Even the Republican ‘skinny’ relief bill failed. How is such unnecessary suffering justified?
 

The following is dripping politics, but I don't see where else to put it.
[URL]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/14/republican-skinny-coronavirus-relief-mitch-mcconnell[/URL]
[QUOTE]According to the Republicans, the aid is “[URL="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/lindsey-graham-coronavirus-stimulus-bill"]too generous[/URL]” and “[URL="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-20-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-treasury/story?id=72129897"]disincentivizes[/URL]” the unemployed from seeking work. So perverse are the [URL="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/republican-senators-warn-of-rising-unemployment-rate-as-benefits-outpace-wages-for-many/"]effects of these benefits[/URL], they argue, that it is actually workers gaming the system who are [URL="https://www.postandcourier.com/health/covid19/sen-lindsey-graham-says-unemployment-benefits-are-holding-charleston-economy-back/article_71c91fd8-a1c6-11ea-82a7-7fa51a1355bc.html"]slowing the economic recovery[/URL], not the Covid-driven loss of millions of jobs.

That these charges persist despite significant [URL="https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2020/441"]evidence[/URL] to the [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-myth-of-unemployment-benefits-depressing-work/2020/08/03/54cca9f4-d5ba-11ea-9c3b-dfc394c03988_story.html"]contrary[/URL] testifies to the power of the conservative creed that few things in life are more perilous than excess government compassion: “unearned” income such as unemployment benefits perversely undermines recipients’ self-discipline and willingness to work, leaving them even worse off. It is a self-evident truth of human nature, conservatives avow, that relieving the suffering of those in need induces dependence and indolence, whereas deprivation incentivizes labor.
[/QUOTE]

Something I read yesterday: The recent motorcycle rally in Sturgis, SD, resulted in over 250,000 new COVID-19 cases. They, and I don't know who "they" are, managed to get all the addresses of the phones there during the week. After everyone left, the attendees were tracked to see who they came into contact with, and who their friends contacted, and on and on.

it seems to me that a court authorization would be required to do this, if it actually happened. If Homeland Security did this, then maybe they would not need authorization from an external source. In either case, I find their figure dubious, at best. This may be used as an excuse to prevent this event from happening next year, and maybe beyond.

I definitely agree that the programs have disincentivized work, and may continue to do so. There have been plenty of articles about people being angry at their small business owners for applying for and receiving grants to re-open because their benefits (with the $600 pandemic bonus) were comparable to their pay.

But here's the thing. If they want to go down that route, the program that provides support without disincentivizing work is basic income. This has both experimental and theoretical backing.

There are those who argue that "work" is becoming ever more irrelevant. The over-developed world, goes the argument, is becoming ever more capable for those who want to work being able to do so and support (with the assistance of non-human economic providers) an acceptable standard of living for those who do not without significant impacts on their own standard of living.

Progress towards a post-scarcity economy, IOW.

[QUOTE=xilman;556969]There are those who argue that "work" is becoming ever more irrelevant. The over-developed world, goes the argument, is becoming ever more capable for those who want to work being able to do so and support (with the assistance of non-human economic providers) an acceptable standard of living for those who do not without significant impacts on their own standard of living.[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen evidence of that, but that sounds pretty exciting.

[QUOTE=kriesel;556025]There are reports of some immunity to CV19 as a result of infection previously by a different coronavirus. Preventing people from acquiring cross-immunity from a mild pathogen against a more dangerous pathogen is unwise, but that is widespread governmental mandate. Lockdown etc. was introduced when little was known, as erring on the side of caution. Now it is a political decision to continue, despite new information.

[URL]https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2930610-3[/URL]
All that social distancing and handwashing etc. is reducing development and maintenance of immunity by reducing propagation of mild pathogens.[/QUOTE]Lockdown was chosen as an intrusive government policy so politicians could be seen to be doing something, in March, until more was known about the virus. Time has passed, more has been learned, but there's little evidence of governors' positions being affected by improved knowledge The paper documenting cross-immunity from the common cold to Covid19 is dated June 25. Coronavirus immunities are known to fade over time, whch allows us to catch a cold many times in a lifetime. That immunity gets refreshed by reexposure, and lost by minimizing exposure. Connect the dots people. Think for yourselves.

[QUOTE=kriesel;556982]That immunity gets refreshed by reexposure, and lost by minimizing exposure.[/QUOTE]Our biological systems respond to stresses and injuries by directing resources into strengthening the affected areas; to save energy and use available resources wisely. So yes, continually exposing yourself to those tiny invaders will help to boost your immune response systems. The problem is that the initial invasion can become too intense. How could the immune system plan for something that it has never encountered before?

[QUOTE=kriesel;556982]The paper documenting cross-immunity from the common cold to Covid19 is dated June 25.[/QUOTE]

There's definitely cross-reactivity from various cornaviruses, I wouldn't say cross-immunity. I don't know the particular paper you're referencing, though.

[QUOTE=kriesel;556982]Coronavirus immunities are known to fade over time, whch allows us to catch a cold many times in a lifetime. That immunity gets refreshed by reexposure, and lost by minimizing exposure.[/QUOTE]

Given that COVID-19 causes bradykinin storms (and possibly also cytokine storms), I don't think refreshing immunity by re-exposure is a good idea. :ermm:

[url]https://imgur.com/gallery/25hlVvg[/url]

[QUOTE=retina;556984]How could the immune system plan for something that it has never encountered before?[/QUOTE]Parts of the CV19 exterior have enough in common with that of other milder pathogens, that previous exposure to the milder confers some immune response to CV19 on first contact. The immune system doesn't know or care which pathogen the bit it's reactive to is attached to. It functions at the level of chemistry, not species identification.

The cross-reactivity is refreshed by catching another cold, rarely a dangerous proposition, more of an annoyance.

[QUOTE=kriesel;556982]…intrusive government policy…[/QUOTE]Your "intrusive government policy" comment just makes you appear as if you are a sociopath.

"I'm okay, and I'm well-off enough that I'm safe, so there's no need to protect anybody else, like the elderly, or the immunocompromised."

"200,000 dead people? That sounds like a good way to fix the Social Security funding problem!"

"Gee, I might be inconvenienced by all these shutdowns. I'd rather my friends and neighbors die rather than have to wear a silly little mask when I go out to buy snacks."

"Oh dear! My investments might lose some value. It's a shame those dead people are negatively impacting my comfortable existence."

We don't know you personally, but we can only think of two possible ways you could act the way you do:

1) You have never known or experienced hard times or any difficulty. You are successful not because of your hard work and perseverance. You are successful because you were handed the keys to success. Or you have been lucky. Or both. (A certain president comes to mind here!)

OR

2) You have known rough times and you have worked hard and struggled. But you have forgotten where you came from. Sometimes the most vocal opponents to immigration or welfare are those who have worked their way up and out. They believe they did it all on their own, so everyone else should too. But in reality, nobody does it alone.

Here is a simple question for you:

It is February 2020. You are the president of the US. What would you do?

Bonus question: How many deaths are you willing to accept to keep the economy going? Does it matter if anyone from your family is affected? Your friends?

Do you even know anybody affected by this catastrophe?

FWIW, our mind is not closed. If you have a persuasive argument we will listen intently. We have been wrong before.

Personally, it is very hard for us to trade lives for money. Maybe we are flawed in that regard?

WWJD?