On 4/3/2020 4:24 PM, John wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 13:41:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/3/2020 12:31 PM, John wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:56:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Politics aside, I think maybe the collective actions taken
by everyone, including government officials, have been
an over-reaction driven by public fear and panic.

The recommendations of scientists who's lifetime
work has been studying epidemics and pandemics
have driven the reactions. Their input is
very important and valuable but it has to considered
from the standpoint that it comes from a narrow
field of view with limited regard to other factors
like how their academic recommendations affect
the overall economic status of the country.

As more "granular data" is crunched, analyzed and
announced to the public and to government officials,
the situation seems only to worsen.

Sweden took a different approach.

They issued recommendations that those at high risk
take precautions to isolate themselves.
Logical, not emotional or panic driven.

They recommended "social distance" protocols for
the rest and hand washing, etc.

They recommended avoiding groups of 50 or more.

But, they did *not* shut down schools, businesses,
restaurants, etc. for the rest of the public.
They emphasized the responsibility the public has
to avoid becoming infected as best they can while
recognizing that over 80 percent of those who *do*
become infected will recover, most with no need
for hospitalization.

As of this morning Sweden, with a population of
just over 10 million, has 5568 confirmed cases
with 308 deaths.

Wondering if this approach would have been more
appropriate.

Interestingly, California seems to have successfully
"flattened the curve" yet testing in California
lags well behind other "hot spot" sections of the
country.

We have 784 cases per million and Sweden has 607 cases per million. It's not
like they're that much better off than we are, and I'll bet their inner city
population pays much better attention to directions than ours does. Compare our
cases per million to Italy, Spain, Germany, Belgium, France, Switzerland,
Netherlands, and the list goes on.

https://www.worldometers.info/corona...IIsE#countries

I'm wondering if Sweden won't start climbing the curve pretty soon.


There may not be that much difference in terms of cases per million
but they have not shut their country and economy down like we have.
In that respect they are *much* better off than we are.

Even more reason to believe we may have gone about this wrong.

I guess the big question is how bad it would have been if we *didn't* shut down.


If you believe the Swedish model, it wouldn't be much different
in terms of deaths per million. Biggest difference would be
that businesses and the economy wouldn't be shut down. Wouldn't be
a need for up to $600 trillion dollars (that's what the package
passed by Congress really amounts to) to be committed to shore up
airlines, pay unemployment benefits and give grants to small businesses
as incentives to hang on. We wouldn't be trying to test over
300 million people and we wouldn't be trying to buy 100's of thousands
of ventilators (that don't exist) in a matter of weeks.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:47:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$600 trillion dollars

How do you get from $2.2T to $600T?

On 4/3/2020 9:43 PM, wrote:


On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:47:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$600 trillion dollars

How do you get from $2.2T to $600T?


It's how it has been explained by many. It's leveraging the
base of 2.1T to what it will end up being.

It's beyond my head to try to explain it.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 4/4/2020 2:51 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/3/2020 9:43 PM, wrote:


On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:47:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$600 trillion dollars

How do you get from $2.2T to $600T?


It's how it has been explained by many.Â* It's leveraging the
base of 2.1T to what it will end up being.

It's beyond my head to try to explain it.




whoops ... got trigger happy with the 0's

Meant to say $6T

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/4/2020 2:51 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/3/2020 9:43 PM, wrote:


On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:47:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$600 trillion dollars

How do you get from $2.2T to $600T?


It's how it has been explained by many.Â* It's leveraging the
base of 2.1T to what it will end up being.

It's beyond my head to try to explain it.




whoops ... got trigger happy with the 0's

Meant to say $6T


Oh, oh.

On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 08:08:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/4/2020 2:51 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/3/2020 9:43 PM, wrote:


On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:47:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$600 trillion dollars

How do you get from $2.2T to $600T?


It's how it has been explained by many.Â* It's leveraging the
base of 2.1T to what it will end up being.

It's beyond my head to try to explain it.




whoops ... got trigger happy with the 0's

Meant to say $6T

I agree that may be an accurate number by the time Stimulus II gets
here. Nancy is already getting it ready and I imagine it is a rehash
of the bill that got shouted down last month.

On 4/4/2020 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 08:08:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/4/2020 2:51 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/3/2020 9:43 PM, wrote:


On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:47:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$600 trillion dollars

How do you get from $2.2T to $600T?


It's how it has been explained by many.Â* It's leveraging the
base of 2.1T to what it will end up being.

It's beyond my head to try to explain it.




whoops ... got trigger happy with the 0's

Meant to say $6T

I agree that may be an accurate number by the time Stimulus II gets
here. Nancy is already getting it ready and I imagine it is a rehash
of the bill that got shouted down last month.



Based on what I've heard several lawmakers say, the $6T number will
end up being what is spent under the $2T bill they just passed.
I don't completely understand how that will happen but that's
what some are saying.

THey should hold off on any more spending on this until we see
what results the current bill produces.

Those who are calling for the Fed Government to "fix" everything
apparently don't realize how horribly inefficient the Fed is to do
*anything". Individual states have much better means to get
help to those who need it.

Plus, that's how our system of government is supposed to work.
The fed can provide help and $$ but it is **** poor in
managing it's distribution simply due to it's size, inertia
and bureaucratic structure.

Cuomo is getting away with doing things with less official
"authority" than the POTUS can. Anything Trump tries to do
is met with lawsuits and negative blasts from Congress led
by Pelosi and others.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/4/2020 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 08:08:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/4/2020 2:51 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/3/2020 9:43 PM, wrote:


On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:47:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$600 trillion dollars

How do you get from $2.2T to $600T?


It's how it has been explained by many.Â* It's leveraging the
base of 2.1T to what it will end up being.

It's beyond my head to try to explain it.




whoops ... got trigger happy with the 0's

Meant to say $6T

I agree that may be an accurate number by the time Stimulus II gets
here. Nancy is already getting it ready and I imagine it is a rehash
of the bill that got shouted down last month.



Based on what I've heard several lawmakers say, the $6T number will
end up being what is spent under the $2T bill they just passed.
I don't completely understand how that will happen but that's
what some are saying.

THey should hold off on any more spending on this until we see
what results the current bill produces.

Those who are calling for the Fed Government to "fix" everything
apparently don't realize how horribly inefficient the Fed is to do
*anything". Individual states have much better means to get
help to those who need it.

Plus, that's how our system of government is supposed to work.
The fed can provide help and $$ but it is **** poor in
managing it's distribution simply due to it's size, inertia
and bureaucratic structure.

Cuomo is getting away with doing things with less official
"authority" than the POTUS can. Anything Trump tries to do
is met with lawsuits and negative blasts from Congress led
by Pelosi and others.


What would Pelosi do if Trump said to confiscate PPE and ventilators from
private hospitals? Not be praised like Coumo.

On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:31:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/4/2020 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 08:08:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/4/2020 2:51 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/3/2020 9:43 PM, wrote:


On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:47:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$600 trillion dollars

How do you get from $2.2T to $600T?


It's how it has been explained by many.Â* It's leveraging the
base of 2.1T to what it will end up being.

It's beyond my head to try to explain it.




whoops ... got trigger happy with the 0's

Meant to say $6T

I agree that may be an accurate number by the time Stimulus II gets
here. Nancy is already getting it ready and I imagine it is a rehash
of the bill that got shouted down last month.



Based on what I've heard several lawmakers say, the $6T number will
end up being what is spent under the $2T bill they just passed.
I don't completely understand how that will happen but that's
what some are saying.

A bill this big will have back end expenses not in the original
appropriation. 3X is scary but who knows. Things like how much of the
PPP debt gets forgiven will push that number up but I suspect there
are other time bombs in there.

THey should hold off on any more spending on this until we see
what results the current bill produces.

I think they may be looking at another $1200 check if this kicks out
into May. The bill won't be that clean tho. Nancy will try to pack in
things like the airfare tax and the election insanity.


Those who are calling for the Fed Government to "fix" everything
apparently don't realize how horribly inefficient the Fed is to do
*anything". Individual states have much better means to get
help to those who need it.

Plus, that's how our system of government is supposed to work.
The fed can provide help and $$ but it is **** poor in
managing it's distribution simply due to it's size, inertia
and bureaucratic structure.

Cuomo is getting away with doing things with less official
"authority" than the POTUS can. Anything Trump tries to do
is met with lawsuits and negative blasts from Congress led
by Pelosi and others.
Cuomo would take every mask, glove and ventilator in the country if we
let him.

On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 02:51:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/3/2020 9:43 PM, wrote:


On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:47:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$600 trillion dollars

How do you get from $2.2T to $600T?


It's how it has been explained by many. It's leveraging the
base of 2.1T to what it will end up being.

It's beyond my head to try to explain it.

Since the entire world GDP is only $81T or so it sounds like a made up
number to me.