xtr

20 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

 

In an ideal world, the policies Newsom is making about rehousing the homeless would be used even after all this is over, but they won't.

18 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

I hope this will be of serious consideration even after the most serious dangers have passed. This pandemic has really shined a light on all the deficiencies in the system. It should be a point of civic pride to fix the deficiencies. Or else, what type of society/world are we living in??

I do really bad for homeless people in a time like this. They are already at serious risk for various dangers as it is. And now they are even more at risk with this situation regarding this virus. Some of them not being able to keep up with their personal hygiene because the gyms are closing is just the tip of their problems.

I did read about what Newsome was doing and I wish more could/would be done to help them all over this country. I did see somewhere that some of them were actually taking over houses in places like California that were owned by the state and living in them. Now granted, that also presents it's sets of problems. But I can understand that they are scared and vulnerable and how more than ever, they really don't want and need to be on the streets right now. 

I also saw some one post a statistic, that there are actually more homes than homeless people. (I think it's like a 6:1 ratio or something like that.) That is shameful and more needs to be done to help them during and after this pandemic.

52 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

 

52 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

 

The more you learn.... (And I wouldn't be surprised if more stuff comes that out that would contradict the less try and force as many people to stay at home idea that people are pushing).

Honestly, this makes more sense than trying to force most people to remain cooped up at home. Regardless of whether they have the virus, showing symptoms, or are even live/usually interact with higher risk people. 

I've always felt one of the first priorities should have been trying to shield/protect the higher risk people. But that doesn't mean to try and force as many people as possible including healthy people without symptoms to stay at home for longer periods of time. Healthy people should go to work and just be careful in regards to doing other things. (An exception being if they are in an area, where the virus is widespread.) Go to work/provide for yourself/your family (Including possibly the high risk people who can't work right now or at all), and don't do things like gathering in large groups for a while/riskier behavior for a bit until things calm down.

All of this forcing people out of work and to be cooped up, presents it's own set of problems..., problems that could also be dangerous and unhealthy people. Could you imagine being cooped up with a bunch of family members for several days especially in a small space, like an apartment, instead of being allowed a bit of break to go out and go to work. Especially if a family member already has it. I can see how people would get sick from that/spread sickness... It makes sense.

Let healthy people work and hold down the economy while we do our best to try and protect the higher risk people. Higher risk people are the ones that should be at home/safe guarded. We've already been implementing this at my job. Really high risk people are now working from home. My pregnant co-worker I believe is about to start working from home. And some of the higher risk, that want to come into the office (and would have to to fully do their jobs) we have taken measures to protect them. We've arranged to where they aren't going to be interacting face to face with clients, but can still interact with them via email, phone and can still do work for them.

We even changed the way we operate in the offices and have made physical changes, Toys from the waiting rooms are now gone, we offered discounts to encourage people to do drop off services, we've changed from using rolling chairs to straight back chairs, so clients are less likely to roll around and interact with people. We've limited it to two people (including children for appointments). As well as making sure we continue to wipe/santize/clean things. And we're a business that is actually deemed essential, yet we still are taking those extra steps to protect people, to include employees and clients. There's stuff you can do, to protect people, without shutting down businesses and taking away people's jobs. 

Heck, I would have rather governments as a whole allowed most people to work but issued some type of ordinance about how you are only allowed to work/do essentials things for a little bit. And say they would fine people, if they didn't follow that rule, instead of just shutting down businesses and taking away people's jobs. Now granted some people would have still said trying to fine people is extreme, but most people would take that over losing their jobs.

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I don't normally post Trump tweets but I saw this one and my heart went to my throat. He's going to try to kill us all.

 

 

I can understand why people are upset about Trump's leadership and weary of decisions he wants to make that. That being said while I don't agree with Trump when it comes to a lot of things, but I do think that evaluating things after a couple weeks is actually a good idea. Though, I don't know what/how definitive decisions can be made at that time. I think that people need to take things a bit slower here, especially since there is still things we don' t know about the virus. I do feel like are trying to make long terms decisions and that those decisions could will have long term and devastating ramifications for people and the economy. Things that could end up being more damaging than even the impact of the virus.

Losing jobs creates it's own set of problems including health problems for people to include hurting people who suffer from depression, are suicidal, need to work to try and pay for medications to help deal with serious health conditions etc... I feel like these things are being overlooked in all of this hysteria over the virus. Heck even something that would seem not that big of a deal like closing down gyms hurts at risk people like the homeless. Many people who are working homeless got to places like gyms in LA and shower/shave. Now that the gyms are closed down, where they are supposed to go maintain personal hygiene.

I saw mention that some of the shelters there are inadequate and aren't equipped to help them. More people not being able to clean themselves will definitely help the spread of a virus. That could exacerbate the spread of a virus much more than people just going out to some place. But that's the type of stuff that a lot people aren't thinking about in all of this panic. I also wonder if we could see an increase in crime as people become more despondent as they are losing their jobs and not having any resources.

I do think that the ramifications of the panic over this virus could have an even worse impact than the virus itself. And at some point are going to have weigh the other issues that are resulting from all of the panic and shutting down things against the actual damage the virus is actual doing. And at some point, people are going to have to open back up the economy for most people. They are going to have to. Most people can not sit home long term (or even short term), and they still haven't come up with an agreement on the stimulus plan. And even if they do, unless it's monthly payments for a while, it;'s only going to do so much.

I think that some people on places like Twitter live in a fantasy world, where they think that a lot of people can just stay at home long term and it's not like that. I wonder how many of these people actually work or depend on working people to survive. I honestly don't get them or their line of thinking. I do see people pushing for long term shutdown and I don't think that's the direction we should go in.

We have to be realistic when it's all said and done about what can and can't be done. I do feel like things need to be evaluated periodically and that long term decisions shouldn't be made right now. It might have to start with at a point,  opening back up the economy for more people, but still encouraging/insisting they go home after work type of thing for a bit. (Unless they need to get stuff like groceries). I think they would have been better off doing that initially and encouraging the high risk people to stay at home. And people to be careful/protective of the high risk people. And do whatever can be done regarding things like trying to get more tests/create a vaccine.

On 3/21/2020 at 4:32 PM, DRW50 said:

 

Thanks for taking all the time to give more information. Which plan do you think sounds better? (admittedly they all sound pretty awful)

I remember the stimulus was taxed. It would be nice if they gave people a break here, but giving a break to anyone who isn't an 80 year old executive seems unlikely. 

I think the best idea was to give everyone the $1,000 plus $500 per child. And if they aren't going to do that then I think giving everyone who makes under $75,000 a full sum of money is better than what Mitchell McConnell is proposing. You could help more people that way, than by doing his plan, which will give the poorest people the least amount of money or nothing. I did see that the Dems rejected his plan and that both sides are still working things out regarding a stimulus plan. Hopefully, they can come to an agreement on something that will benefit American people as a whole. 

34 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

Where are they getting these masks he speaks of?

 

 

I don't think that's the best idea. I do think that people that have been exposed and definitely have it should stay home. While healthier people without symptoms or known exposure should be allowed to work. And for some of them whenever these restrictions/shelter in places orders are lifted. I wonder what states/cities plan are after these orders are limited. I can understand that people want to slow the spread of the virus, but they aren't really providing answers as to what degree is acceptable for them to let people live a bit more normally again.

Shutting down all of these businesses is going to be catastrophic for the economy. A lot of people have to work and don't have the luxury of being able to afford to go two weeks without work/income. Let alone a month or more. If the governments don't get together some sort of plan to help working people, the impact of the economy collapsing is going to be more harmful than the virus itself. It's already headed that way IMHO.

19 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

 

A few days ago I'd read 75K. Is the new one 50k? I've had a hard time keeping track of the different plans. 

 

And of course this will all be taxed, so people will be getting, what, half the amount in reality? 

The $75,000 number was being thrown out earlier when they were talking about who should get money, and including the possible $1,000 payment. That figure was being used by some people who was saying that everyone who made underneath that amount should be sent the $1,000 that was initially suggested.

This newest plan by Mitch McConnell does seem closer to a tax credit. (It reminds me of the earned income credit) And from what I heard/read is that around $50,000 are the ones that will benefit the most from this plan. People in that income range are the ones who are most likely to get the $1,200 credit. People who made beneath that range in 2018 (between $2,500-less than $50,000) in earned income would get the $600 credit. I'm not sure what exact figure a person would have to make to get the full  $1,200 amount, but my boss mentioned that people in the $50,000 range would benefit the most from this plan. And that it could phase out around $99,000 which would stop the higher income people from getting it.

The article that was posted pointing out the problems with this plan did give an example of how an adult making $35,000 wouldn't qualify for the full $1,200 and only get $600. It was used as an example to show how this current proposal would give less money to lower income people. (Even though they need the most assistance.)

19 hours ago, ReddFoxx said:

Went to the store earlier today and everything was wiped out. Milk, cheese, eggs, butter, etc. This situation is completely out of control and I'm worried about what is going to happen over the next month. My family should be ok for the next couple of weeks, but if the stores haven't replenished by then it's really going to be a problem.

19 hours ago, alphanguy74 said:

Some interesting things that is very telling as it pertains to the death rates of this virus. Men are dying at much higher rates than women, Men smoke at a rate of 35 % in Italy and 62% in China. Far far higher than female smoking rates. 

Try smaller stores as opposed to big chains. Stores are getting shipments at normal intervals, there's just a lot of hoarding going on. Some stores here have instituted limits on purchases, 2 per item. It's working well. 

Going to smaller stores is a good suggestion. Sometimes you can look in them and find some things you need.

I have to think at some point that some (maybe a lot) of these people that are selfishly hoarding, (especially those that are repeat offenders) will be low on funds. And maybe they won't have the money to keep going out and buying up stuff that other people need. The hoarding is wrong, there is enough supplies for everyone and what they are doing is selfish and also possibly wasteful. If someone who lives by themselves or has a small family (and even some with larger families) keeps hoarding stuff especially  perishable items that stuff could spoil/expire before they eat it. I usually grocery shop once a week, and buy just what I need for the week. ( I love to cook but I shop like this so I don't buy too much food and have a lot of waste). Though this last go around, I did end up doing two weeks worth of grocery shopping. And I'm glad I did because a lot of the meat and stuff was sold out in grocery stores where I live too. 

And going back to the conversation a few of us were having some pages back about the store running out things like chicken, meat, etc.... Here is some more suggestions if you go somewhere and want to find stuff like some meat/protein and there out of packages of chicken/steak:

Try the frozen food aisle. Sometimes you can find vacuum packed fish like salmon there. And if push comes to shove they could have frozen fish fillets/fish sticks. Chicken wings, tenders and nuggets are also in this aisle. And you can even find whole frozen chickens, and cornish hens in this aisle.

Look at the aisle where the sandwich meat and bacon normally is. That's usually a separate aisle than the regular meat aisle. Sometimes in this aisle, not only can you find sliced meat and bacon, but things like sausages, including ground italian sauces. You can also find things like slabs of ribs, including pre cooked seasoned/sauced ribs, and also containers of pulled pork, pulled chicken and pulled ribs in this aisle.

Try the deli where you can order sliced meat. And also sliced cheese. Hopefully, they haven't run out of meat/cheese in that section.And a lot of times they will have a different assortment of cheeses there. Granted is more expensive than the regular meat/cheese aisles, but that could be an option for people who want some meat/dairy. Often times you can find cooked Rotisserie chicken over there and things like prepared chicken and tuna salad. Sometimes they will have fried chicken over there as well. 

If your store is running low on fruits/vegetables, you can also try the frozen aisle and get frozen packs of those things.

On 3/20/2020 at 3:10 PM, Khan said:

 

IOW, the GOP basically told low-income people to go f**k themselves.

Last night during an office call for work, we learned a few more details about this potential plan from my boss. Right now it's being based off of the 2018 Tax Return, and people who have not filed that return yet, should think about doing so. There is also rumblings they could look or maybe even change it to the 2019 return. But right now it's just 2018. The people that may benefit the most from this plan (and more likely to get the full $1,200 amount) are people that make around $50,000 a year. And I believe that is per individual not household. The average household in America makes around $61,000. So it's very possible that many adults will not get this full amount. And it was stated that the stimulus amount would phase out around $99,000.

So right now if this bill is passed it, looks like a lot of people, (probably most) would get less than the $1,200 amount Mitch McConnell is touting. A lot of people would only get the $600 amount. (Which is better than nothing, but people getting at least $1,000 would be more beneficial, especially as more and more people are being put out of work.)

I do think this plan could leave a lot of people out, including unemployed people, severely underemployed people, grown full time students (like college age and up), disabled people, etc... And also people who are afraid to file their 2018 return for some reason. (Like maybe they owe student loans and don't want their refund completely taken.) Though anyone that makes over a certain amount, should be filing, regardless of what happens to the refund. (If they're not filing, that could come back to haunt them.)

9 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

This plan is definitely no where near as good as just sending everyone $1,000 per adult and $500 per child. It looks like people that didn't work in 2018 (or had income of less than $2,500) would get nothing. And as the author pointed out in the thread, it doesn't seem like it will create relief for a lot of other areas including not helping a lot of workers who will lose their jobs, or giving fiscal relief to states. 

In addition to Tax Day being moved payments, Trump has said that Federally student loan payments could be suspended for 60 days without penalty or interest.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/03/20/trump-temporarily-suspends-payments-on-federal-student-loans/

30 minutes ago, Khan said:

Speaking of those stimulus checks, I hear Sen. Lindsey Graham and Mark Meadows are doing their damnedest to persuade Donald Trump to quash the idea.  True?

It seems like some of the Republicans want to do different things. There is a report that said that Lindsey and Mark was trying to get the president not to do these payments. And then Lindsey came out and said that he was willing to pay up to 75% of people's income going up to $80,000. Mitt Romney was in support of one $1,000 check and said he was trying to work on some type of compromise with Lindsey to convert funding for the second check into more unemployment benefits.

Another republican senator was saying that the GOP was considering making payments for individuals who make under $95,000 a year and couples who make under $190,000. And there are some who just say they want to give people cash payments in general. Here is an article mentioning these things:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/coronavirus-relief-lindsey-graham-mark-meadows-pushing-trump-to-oppose-cash-payouts/

I like the two payments of $1,000 for all adult americans. and $500 dollars for each child. It's simple and won't take as much time as other plans would. A lot of people are going to need money quickly especially as more and more businesses are shutting down and people are losing their jobs. 

On 3/17/2020 at 11:17 PM, All My Shadows said:

It really sucks! Today, talk began of our school year being over, and I was flooded with Remind app messages from my seniors who wanted to know if it was true. We haven't gotten there yet, but I fear it'll be soon. I do believe that no school in the country will officially "cancel" a graduation ceremony and just mail diplomas home. The backlash would be immense, and the parents wouldn't allow it. I'm the sponsor of the prom committee at my school, and I fully intend to give those kids a prom, be it in May or August or whenever.

I hope you guys can end up doing something for them, though it may be later on. Some of my co-workers had brought this up at work, and they were suggesting maybe some schools could do something for kids in the fall, if they were able to do so. 

24 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

I can imagine a mad dash for shape-ups and beard trims today.

 

 

I hope that a lot of people who will be getting their hair/nails done during these last couple of days will give their stylists/barbers/technicians nice tips. This is going to hit them hard like is hitting other people in other industries. I wonder if they will end up doing this in other states. I'm get my hair done often. I always tip my hair stylist, but I'm going to give her an even bigger tip than usual next week. So she can have at least a little more money in case NC decides to do something like this as well in the future.

Though, I don't know that they will go that far. (So far to my knowledge we've only had one confirmed case of the virus in our county and no one has died from it.) The mayor did issue a state of emergency here the other day, but he said that he wasn't shutting down businesses. And that one of the reasons he called the state of emergency is because some businesses/people can get some type of relief, if that is officially called. 

Also, some of the banks and financial institutions, where I live have now closed down the lobbies and will only do drive thru telling or talk with people on the phone. I wonder what other cities/states have banks where they are closing down lobbies. I could see things getting really backed up, especially if they do send out the stimulus checks, if these banks shut down for a while. 

According to the Treasury Secretary Steve Mnunchin the deadline to file taxes has been extended from April 15 to July 15th:

2 minutes ago, Roman said:

thank you so much. what is The idiot saying on tv? i refuse to watch.

Right now he's currently talking about fast tracking anti viral treatments for patients with coronavirus.

49 minutes ago, Roman said:

NOW the word on the checks say they'll take 3 weeks.

Yeah, I just read hey would like to get checks out within the next three weeks I also read that the Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is saying right now they are looking at plan to possibly give every american adult $1,000. If people have children they could get an additional $500 for each child. And then six weeks from now if this still a crisis there could a second disbursement of $1,000 for each adult/another $500 for each child. Here is an article talking more about this. And also what financial help may also be given to some businesses/industries:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/488412-mnuchin-americans-could-get-two-coronavirus-stimulus-checks-within-9

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

I'm glad you brought more details into this whole conversation because I don't really understand how it works. I think Democrats know they can't get away with "free money" (as that's how it would be spun if Pelosi were pushing the idea) so are being extremely cautious. I wonder if Trump is saying all this never planning to give money because he knows it will make Democrats look bad. I'd certainly appreciate some money but I have a hard time believing it will ever happen, and if it does, there will be a kick in the ass coming at some point after. 

 

You're really doing a great job trying to frame this for us - I can only contrast to the idiots on Twitter who help us lose elections every 2 years.

 

 

Thanks.

I think that Nancy along with some other people who support means testing are worried that money will be "wasted" on the rich people in this country if universal income is supplied to everyone.  But I think that if the best way to make sure most Americans get some extra (and often times much needed) financial help is to also to give the rich a check,too, so be it, IMO. In the grand scheme of things there are way more people who could use this money than there are rich people. And the rich can always donate their money to Charity or put it back into the economy if they choose. (And I believe that some of them will do that.) Means testing could help a lot of needy people fall through the cracks and will take more time, than distributing checks for Americans.

One of the suggestions that I saw it was reported Nancy suggested would be to do refundable tax credits. That could benefit people in the future, but that's not going to be of much help right now for a lot of people. A lot of people have already filed their taxes this year, especially people with families. And usually tax returns with refundable credits taken longer to process, because often times the IRS is holding them over long due to checking for things fraud. For example the IRS didn't really start processing returns with Earned Income Credit, Additional Child Tax Credits/Education Credits until February 15 this year. (Returns that fall underneath the PATH ACT) 

Even if people with these types of returns filed them as soon as the IRS opened on January 27th. And not too long ago, the IRS told people that they were holding some of these types tax returns for at least an additional 45 days, after the Feb 15th date.. (And I've heard as high as 60 additional days from people. I've seen reports about these things at work). It could be quite a while before people get a refundable tax credit due to this. And if they have those other credits, it could prolong their refund even more. 

If Nancy wants to do a refundable tax credit for next year's return in addition, to cash payments, I think that would be fine. (And I did see somewhere on Twitter, she was open to that, but still wanted to do means testing.)  But I think think it's best if people aren't means tested for this. 

I hope they can get this passed, I think they could if people are more cooperative. It actually seems like Trump is in favor of this. I read that Andrew Yang was actually in contact with him about this. (Which I think makes sense, given Andrew was one that was really pushing for this earlier when he was running for president.)

I see a lot of people are understandably upset about the stimulus plan not getting passed right now. Many of them are posting on Twitter under the #PeoplevsPelosi trend. They are blaming Nancy Pelosi for reportedly being against a cash transfer for Americans, because it's being reported she wants to do means testing. I do agree that means tested is not the best way to try and get the payments to people, for lots of reasons. Here are some of the reasons that were highlighted by this post on Twitter:

Most people could definitely use the extra money especially right now with people losing jobs and a lot of uncertainty going on in the economy due to the coronavirus:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/18/refusal-pelosi-consider-universal-cash-payments-response-coronavirus-pandemic?amp&__twitter_impression=true

I want to touch on some comments mentioned by posters here about some of the recent events that have been going on:

It's unfortunate that children, including high school kids have to miss out on special moments like prom. I wish something could be done for them down the line to help make up for some of the stuff they are losing out on.

It is very unfortunate that people in France are being permitted from even taking a walk outside. I love exercising and not being able to exercise at all, would be rough. It's bad enough that people are already feeling pretty cooped up. Exercising like walking can be very relaxing and not only benefits people's physical health, but often times benefits them mentally and emotionally. I did see that at least LA has closed down places like gyms as well. The gym here is still open (I've been going late at night, when hardly anyone is around) And late last night I saw they have blocked off several of the machines to create at least six feet of distance between people. Stuff like this could help and make people safer, but still allow them to work out, at least in some places. 

Also I saw that the Governor of NC had mandated that restaurants no longer be open for dine in. When I first heard that he did mandated something for the restaurants I was concerned they wouldn't be allowed to be open at all. And this is not because I love to eat out/eat out a lot. (I love to cook and don't eat out much.) I was just concerned for restaurants and their employees and how this would impact their business and wages. I'm glad they can still do takeout, delivery, etc...) I will start to order at least a little more takeout to help support them during these times. I feel bad for people like the waiters, servers, bartenders, etc..., who are going to lose a lot of work/wages. I wish they would end up getting some type of financial help.

And while talking to an elderly client today, and trying to figure out how to best provide a service for him. (He didn't really want to come into an office and also didn't have a computer to do a virtual appointment), I thought of some ways that people can help the elderly/people with compromised health during this time. If you have an elderly relative or client that may need to come in for some type of appointment you can do things like:

Try to schedule the appointment as early as possible. Try to aim to get them the earliest appointment in a day. They can be the first person in a place and get out of there before more people start to come in. This could even apply to something like a hair appointment. A lot of elderly women (including very old ones) get their hair done every couple of weeks. Try to arrange for them to be seen early, or maybe even see if the hairdresser can come in even earlier than the shop is usually open to accommodate them.

Depending on what your business may do, you can offer to help serve them virtually. Though, I have found that quite a few elderly people are not really tech savvy or even own computers. Their kids/grandkids/family members need to help them out here. (And I know that a lot of family members already do this). Ask them if they need anything done and help set up virtual stuff for them. If they don't have kids/grandkids or any nearby a neighbor could check in on them and try and help out as well. Also see if there are drop off options for them if they aren't tech savvy and don't have anyone that can help them do virtual stuff from home. They can drop stuff off and then get out of a business as quickly as possible and pick it up later. Or family members can also drop off stuff for them. Family/friends/businesses try to help them as much as you can.

34 minutes ago, Khan said:

 

Well.  That's just great.  What are people who have to watch their cholesterol and blood pressure supposed to do if there's a run on chicken (or fish or poultry)?  I guess now's as good of a time as any to go vegetarian, lol.

They weren't trying to get that steak, they spent that steak money on toilet paper, lol. I bought some at the commissary, (which does have it considerably cheaper than the regular grocery stores.) largely due to the chicken being gone. (Outside of the ground chicken, which I got a pack of.)

Sometimes I will go the commissary around a military payday, and they will be really low on items chicken, so I have to rethink things a bit, if I planned to cook with chicken. But I make it work. On the positive note, even though people are buying up stuff like chicken, there still is in general enough food for people. Though, of course dietary needs and costs could and do impact things as well. 

I'm not one that would try to go vegetarian and I definitely don't want to go vegan lol, (though I do love vegetables and eat a lot of them). Though, people are definitely free to go that route if they want to.

But here are some more suggestions for people who primarily eat poultry/fish as their protein source, if a store is out of regular chicken. When you go to the grocery store and this happens you can try seeing if they have ground chicken or turkey. Or see if they have whole chickens or smaller hens for sale, which sometimes might be in another aisle. Sometimes they also have chicken/turkey sausages and sometimes you can find things like salmon in the refrigerated/frozen aisles. 

11 hours ago, Khan said:

 

 

Agree.  On both counts.

 

Above all else, people need to remain calm.  However, when you see people raiding grocery store shelves for things like toilet paper (!?), or going online and spreading misinformation, conspiracy theories and doomsday advice, it isn't easy to do.  I struggle daily with depression- and anxiety-related issues, so the LAST thing someone like ME needs to see is other people panicking and acting irrationally, because that just amplifies my own issues.

 

My advice: if you're feeling overloaded emotionally by all the information (and "information") that keeps coming out about this virus, then do yourself a favor and "unplug" from social media and the news for awhile.  The CDC and WHO have issued all the precautions you need to take to help you (and your loved ones) deal with this problem.

 

 

Okay, why are people hoarding bottled water?  Has the CDC/NIH/WHO warned us not to use tap water?

 

Meanwhile, at every grocery store I've gone to, hand soaps (some anti-bacterial, some not), body washes, shampoos/conditioners and deodorants languish on the shelves.

 

People REALLY need to stop and think, lol.

10 hours ago, dragonflies said:

It's about HOARDING. You don't need 144 rolls of tp for a 2 week quarantine, if you so, then you best be seeing a different kind of doctor.

 

I thankfully have enough TP to get by for now, but every store is SOLD OUT.

Good advice, Khan. People need to relax and I do think it would benefit a lot of people if they took a break from Twitter, several of them have been obsessing over this in an unhealthy manner for the past few days. Tonight is the night in a few night where there are actually other trending topics in the top 4 trends that aren't directly related to the coronavirus. Some people stay on places like Twitter all day obsessing over that and it's not healthy. They need to step away, spend some time with their family, watch TV, eat a good meal, do some exercise or something to help and try lessen the stress they are feeling from all of this stuff connected to the virus. Their anxiety/stress will probably escalate if they don't take a breather, especially with more restrictions/recommendations being put out by various leaders in different communities.

Also, going back to the hoarding discussion, I went to the commissary today on base,  with my dad (He has base access and a lot of times I will go up there with him to grocery shop), we saw this man and his wife buy nine packages of toilet paper. He had several packs that had at least 12 rolls in them and some that had at least four, maybe even six rolls in them. I'm not sure what the exact combination he had of both packs, but at bare minimum he had at least around 80 rolls, If not more. Him and his wife looked like they were in their mid 50's and I didn't see any kids with them or anything. They didn't need all of that toilet paper. I also saw another man who had two twelve packs, and decided not to purchase one of them in the line.

He felt it was ridiculous, and he didn't want to be a hoarder. And he did have a family, but couldn't bring himself to buy the two packs. I bought one large pack and then a smaller pack for one of my co-workers, who said she only had two rolls left at home. The commissary did have some packages left, (They do a really good job of restocking), which was good, because the toilet paper is sold out off of base in the city. 

I also noticed that a lot of things were sold out like chicken (with an exception being ground chicken), and that pasta sauce was almost sold out. I went to another grocery store and saw that the chicken was sold out there as well. But there was plenty of beef and steak, nobody was trying to hoard that. (Even though the beef in the commissary is cheap, though it's definitely more expensive in other grocery stores).

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

 

That's so awful. I hope everything works out for your co-worker. 

 

In one of Newt Gingrich's rare bits of sanity:

 

 

Thanks, hopefully the stores will restock here soon. I got an email from Walmart saying they will do their best to get things restocked for their customers all over the US. Hopefully, other stores are following suit.

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

 

I think part of this is because of poor leadership making people feel they have no real hope or answers. The UK and the US have abominably bad leaders, as does Australia. 

I do think that a lot of people are concerned because there doesn't seem to be a real plan and it's causing them to really panic. Plus, they may feel like information is being withheld. It seems like a lot of places are on a bit of a shutdown for at least a couple of weeks. I'm curiously as to what the plan is afterwards. What is the governments ultimate goals here. What exactly would be an acceptable response/outcome for many people in the general public. People say they want to slow this virus down. But how much does it need to slow down to have them end shutdowns? (I wonder about this while I see tweets on Twitter, of people acting like everyone is going to be in danger/almost everybody could die, because someone decides to sit down in a restaurant to eat. See the Red Robin trend on Twitter, right now)  Or prevent things from being shutdown longer.

I believe that 49 people have died so far. What if at least few more people die after some of these shutdowns happen? (Which is likely). Goodness forbid if it's several. Regardless of what people do, the mortality rate on this is not going to be 0%, before or after the shutdowns are over. I think that people need to be realistic and honest about things. It's good to be careful, but things can't be shut down forever. I think that if Trump's response had been more like Obama's was to the swine flu, people would feel better. But a lot of them feel scared and unsure and it's causing them to really panic. 

1 hour ago, I Am A Swede said:

The malaria comparison might not have been the most relevant, but the point I was trying to make was that it feels like everyone's panicking over this. It's not the bubonic plague. Entire countries shutting down, closing borders, cancelling all sporting events, restaurants, theatres and cinemas closing etc....

In Norway, Denmark and Sweden together we've had somehere between 2,500 and 3000 confirmed cases so far, and 5 deaths combined. All of them elderly people with prior health issues.

It's not a death sentence if you catch this virus, but people are acting like it is. For the vast majority it will probably be like a bad case of the flu, or even less than that.

I'm not saying we should completely ignore it, of course not, but let's not get carried away.

 

I can understand why people are concerned and want to be cautious. That being said, I definitely think you bring up a lot of good points. I don't think that some (maybe even a lot of the) panicking is doing more harm than good. Including people panicking and doing all of the hoarding and as well as causing people (especially those who suffer from it) to have anxiety. I do believe that if the average person got this they will end up being fine. Of course people need to be concerned about the most vulnerable like the elderly, people with compromised immune systems. But one of the best things a lot of people can do for them is to try and remain calmer and also keep ourselves healthy. Doing things like cutting down on large public gatherings could definitely help but people can't stay completely shut down forever. And I also think that some people are stigmatizing this disease and the people who get it, which I think is wrong.

Some people have been acting like it's the bubonic plague and others are acting like it's a dangerous STD and that people that got it have behaved in some sort of very shameful behavior. Granted, there are people that get it like Rudy Gobert who have acted irresponsibly. But the average person that gets it, didn't do anything to intentionally get it or want to intentionally pass it on to someone else. I do agree about people being a bit OTT,  acting like it's going to be an automatic death sentence. (With an exception being vulnerable people.)

If healthy people do our best to stay healthy, that will help the more vulnerable people among us. And of course do whatever we can to help them while this is going on. We had a elderly client today call into the office at least five or six times, because he was worried about not being able to come into his appointment. Him and his wife have health issues that leave them compromised. He doesn't have a computer, and I don't think would know how to set up the virtual stuff. But we were able to work with him and set it up so his sister could get his paperwork/info to us. People should definitely help elderly people/compromised people in times like this, and do what we can to look out for them. And remain calmer so they don't panic even more than they already are.

6 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I was reading about some of the shitfaces who mass bought hand sanitizer and other products to sell at hugely inflated prices (the New York Times, surprise surprise, gave one of them a glowing profile, complete with a "cute" photo where he's embracing his wife and baby). Enraging. These people should be put in jail. 

 

In more positive news (for now, anyway - unless action is taken these places will just double down into burning everything once this is over [if it's over...]).

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/03/11/coronavirus-lockdown-may-save-more-lives-from-pollution-and-climate-than-from-virus/

 

And also this, which is mostly just something that needs to be said over and over and over:

 

 

My pregnant co-worker was upset today because her husband was out shopping for the and he said that the store was out of diapers. She's six months pregnant and was really worried about that, because she also has an 18 month old at home and she only had one pack of diapers left. Thankfully when someone went on break, they were able to go out and find a pack of a diapers for her, in one of the stores. (Though, my other co-worker stated it was one of the few packs left and it was a small pack) 

But people really do need to stop with the hoarding of important items. They are being incredibly selfish. My dad told me that he saw a lady with two shopping carts of toilet paper, coming out of the store today, leaving the shelves completely bare. I went to three stores today and they were all out of toilet paper. Thankfully, I have some rolls at home.   I also saw someone on Twitter say that their friend bought 14 cases of water. Nobody needs that much water, unless they have an incredibly large family at home. (Which I don't think that person did, they may have even been single/childish).People are being so greedy, it's okay to get a little extra in order to prepare, but it's wrong to take way more than you need. 

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

 

 

Someone in the replies to the tweet works at a store and said if they have limits, a person will leave the store, then come back not long after and buy more. It's better than someone buying a thousand things at once, but only marginally so.

 

I think there's a point where if you are buying dozens and dozens of rolls of toilet paper and you are only taking care of yourself or a few other people, then you should consider leaving some behind. 

 

This is trifling IMHO. Maybe some of these people will end up becoming low on money from all of this selfish, greedy, hoarding. And maybe that will enable some other people of having a chance to get what they need, when the stores restock.

8 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

 

I read that he was licking mikes too - not sure if that's true or not. Either way I feel terrible for everyone involved. I read that Mark Cuban is going to try to start a fund for all the people who will be put out of work. I hope it happens.

He was running his hands all over reporters microphones and a table they were on. He reportedly joked about the coronavirus. Some of us had posted the video of that in this thread already, but here it is again, if you missed it:

Looking at these recent reports about him, it sounds to me like he might have been purposely touchy feely with the other players and their belongings. The fact that the Jazz players disclosed that he was doing this in the locker rooms privately leads me to believe he was acting like that. NBA players usually are tight knit and will usually show physical affection towards each other like hug/dap each other up. But it sounds like Rudy was going beyond that and perhaps intentionally being too touchy with them and their belongings.

I sincerely hope that no other player test positive for this and that no one else that Rudy/Donovan interacted with got this virus. But they did interact with a lot of people and played against several teams, who in turn played against several other teams. Here's hoping this isn't some terrible chain reaction that is about to happen to the NBA, and other workers, staff/family members of the players as a result of this.

I also wonder how Rudy initially contacted the virus. Donovan's locker is right next to Rudy's, so he was in very close contact with him on a daily basis, which could have led to him getting it. 

Another NBA player,  a talented young player named Donovan Mitchell has now tested positive for Coronavirus. Jazz players have said that Rudy Gobert has been careless in the locker room touching players and belongings. 

I hope that Donovan recovers from this and that no other player has it. But now that two players have it's even more concerning. All of the Jazz players were tested last night. It's unfortunate that Rudy was irresponsible like this. 

ETA': I'm now reading reports that Donovan was the only other player out of the 58 jazz players to test positive for this virus. Thank goodness. But I'm still concerned about other people who was in contact with Rudy. 

NBA players at tonight's game are currently being tested. I hope that none of them have the virus or anyone else that Rudy may have come in contact with. He has played in multiple games the past couple of weeks.