PLAYPEN: Covid-19 Everything Political

[Alan Klein]

Alan, in case you missed Joe's quote, I was merely responding to his claim. I am fully aware that this thing is not over yet...

Unfortunately, because of our election, this whole thing has been politicized, each side pointing fingers at the other.  Each side using statistics cherry picked to make their side look better and the other side like they're out to lunch. 

The Democrats raison d’etre represented by masks support medical concerns at the detriment of the economy. The Republicans represented by lack of mask support the economic issues to the detriment of medical concerns.  Of course, both are important but no one has an answer to how to protect the public while getting the economy moving again before we all die or starve.  So we'll continue to argue which is the best method until after the election.  It's really not different in most countries, just the degree varies.  Unfortunately, our election magnifies the issues and the lack of consistent approach.
 

[jeremyrh]

The Republicans represented by lack of mask support the economic issues to the detriment of medical concerns. 

Struggling to see how wearing a mask negatively impacts the economy.

[LesPalenik]

What does a chart from June 1st prove?  These states got hit after the main blue Democratic states like NY and NJ that had the most cases and don't even show on the chart.  Why is California near the bottom? Oh, you're not including cases prior to June 1st.  This chart is cherry picking for political reasons.  Who put it together?  The DNC?

I didn't make that chart, it was the only one I found that showed a correlation between the republican states and infection counts. If you'd like to see trends from before June, you could construct such a chart yourself. Anyway, the numbers from the last 30 days are much more important than the numbers from six months ago.

One thing is sure - regardless whether the stats are pulled from US states or other countries, mandating the masks (geographically or in a certain time frame) and restrictions in social distancing demonstrate very clearly a reduction of the virus spread. On the other hand, mass congregations, whether they happen in churches, on streets or political rallies increase the chances of virus infections.

[Alan Klein]

Struggling to see how wearing a mask negatively impacts the economy.

Leaving aside California governor's inane suggestion to put the mask back on in between bites when eating in a restaurant which would slow down restaurant sales, the point about the mask is that it's become a political symbol as well as an effective medical tool.

[Alan Klein]

I didn't make that chart, it was the only one I found that showed a correlation between the republican states and infection counts. If you'd like to see trends from before June, you could construct such a chart yourself. Anyway, the numbers from the last 30 days are much more important than the numbers from six months ago.

One thing is sure - regardless whether the stats are pulled from US states or other countries, mandating the masks (geographically or in a certain time frame) and restrictions in social distancing demonstrate very clearly a reduction of the virus spread. On the other hand, mass congregations, whether they happen in churches, on streets or political rallies increase the chances of virus infections.

I agree.  But most countries, not only the USA, have opened up their economies as well as us and are taking risks too.  That accounts for the recent rise in Europe, masks or no masks.  Once the American election is over, masks will become a footnote in the news.

[faberryman]

Struggling to see how wearing a mask negatively impacts the economy.

Alan answered that. If you have to take off and put back on your mask between bites, it will take you longer to eat, and all the restaurants will go out of business. Then all the bus boys and waiters won't have jobs, and they will have to stay at home and collect more in unemployment benefits than they would have made working. To fund those unemployment benefits, the state and federal governments will have to raise taxes and print more money, and then everyone will go bankrupt. Then an asteroid will hit the earth and knock it out of its orbit. There are two scenarios: the first is that the asteroid will knock the Earth further from the sun and the weather will be cooler, or at least offset the rise in temperature due to global warming. So the weather will be fine but everyone will still be broke. The upside is that the polar bears will survive. The second scenario is that the asteroid will knock the Earth closer to the sun. Then the weather will be hotter, but the historic temperature charts show us that mankind always does better the hotter it is. People will be better off financially because they will only have to buy summer clothes. Fewer clothes, fewer closets. Fewer closets, smaller houses. Obviously, everyone's rent and mortgages will go down, freeing up money to invest in new restaurants. But then that mask requirement comes back into play. And you can't always count on an asteroid hitting the Earth just in the nick of time. So I guess you can now see why a mask requirement is bad for the economy. The silver lining to a mask requirement is that, as I outlined, there will be so much other stuff going on that no one will notice that the Senate is investigating the Hunter Biden sex tapes and China/Ukraine emails. So, I guess it's really six of one or a half a dozen of the other.

[Alan Klein]

Alan answered that. If you have to take off and put back on your mask between bites, it will take you longer to eat, and all the restaurants will go out of business. Then all the bus boys and waiters won't have jobs, and they will have to stay at home and collect more in unemployment benefits than they would have made working. To fund those unemployment benefits, the state and federal governments will have to raise taxes and print more money, and then everyone will go bankrupt. Then an asteroid will hit the earth and knock it out of its orbit. There are two scenarios: the first is that the asteroid will knock the Earth further from the sun and the weather will be cooler, or at least offset the rise in temperature due to global warning. So the weather will been fine but everyone will still be broke. The upside is that the polar bears will survive. The second scenario is that the asteroid will knock the Earth closer to the sun. Then the weather will be hotter, but the temperature charts show us that mankind always does better the hotter it is. People will be better off financially because they will only have to buy summer clothes. Few clothes, fewer closets. Fewer closets, smaller houses. Obviously, everyone's rent and mortgages will go down, freeing up money to invest in new restaurants. But then that mask requirement comes back into play. And you can't always count on an asteroid hitting the Earth in the nick of time. So I guess you can now see why a mask requirement is bad for the economy. The silver lining to a mask requirement is that, as I outlined, there will be so much other stuff going on that no one will notice that the Senate is investigating the Hunter Biden sex tapes and China/Ukraine emails. So, I guess it's really six of one or a half a dozen of the other.

I think you should get a job at the Treasury or the EPA, maybe both.  They need you, Frank. 

[jeremyrh]

Alan answered that. If you have to take off and put back on your mask between bites, it will take you longer to eat, and all the restaurants will go out of business. Then all the bus boys and waiters won't have jobs, and they will have to stay at home and collect more in unemployment benefits than they would have made working. To fund those unemployment benefits, the state and federal governments will have to raise taxes and print more money, and then everyone will go bankrupt. Then an asteroid will hit the earth and knock it out of its orbit. There are two scenarios: the first is that the asteroid will knock the Earth further from the sun and the weather will be cooler, or at least offset the rise in temperature due to global warming. So the weather will been fine but everyone will still be broke. The upside is that the polar bears will survive. The second scenario is that the asteroid will knock the Earth closer to the sun. Then the weather will be hotter, but the temperature charts show us that mankind always does better the hotter it is. People will be better off financially because they will only have to buy summer clothes. Few clothes, fewer closets. Fewer closets, smaller houses. Obviously, everyone's rent and mortgages will go down, freeing up money to invest in new restaurants. But then that mask requirement comes back into play. And you can't always count on an asteroid hitting the Earth in the nick of time. So I guess you can now see why a mask requirement is bad for the economy. The silver lining to a mask requirement is that, as I outlined, there will be so much other stuff going on that no one will notice that the Senate is investigating the Hunter Biden sex tapes and China/Ukraine emails. So, I guess it's really six of one or a half a dozen of the other.

Thanks - it all makes sense now you explained it.

[faberryman]

Thanks - it all makes sense now you explained it.

It's really pretty straightforward. Most people tend to overthink things.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Struggling to see how wearing a mask negatively impacts the economy.

It really isn't very hard, even without resorting to silliness.

I wear a mask when I go out. I don't like it; it's uncomfortable and my glasses mist up. So if I have the option of staying at home and not going out, I'll take it. If lots of people opt to stay at home and not go to cinemas (if any are open) or shops, or anywhere else that relies on customers' presence to make money, then they'll make less money and the economy suffers. "Compulsory" shopping, for food and other essentials, won't be too badly affected. "Voluntary" shopping, for clothes, or shoes or the like, will. When masks are no longer required, that area of the economy will come back into demand, but it may be too late.

Jeremy

[jeremyrh]

Right on cue ...

It really isn't very hard, even without resorting to silliness.

I wear a mask when I go out. I don't like it; it's uncomfortable and my glasses mist up. So if I have the option of staying at home and not going out, I'll take it. If lots of people opt to stay at home and not go to cinemas (if any are open) or shops, or anywhere else that relies on customers' presence to make money, then they'll make less money and the economy suffers. "Compulsory" shopping, for food and other essentials, won't be too badly affected. "Voluntary" shopping, for clothes, or shoes or the like, will. When masks are no longer required, that area of the economy will come back into demand, but it may be too late.

Jeremy

That must be why the economies of countries like Hong Kong and Korea where people habitually wear masks are in such bad shape.

[Robert Roaldi]

Unfortunately, because of our election, this whole thing has been politicized, each side pointing fingers at the other.  Each side using statistics cherry picked to make their side look better and the other side like they're out to lunch. 

The Democrats raison d’etre represented by masks support medical concerns at the detriment of the economy. The Republicans represented by lack of mask support the economic issues to the detriment of medical concerns.  Of course, both are important but no one has an answer to how to protect the public while getting the economy moving again before we all die or starve.  So we'll continue to argue which is the best method until after the election.  It's really not different in most countries, just the degree varies.  Unfortunately, our election magnifies the issues and the lack of consistent approach.

Oh please, Trump politicized Covid from the start, no one else.

[Robert Roaldi]

It really isn't very hard, even without resorting to silliness.

I wear a mask when I go out. I don't like it; it's uncomfortable and my glasses mist up. So if I have the option of staying at home and not going out, I'll take it. If lots of people opt to stay at home and not go to cinemas (if any are open) or shops, or anywhere else that relies on customers' presence to make money, then they'll make less money and the economy suffers. "Compulsory" shopping, for food and other essentials, won't be too badly affected. "Voluntary" shopping, for clothes, or shoes or the like, will. When masks are no longer required, that area of the economy will come back into demand, but it may be too late.

Jeremy

I'd call that a reach. I can see where there might be some effect due to the wearing of masks, but I'd guess it to be pretty marginal compared to the over-riding reluctance to go out at all.

[faberryman]

I wear a mask when I go out. I don't like it; it's uncomfortable and my glasses mist up. So if I have the option of staying at home and not going out, I'll take it. If lots of people opt to stay at home and not go to cinemas (if any are open) or shops, or anywhere else that relies on customers' presence to make money, then they'll make less money and the economy suffers. "Compulsory" shopping, for food and other essentials, won't be too badly affected. "Voluntary" shopping, for clothes, or shoes or the like, will. When masks are no longer required, that area of the economy will come back into demand, but it may be too late.

I don't know what it's like in the UK, or really anywhere else other than my little corner of the US, but when I go out I see business parking lots pretty full and most people going in and out wearing masks. Bars and restaurants are probably an exception. Around here I think we are at 50% status but I could be wrong. Maybe it's up to 75%. I don't eat out. Nobody is going to the movies. Of the two big movie chains, Regal is closing down and AMC has only enough cash to get them to the end of the year. Even if they were open, the studios are releasing the movies direct to internet providers like Netflix and Disney+, so there is nothing new to see in the theaters. Of course this was going to happen anyway. If your business plan is dependent on selling a box of popcorn for $15, you are probably not long for the world. I think a mask mandate makes sense. It gives people some comfort that maybe they are not going to die if they go out, and so they go out and get along with their lives as best they can. I'm not suggesting that the economy is back to normal, but that's because we had 52,774 new COVID cases and 679 deaths yesterday, not because some places have a mask requirement.

[John Camp]

As a Trump hater (I admit it) I have to say that there are somethings about him that still mystify me. Did he really believe that his administration would be blamed for a pandemic? Is that why he down-played it? I believe that if he'd jumped up and told the truth (we now know that he understood the dangers of the pandemic early on, probably in February) and that if he'd ordered nationwide masks, he not only would have saved a lot of lives and eased the economic crisis, but he'd probably be hailed as a hero for doing that. And it would have been so easy -- he had all the scientific advice right there. It wouldn't have taken any additional energy at all. Nobody would have blamed him -- on the contrary, they'd see that he was doing all that he could. Instead, he chose to bullshit us. Is he really that stupid?

We had a lot of restrictions here in New Mexico (we're now having a surge after the re-opening of schools) but most businesses are functioning, albeit at a lower level than normal. My wife and I grocery shop, go out for newspapers on Sunday, go to dog food and office supply stores, I make an occasional stop at a book store. I go to physical therapy for my broken arm and I have a doctor's appointment this week. Those places are limiting occupancy and limiting contact, some check your temperature and all require masks -- and I haven't gotten covid-19 nor do I feel especially threatened as I wait for a vaccine. If Trump had led a two-pronged attack on the virus, a medical side and a business side, if the government had worked hard at laying out guidelines for businesses while enforcing social distancing and masking, he'd be a hero instead of a goat.

I can only conclude that he really is that stupid and we will be well rid of him.   

[chez]

One reason is the difference in relative population density between those two countries. In Canada, outside the main cities, the population density is relatively low and there is a lot of distancing between people and communities.

The vast majority of the Canadian population live in high density cities...something like 82% of Canadians live in cities. Vancouver itself has one of the highest densities in North America.

[chez]

With Europe's rate recently worse than the US, these statistics and order may change substantially.  Like I've been saying, comparing casualty rates in the middle of a war is a fool's errand.  You're going to get egg on your face.

But surely we expect the USA to be a leader against the virus...not being compared to countries that have a lot less financial, medical and research resources.

[chez]

Leaving aside California governor's inane suggestion to put the mask back on in between bites when eating in a restaurant which would slow down restaurant sales, the point about the mask is that it's become a political symbol as well as an effective medical tool.

Who's been playing politics with the mask...let me guess...Chetos.

[chez]

It really isn't very hard, even without resorting to silliness.

I wear a mask when I go out. I don't like it; it's uncomfortable and my glasses mist up. So if I have the option of staying at home and not going out, I'll take it. If lots of people opt to stay at home and not go to cinemas (if any are open) or shops, or anywhere else that relies on customers' presence to make money, then they'll make less money and the economy suffers. "Compulsory" shopping, for food and other essentials, won't be too badly affected. "Voluntary" shopping, for clothes, or shoes or the like, will. When masks are no longer required, that area of the economy will come back into demand, but it may be too late.

Jeremy

That's just your opinion. I see an awful lot of people wearing masks doing everyday stuff including shopping and going to restaurants. I highly doubt mask wearing is why the economy has tanked...but I believe if everyone wore masks and practiced social distancing, the number of infections would fall drastically and people would feel more comfortable going out shopping and eating.

[Jeremy Roussak]

That's just your opinion. I see an awful lot of people wearing masks doing everyday stuff including shopping and going to restaurants. I highly doubt mask wearing is why the economy has tanked...but I believe if everyone wore masks and practiced social distancing, the number of infections would fall drastically and people would feel more comfortable going out shopping and eating.

Of course it's just my opinion, as I think I made perfectly clear. And I hope I'm as entitled to it as you are to what is very clearly yours.

It's not the reason for the economic disaster we have brought upon ourselves, no. That stems from our desire, as one MP put it, to make death illegal.

Jeremy