• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I read Jake's link above correctly, an individual in Fungo's clients' situation may end up quite unhappy April 15, 2021

That link says they may have to repay it, but I've read elsewhere that there will not be clawback, so even if you got more than you should have, you get to keep it. Still waiting on final wording to know for sure.
 
Upvote 0
I am extremely fortunate to not need the stimulus money but if/when my check comes it will be put to use buying gift cards/food/other items from small business in the area and if possible large tips for the workers were possible
Same. I really don’t need or want it to show up. The last tax table change totally whacked my return and I don’t need it messing up my taxes for next year.

If I do get it, I will just turn around and give it back in the form of payment for this tax season. I mean fair is fair right....
 
Upvote 0


I don't think people realize how devastating business as usual would be to the economy. Businesses would start closing no matter what, workers would be ill or dying. Some people might be out and about, but as they started to get sick they're not going to be buying stuff and supporting places. At least some can do that remotely or with pickup orders. The stock market would plunge further and there'd be a run on the banks as certain essential services would also be out of business for a while.

And afterwards, there'd be not only millions dead, but maybe 15% of people who live and have scarred lungs for the rest of their live. Then you'd still have a major depression due to how long this would take and how many people would likewise be laid off.

Every way this plays out, to avoid the most harm to people and the economy, you need to isolate and provide people with enough money every month so that they have essentials like food and a house/apartment and also something to put back into local businesses.
 
Upvote 0
Like or dislike, the solution (poverty/unemployment) will destroy more lives than the problem (CV-19). I'm not sure how anyone could argue differently with a record 3.3 million jobless claims last week. Well, other than the wealthy government officials who ordered the solution without any personal economic impact whatsoever.

Keep in mind that a lot of the impact is from people hunkering down irrespective of government mandates to do so.

So, they aren't going to clawback the check you get, even if your 2020 income would otherwise preclude you.

So I've got a guy who made $135,000 in 2018 and $210,000 in 2019 now sitting on filing his tax returns so he'll get the check, knowing that he doesn't qualify. For fucks' sake -- you made $200,000 last year, how the fuck are you this desperate for $3,000?!?!

We don't qualify for the checks and I haven't filed just due to procrastination, but if they send us checks, mine's going to my furloughed bartender brother-in-law.

I'm not sitting on my returns for this but my accountant was slow before all this bullshit so they are just sitting.

I'll just donate it to the local foodbank or something. Simplest solution I can think of.

Works for me. That or someone else close to you in need,

Steve, I read a Chicago Tribune article that said a 43-year-old Jo'burg man attended a party in Connecticut on March 5th, and fell ill on his plane ride home a couple of days later. So it may not have been just the folks on the tour of Italy that brought the virus to South Africa.

I wish that the US had enacted the measures you described on a nationwide basis 10-to-14 days ago. I believe that stricter measures will be much more effective overall, the piecemeal approach here can end up being a losing game of whack-a-mole.
I'm usually a fan of middle road solutions, but in this instance, I suspect that we're going to get the worst of both worlds unless we get lucky and warming weather really takes care of the issue for us. We've imposed enough restrictions to exacerbate economic distress, but, given a significant portion of our populace that is bound and determined to act like idiots and the pressure to ease the restrictions up early, not enough to really shut this things down. So, there's a decent chance that we'll end up with all of the lost jobs in the short-term and most of the deaths, permanent lung impairments, and long-term health and economic consequences too. Either (1) early and truly truly draconian measures, with massive short-term government relief to those most affected economically or (2) begging people who can work from home to do so but otherwise imposing no restrictions and letting this thing kill who it wants to kill might well have ended up being better choices than what we're doing.

I'll donate mine to the heisman fund.

Donate it to the referee fund. Gotta keep the Pedsters down.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Taos has some serious competition now for the title of site Chicken Little...

I mean...I don't know what else to tell you. If you let a virus that kills 1.5-3% of people to run rampant in a country of 330 million an astronomical amount will die. And there will be a depression and chaos as that occurs. And yes, it's shown to scar people's lungs in severe cases even if they recover.

All I know is that if this was a bio-terrorist attack instead, the general population (not saying you in particular) would be doing everything gov asked and more with no questions attached. This doesn't happen as quickly though, so it's hard for people to take seriously until they see 10,000 dead overnight.
 
Upvote 0
I mean...I don't know what else to tell you. If you let a virus that kills 1.5-3% of people to run rampant in a country of 330 million an astronomical amount will die. And there will be a depression and chaos as that occurs. And yes, it's shown to scar people's lungs in severe cases even if they recover.

All I know is that if this was a bio-terrorist attack instead, the general population (not saying you in particular) would be doing everything gov asked and more with no questions attached. This doesn't happen as quickly though, so it's hard for people to take seriously until they see 10,000 dead overnight.
12 days in none in my county.
 
Upvote 0
I mean...I don't know what else to tell you. If you let a virus that kills 1.5-3% of people to run rampant in a country of 330 million an astronomical amount will die. And there will be a depression and chaos as that occurs. And yes, it's shown to scar people's lungs in severe cases even if they recover.
That 1.5-3% rate is dropping as the virus spreads to better-prepared countries and as more testing is done. And you assume that every single one of the 330M will get it.
 
Upvote 0
I'm usually a fan of middle road solutions, but in this instance, I suspect that we're going to get the worst of both worlds unless we get lucky and warming weather really takes care of the issue for us. We've imposed enough restrictions to exacerbate economic distress, but, given a significant portion of our populace that is bound and determined to act like idiots and the pressure to ease the restrictions up early, not enough to really shut this things down. So, there's a decent chance that we'll end up with all of the lost jobs in the short-term and most of the deaths, permanent lung impairments, and long-term health and economic consequences too. Either (1) early and truly truly draconian measures, with massive short-term government relief to those most affected economically or (2) begging people who can work from home to do so but otherwise imposing no restrictions and letting this thing kill who it wants to kill might well have ended up being better choices than what we're doing.

Agreed with worst of both worlds. Wasn't that what the original Imperial College report told us though?

Option #1: Do nothing-this is unconscionable so it's a non starter. 2.2MM dead iirc.
Option #2: Containment (?) which is essentially the flatten the curve approach. Keep the sick isolated and take extraordinary procedures to isolate/protect the at risk. You are still going to lose 1.1MM people and swamp the health care system but it won't be 2.2MM people like option 1
Option #3: Suppression(?) which they say right in the paper seems unfeasible because it's a total lockdown (or one similar to what we're trying) for 18 months. Economy destroyed, fabric of free open western society shredded all to hell.

Option 2 has always been, and will always be, the only real solution because it's even somewhat possible. 1 and 3 are impossible.

No option exists to avoid a massive loss of life and therefore there has never been a need to nuke the main street economy trying to do so.

Half measures and political expediency have made this the worst of both worlds. Millions could still die, millions more will assuredly have all kinds of other mental, emotional and physical trauma from the economic dislocation.
 
Upvote 0
That 1.5-3% rate is dropping as the virus spreads to better-prepared countries and as more testing is done. And you assume that every single one of the 330M will get it.

Let's say only 200 million get it. And let's say the death rate is only .5 percent. Very friendly numbers. That's 1 million dead. That's all assuming that hospitals can even keep taking patients during the massive spike that would occur. Because if they can't, many more will die who could be treated but won't be.

The awful truth is we're not a well prepared country and we're still only testing more obvious cases.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top