't look now while the cover's blown on the good thing my lot have going". Even if you don't agree with that, how can you talk about the way the crisis is being dealt with in the US, for example, without discussing the bailout? And how do you discuss that without being "political"? Every one of us has an "agenda", only from each of our perspectives, the agenda boils down to nothing more than advocating for what we see as the right thing to do, both in the short and long term, and that requires generalisation from the specific problem to the underlying factors exacerbating it. And their context is social and political. So, unless, you can explain what a politics-free conversation would look like here, I don't see much substance to the objection.

Just a couple of days ago he was saying the exact opposite, that he doesn't, because of the constitution. It's all just bullshit. He doesn't know what he's saying or what he means. He's just a child.

and it's an agenda I don't agree with, which is that the impoverished you identify are not benefited better under the current system more than they would be in whatever alternative you're envisioning. — Hanover

Poor people wouldn't be better off if you gave them free healthcare and raised the minimum wage? That's not going to fly. You might argue that the country as a whole wouldn't be better off, and that is the usual argument, but you can't argue that certain sectors would not be better off when you redistribute money their way. Just like you can't argue that the rich are not better off when you give them tax cuts. It's literally nonsense.

Sup, nice to see you around. — Shawn

Second that. :cool:

Touch deprevation is a real thing and something to be aware of. Virtual hugs to you — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Doing a collection now for @Hanover's paper bag. Might help his love life. Please give generously. :pray:

They are actually starting to advise putting plastic bags over your head where I live — Hanover

In your case, you may have misheard "paper bag".

Though I guarantee if you marketed MAGA plastic bags, you could solve most of your country's problems in a few short minutes per user. :flower:

We're going to have to social distance until we get a vaccine. The virus is not going to put up the white flag and leave us alone. That shouldn't be news to anyone at this point. Lockdowns are just one form of enforced social distancing and they'll be ending well before social distancing does. I don't think anyone is arguing we should continue those indefinitely. Mandatory mask-wearing orders are being introduced already and I expect that's the way we'll go: https://foxbaltimore.com/news/coronavirus/mandatory-face-mask-order-to-go-into-effect-in-prince-georges-county

He can either choose to accept that or reject it, so he'll probably do both.

Nah, he's just a Republican.

I would never accuse you of being a drunk!

The solution then can arise is two ways, either (1) decrease the number of serious cases at any given time through social distances, or (2) increasing the amount of available healthcare (including ventilators). That's true as far as i can see it. — Hanover

False dichotomy. Please reprogram your brain with logic and understanding. Thank you.

If only the UK had universal public healthcare we wouldn't be seeing such things. — Hanover

Bug. Not feature. Want to know who the bugs are?

Hope you'll be ok @Shawn.

Never mind about the dead people, Trump's dick is bigger than the governors' dicks. Everything got that? Ok, carry on.

But in true American form, Americans really don't care what the world thinks about them. — Hanover

And in true non-American form, we don't care that you don't care what we think about you. We're going to tell you anyway.

Ok, your turn.

People in care homes are amongst the most vulnerable in society, not to mention the loneliest and most neglected. Excluding them from COVID testing and treatment is despicable. I don't have the words.

Most people in care homes are not being taken to hospital with suspected CV because it is "not in their interest". — unenlightened

That was the bit I missed. Sick.

"We are completely devastated that this many residents have lost their lives to what we believe to be Covid-19."

So, they didn't even test them?

Except for:

"One resident who tested positive for the virus is in hospital."

Sorry, but what??

Blame the pangolins!.

European governments vary widely in structure and implementation. So, it depends somewhat on what country you're in, but, in general, we're better at keeping money out of politics and giving the electorate more meaningful choices. For example, in Ireland, the two traditionally largest parties got a combined less-than 50% of the vote in the last election for our equivalent of your House. Our Senate has very little power and our President is just a figurehead, so that vote really matters. (And moneyed interests don't get to buy politicians. Anyone who can afford to buy a few posters and print a few leaflets has a chance of being elected.)

In other words, the American system is simply "Aristocracy light" and the time frame from going to a "true educated and courageous elite" of the founding fathers to what we see now, is not even a good performance for an aristocratic systems. — boethius

Yes, and this is one reason a Dem probably wouldn't have done things hugely differently in the current crisis. It would still have been a case of putting "the economy", i.e. the interests of the aristocracy, first too. And the extreme partisanship on the issue, as on just about every other issue, only obscures the problem. Aristocracy party A are not the answer to the problems caused by Aristocracy party B.

If you look past the dumb statements, what he has actually done in the end is probably not much different to what a Dem president would have done (although maybe they would have started earlier). It could have been a lot worse.

One party. Two wings. Things are a little different in Europe, but it depends where you're at.

Maybe not an exit, just a split. Germany, Spain, and Italy with a few others on one side, France and some Nordic states on the other. — frank

There is zero chance of this happening.

The latest Republican nut narrative can be summarized as follows: shutting down everything worked therefore it was a bad idea.

(So the coronavirus nut narrative mirrors the anti-vaccine nut narrative. "Why do we need all these vaccines? Hardly any one gets these diseases any more." Fucking. Dumb. Fucks.)

Not directed at anyone in this thread btw. Just looking at the media.

@Shawn has a pretty cool beard.

E.g. from the lancet:

"Many cases of COVID-19 are acute and resolve quickly, but the disease can also be fatal, with a mortality rate of around 3%."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=covid+mortality+rate&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DvPVpdSzOlWQJ

This figure may not be the final one either, but the idea there is a consensus that the mortality rate is 0.3-0.4% is rubbish. "Current estimates" vary widely.

The mortality rate is now considered to be lower than 1% with current estimates of 0.3-0.4%. — I like sushi

Stop putting up unsourced data. Those of us who have bothered to source have already put up numbers that contradict yours.

I gave up in the end. All I had was 'taxpayers' and 'efficiency'. Not enough.

Coincidentally, I had a debate with a student on this topic today. Unfortunately, I needed to argue for private prisons, which was difficult.

that has provided a high standard of living, — Shawn

What's the alternative? — Shawn

A high quality of living? All that working and running around buying stuff so you can live in fear of a medical emergency bankrupting you. Not for me.

No worries.

He was not for the bank bailout in '08 by the way. You repeated that commonly held false belief earlier — creativesoul

Quote me.

"US stock markets jumped on Wednesday on hopeful signs that the coronavirus outbreak in the United States was close to a peak, with health insurers getting an additional lift from Bernie Sanders' decision to suspend his presidential campaign."

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0408/1129449-us-markets-buoyed-by-coronavirus-hopes/

There's always one.

Banned @wiyte for low quality.