Ryan Leaf
- Thread starter chipdouglas
- Start date
Ed, the basic problem with the current environment is that there is a significant disconnect between the value of a human life and the cost of saving those lives. If the solution to fighting coronavirus was really just having everyone shelter in place for three weeks with food and essential supply deliveries done by people that are "certified" COVID free, we would all agree to be stuck at home for three weeks.
The problem is that we know that won't actually work, so the decision to open up becomes an actuarial problem where you evaluate the economic harm done to people (and often the physical harm that goes with that) balanced against the number of lives that are likely to be lost due to the virus. Where it gets mindbogglingly difficult to evaluate is that 75% of the people that are dying from coronavirus are people that are likely to die in the near future from other health issues that they are suffering from (65+ years old with underlying health concerns). How in the hell do you quantify that when making choices?
Do you destroy the lives of tens of millions of people to save a couple million people that may die in the next five years from other causes? At what point do you say, "We gave it the good ol' college try but it's time to let nature run its course"? Scientists in particular may not be the best resource in making decisions because they are often unable to understand the psychological costs of a situation as they focus mostly on calculations that are more easily quantified. I don't know what the solution should be, but Inslee in particular is guilty of looking like a leader that is unable to find a good balance.
I think it’s a far more difficult problem than you indicate. Regardless of what the various governments decide, you will have hundreds of thousands of individual businesses and many millions of people each making their own decisions about opening or staying closed; going out or staying home; going to work or not; sending their kids to school or keeping them home, etc, etc.
A full recovery of the economy will require a restoration of confidence and the perception of safety in the general population. I think there is a significant possibility we will end up with the worst possible outcome. That is an economy that reopens just enough to dramatically increase the COVID case load but not enough to get the majority of the unemployed back to work. Hope I’m wrong but that’s where I see us headed, at least in the short term.
This way over my pay grade. I see both sides of the fence. But when I talk to a guy who is in the disease business and he is citing 1918 and how it came back with a vengeance he may have a better handle on this stuff than I do.
It is the silent killer. And part because we don't know enough. In a small amount of cases, even those without preexisting conditions it is causing harm. My next door neighbor's daughter is doing her residency in Cleveland. She is on the front line and she probably has a whole different perspective than I do. What I can relay is that she has seen a few cases in men and woman under 30, who did not die but the damage to their lungs were that of a smoker of 20 years.
Also, I hate to have the unenviable job of being the person to tell an 75 year old Vietnam Vet, or a vet of the Korean war, or any other elderly person who has made their sacrifices that it is easy enough to say " hey you lived your life, thanks, but you have one more sacrifice you need to make."
This entire argument now is a math/probability and assessment of risk issue. The two extremes are "F' It, hoax...open it all up and screw masks". The other end of the spectrum is "We must save ALL the lives and find a cure and not do anything until that happens because we MUST save all lives".
The truth lies somewhere in between and until people start to understand that both positions will ultimately kill more than the virus itself using a reasoned approach and risk tolerance, we're pretty well screwed.
The truth lies somewhere in between and until people start to understand that both positions will ultimately kill more than the virus itself using a reasoned approach and risk tolerance, we're pretty well screwed.
I have zero doubt it will come down to risk assessment, the problem is don't have enough info to accurately make the determination yet. As more info comes out we find out a little more and find out we don't have a real clear picture. What if the death toll increases among the young, or that they get the equivalent of advanced COPD. But they will in the near future need to make a tough decision with imperfect info.
I am a make sense guy. I would label myself as an issue by issue person, and there are some things that are going to be a huge seismic shift if this part of our history is burned in our memories.
I watched a couple of retailers file for BK, yet upper management get huge bonuses before they do. Reminds me of Mazzilo from Countrywide getting 160 mil to walk away. If that is a local business owner in Spokane, Seattle or anytown USA they walk away with zilch. Nothing.
And I have often thought this will give corporations the impetus to move more manufacturing out of China for hiding the truth nature and wide spread nature of Covid. But after hearing legislatures in the state of Pennsylvania hid for a week a member or several members tested positive for Corona, are we any safer when we aren't honest?
But looking at the stock market, everything is fine. There is a disconnect somewhere.
I'm not trying to say that it's easy. The incredibly difficult challenge is knowing when the cost (economically, physically and psychologically) is worse than the disease itself. I firmly believe that the shutdowns and stay at home orders were needed after our leaders (D's and R's) failed to do anything to prepare for the pandemic until it was hitting our shores. At some point, it becomes more about making sure that our medical facilities aren't overwhelmed than it is about actually keeping people from catching the illness.
A recent survey said that only 49% of Americans would agree to get a vaccination if it was available. That tells you that we are fooling ourselves if we think that there's much point in drawing out the stay at home orders. Where it gets interesting is how do you handle the transition back to normal?
In Kansas, our governor tried to be conservative (irony intended) and take a slow approach to opening businesses. After getting attacked pretty harshly, she changed it to local county decisions with no restrictions from the state. Sedgwick County immediately said, "Doors are open....good luck!". The only thing that will slow the virus in Kansas at this point is individual discretion. We'll see how that goes.
The last i checked, that 75% you state was closer to 95%, but admittedly that was a few weeks ago. I'll recheck the CDC and WHO sites and let you know.
update - CDC numbers show the following: (May 28 update)
80% of all deaths are from those over 65
92% of all deaths are from those over 55
Internet tells me that the 65+ demo is 16% of the population, and that 55+ is 28% of the population.
Obviously these are not small demographics that don't deserve consideration, especially when you throw in the 55+ and that the average life span is almost 79 now.
However, even as steep as the numbers are, here are the death rates for the entire vulnerable population:
for 55-64, the death rate is 0.02,
for the 65+, the death rate is 0.12
The rate of catching COVID for the 65+ group is 0.5%. For comparison, the rate of cancer for the 65+ group starts at 1.5% and goes up to 2.2% as you get older.
This is just from the data we have right now. My suspicions are that as we get more and more tests completed, the incidence of COVID19 among those with SarsCov2 antibodies (positive carrier) is going to plummet simply due to being able to see that a lot of the population has/ had it and were not symptomatic.
I think the best thing we can recommend is what we recommend during most flu seasons: vulnerable populations need to hunker down and be extra careful, and that means olds with pre-existing conditions, just like the flu.
Last edited:
I suspect any businesses that have it in good with the governor are probably not very objective....it all comes down to money doesn't it....if your company is going to get contracts from the state government boy are you on board with the governor...who hoo....
or if you are safely getting your pay you can care less about the other serfs.....
people can not admit even though its staring them right in the face.....the people we supposedly PROTECTED the most, those in nursing homes, were basically not protected at all even though they had no visitors, did not leave the building, had staff wearing masks and gloves....they died anyway, horrible lonely deaths....
nothing we did stopped it...
are we so arrogant that we think we can prevent a virus from floating thru society?......we can't....
knowing this, why we locked down and ruined so many lives, probably caused thousands more to have severe non covid health issues, to loose their homes and businesses, maybe even their families is just a question with no answer....
or if you are safely getting your pay you can care less about the other serfs.....
people can not admit even though its staring them right in the face.....the people we supposedly PROTECTED the most, those in nursing homes, were basically not protected at all even though they had no visitors, did not leave the building, had staff wearing masks and gloves....they died anyway, horrible lonely deaths....
nothing we did stopped it...
are we so arrogant that we think we can prevent a virus from floating thru society?......we can't....
knowing this, why we locked down and ruined so many lives, probably caused thousands more to have severe non covid health issues, to loose their homes and businesses, maybe even their families is just a question with no answer....
Way too low. It will be in the millions.
But trust the 'experts'. They know....
Someday we'll figure out personal responsibility and common sense are a far better safety net than waiting around for the state or federal government to be the end all be all.
The state with the lowest number of per capita cases, I’m pretty darn sure, is Montana. We had a lockdown. We move to phase two on 6/1. Which state are you referencing? I’d like to go check the data again but don’t feel like looking at all 50.
The state with the lowest number of cases per million residents right now anyway, is indeed Montana. Hawaii and Alaska are very close behind though so their relative positions probably flip on a daily basis. Oregon is in fourth, I think but has a considerably higher rate than the other three. Out of those 4, I think only Alaska didn’t impose a lockdown and one could argue that social distancing is a way of life up there. I think Hawaii and Oregon imposed fairly severe lockdowns. So I don’t think arguing that lockdowns don’t reduce disease transmission makes much sense.
The right argument is whether the price we pay for that reduction in transmission rate is too high. And I really don’t know the answer to that question. It does seem that going through the pain of a lockdown only to lift all the restrictions before anything has really changed on the disease front is not very logical. If that was your game plan, it would have been better to do nothing, I think.
quick check thinking it might have been WY:
Wyoming has twice the cases with half the population of Montana, so that's a factor of 4, right? MT has by far the lowest per capita cases.
Back to the topic of the thread:
The DA hasn't decided whether or not to press charges against Leaf and his court date has been pushed until Sept 25.
Take from that what you will, but I'm guessing there was a heated argument that got incidentally physical, if physical at all. If she was bruised and battered the DA wouldn't have a choice. Again, not excusing whatever he did or might have done, just trying to get context.
The DA hasn't decided whether or not to press charges against Leaf and his court date has been pushed until Sept 25.
Take from that what you will, but I'm guessing there was a heated argument that got incidentally physical, if physical at all. If she was bruised and battered the DA wouldn't have a choice. Again, not excusing whatever he did or might have done, just trying to get context.
I’m in agreement with those who believe there needs to be a middle ground. You can’t shut everything down for a sustained period, you’ll have people who worked and saved their entire lives losing everything and jumping off of bridges. You also can’t have stuff like we’ve seen at Lake of the Ozarks. Massive testing and mandatory masks in public is a start.
This is a lot worse than the numbers people are getting. Florida’s Pneumonia deaths this year are 5x typical average...this massive uptick is due to CV19 without question. Now, you can’t say this is representative across the country but federal and/or state/local governments are lying their asses off about the real numbers.
Per those MSM bastards at the lyin’ New York Times from March 15th to April 25th there 16,300 excess deaths in the US, not linked directly to covid, over what modeling would predict in that given timespan. Similar stuff happening throughout most of the rest of the world. Elsewhere for the entire timespan from March until now I have seen estimates from 10,000 - 30,0000 deaths in the US. Certainly with the abysmal testing record in this country there are many people that have died from covid that were never tested before burial.
excess deaths?....its understandable...people have put off cancer treatments, physicals,lab tests, xrays,diagnostic scans,physical therapy, etc....and now I read that there has been a dramatic drop in kids getting vacinated....oh yeah, we're going to see more deaths....
but good news...the trustworthyn WHO now says everyone doesn't need to wear a mask, only those caring for covid patients...
LOL.....the experts, for all their education, don't know what they don't know....
but even we rabble can use our common sense...
besides, now we have riots to contend with ...covid is so yesterday....
but good news...the trustworthyn WHO now says everyone doesn't need to wear a mask, only those caring for covid patients...
LOL.....the experts, for all their education, don't know what they don't know....
but even we rabble can use our common sense...
besides, now we have riots to contend with ...covid is so yesterday....
No - it's call mathematics, statistics and economics.
Also sciences woefully ignored by the 'experts'.
If Trump is your ’”experts” then I agree. Otherwise Hannity wants his schtick back.
Ok, blue boy. You hunker down until the cure is found. Unless you’re over 60, sorry you’ll be missing out on a couple years of prime earning power.
and keep relying on that dawg model as your ‘expert’.
Observer....here is my only response to what you just said. If Boeing was more "personally responsible" they might have additional money to deal with the shut down. I am very sympathetic to everyone whose income is affected and the loss of business. But in some respects it gives you an idea where we are in terms of the disconnect. If I were to listen to Donald Jr, the Dow just hit 25 k again? How is that working for mainstream. Based on the Dow all is fine.
Let me tell you were the next disconnect is. I have a friend in April who purchased a new 10 mil second home. And he has earned every penny so please recognize I am not saying I want way higher taxes. He himself said it made no sense to bring his corp rate down to 20%. But the greater point is does that 1% sound like what is really happening to the rest of the people. Does that sound like suffering?
I have two other people I know who just split a 10 mil purchase, and they were at the window with their hand out for PPP. Yes, I am sure they will pay it all back, but does that sound like what is really happening? How about the boys from Hertz, and just before they filed BK they gave themselves huge bonuses. Not all that different than Wells back in the day taking TARP funds and the executive team spends many millions on a lavish getaway. None of that sounds any more responsible than our federal government.
You make assumptions about what I think and believe - I could care less.
What I’m pointing out is you’re just parroting rightwing talking points.
Ed, is that Loyal Coug you're referring to?
Makes sense now that he hasn't posted at CougZone in a while.
why do you assume I think PPP is a good idea?
I’m referencing the tens of thousands of moms and pops who just had their lives destroyed. Sole props who may get a little unemployment. Many will never come back from this.
The Fortune 500’s, sure. They just got a bunch of cheap OPM.
Our phucking money.
I know exactly what you are referencing. I don't agree with everything or even half of what Bill Maher has to say, but there is one thing that has always said that stuck out and it is this...we as a country vote against our best interest. Wealthy people always vote what is in their best interest. Someone in Wva who doesn't have healthcare for example, doesn't vote what benefits them (and I am not saying single-payer is the way to go either), they vote the ideal.
Which goes back to the disconnect. In this pandemic mom and pops got screwed, meanwhile the rich who I have mentioned are living like this was a two month holiday. But how is any different except for the width of despair from 2009. You know what the absolute free market people tell about the 08 collapse? It was the community reinvestment act of 1975. It is Fannie and Freddie.
No, it is Ocwen Mortgage, New Century, Lehman Bros, Aurora Loan Servicing, Countrywide and MILA not to mention many others who thought zero down, NIV, no asset loans and 600 credit score loans were a good idea. Then Goldman bet those loans would go bad. How many people do you know who lost their home during that time? Do you know the program to refinance loans under water is still in affect? There are some areas of the country that their values never came back to that level?
I could have given you three...read that again...three...pieces of regulations that would have prevented the mortgage crisis of 2008-11. 1) eliminate the prepayment penalty. 2) License the originators, and 3) All mortgage product have to go through a review like the FDA, and if they are deemed to risky they have to lend out of their own portfolio.
So to expect the federal government to do what is best for mom and pop stores that is wishful thinking. That is the disconnect. To think business leaders wont think of themselves first, the ones training on the three indexes is wishful thinking as well.
And so we see what we always see. Mom and pop, the average person cleaning up all the crap.
I think there would need to be a few zeros removed from that purchase price. Never thought of Loyal having that much cash laying around.
Thanks for update Ed.
Any chance Loyal makes his triumphant and much-awaited return to CougZone? Please let him know he's missed.
Loyal brought a whole lot to the table even if some didn't appreciate his unfailing support for WSU coaches with decidedly losing records or his reasoning for seldom attending Cougar home games.
This is exactly why the crusaders like Tim Eyman never get anywhere. They may pass some bills and cut some taxes, but the administratia will never cut itself. Doesn’t matter if they’re red, blue, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, white, black, left, right, center, Yankee or rebel - they’ll cut from the working level, they’ll cut from services. Not from their strata, they deem themselves essential.
We’ll see this play out soon within WSU. There will be layoffs, but not from administration - they’ll be from the boxes at the bottom of the org chart that don’t have names.
I don’t think guys like Eyman have the right answers either. Just cutting taxes does nothing to correct the inequities you cite. Probably makes them worse. He seems to represent the school of thought that basically says all government is corrupt so we need to starve it to death and start over. Count me as strongly against that. Much better to begin to correct the inequalities in society and the pockets of corruption in governments thoughtfully and carefully through legislation, law enforcement and your vote. I’ll give you a simple rule to follow, if your senator or congress person came into office with modest means and is now filthy rich - quit voting for them.
First thing I would do is reduce the terms public officials can serve. Grassley, McConnell, Pelosi ... all of them should be stuck at either two or three terms . Have them serve in another capacity.
Also the Supreme Court does not have to be a lifetime appointment . And phase in a plan where in 15 years the appointments are staggered but each seat is held for 15 years .
That would be a start . Maybe at that point stuff will get done .
If Eyeman was truly serious about making a difference, he’d back an initiative for term limits for elected officials on the ballot at the state level - including representatives to both houses of Congress.
But that would impact his cash cow of piddly initiatives because then perhaps the electeds would get some sh*t accomplished.
Instead, he’s just as much of a troll as the rest who shouldn’t be fed.
I’ll expand on that - if your congress person is filthy rich from inherited money, don’t vote for them.
You describe why I’ve never voted for an Eyman initiative. His approach won’t reduce corruption, because corruption protects itself. It also breeds more, as evidenced by the fact that even Eyman has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Corruption gets cleaned out in only one way - revolution. I don’t mean civil war, I mean massive systemic, top to bottom overhaul. It may not punish the corrupt, but it marginalized and excludes them as much as possible...for a while.
It passed in 90s and got struck down by the Courts.
On the WA side, the state supreme court ruled that it needs to be an amendment to state constitution (needs 2/3 vote of both house and vote of people).
(Not happening).
Even if the initiatives weren't struck down, they can be amended by legislature by just a majority vote after 2 years (while keeping it tied up in court for at least 18 months).
The state constitution in WA is mostly trash and court rulings havent helped things. (Court did invalidate a state income tax twice in 1930s but courts are allowed to "evolve" [cough $$ cough])
I'm no fan of Eyeman, but term limits come with their own problems. The combination of high turnover, a reduction in general legislative support staff, and a constant need to raise money (at the federal level in particular) means that a pretty substantial chunk of the people in legislatures are there because they know how to raise money, or they can finance their own campaigns, and they may not really know much else. That creates an expertise gap, which is generally filled in by industry lobbyists, who effectively write the legislation they want and then find somebody in the chamber to champion it for them
Cool man.
Posting in every thread until that bs troll post is buried since Scott won't delete it!
Posting in every thread until that bs troll post is buried since Scott won't delete it!
