Posted on 03/25/2020 6:58:08 AM PDT by karpov
President Donald Trump is rightly worried that the "cure" for COVID-19—sweeping restrictions on travel, local movement, business activity, and work—could prove to be "worse" than the disease. That may already be true, because politicians have been acting as if only one side of this ledger matters.
Economists are predicting that the official response to the pandemic could lead to a downturn as bad as or worse than the Great Recession of 2008–09, which cost Americans an estimated $22 trillion. It is hard to see how a loss of that magnitude can be rationally justified.
When government agencies evaluate health or safety regulations, they routinely consider not only the number of deaths they might prevent but the cost of doing so. That makes sense, because finite resources spent to reduce one kind of risk, depending on the payoff, might better be spent or invested elsewhere, possibly in ways that would save more lives.
A rough calculation based on the "value of a statistical life" (VSL) that the Environmental Protection Agency uses to assess proposed regulations suggests that the cost of COVID-19 deaths in the worst-case scenario sketched by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which assumes that containment and suppression efforts are largely ineffective, would be huge: on the order of $13.6 trillion. But if the economic projections are right, the cost of aggressive COVID-19 control measures will be substantially higher.
That comparison assumes government intervention will be completely successful at preventing those deaths, which is certainly not true, and it uses a VSL that is arguably excessive in this case, since COVID-19 fatalities are concentrated among the elderly, meaning fewer years of life lost on average. Furthermore, there are sound reasons to think that the worst-case scenario, which imagines 214 million infections [...] is unrealistic.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Trump is not a man paralyzed by static analysis.
That makes it hard to believe that he actually comes from the American corporate world.
Trump is more of a Proprietor than a Corporate man.
I think because he is a business man.
Politicians just think money grows on trees and is endless.
I really hope Republicans go for the jugular in the next election over what she just tried to pull with the stimulus..even to the point of giving themselves money in the House
Given that he comes from a construction background, I find it less surprising that he is nimble in his thinking. Good construction bosses are adept at modifying their plans and thinking when the unexpected occurs, without reducing the quality of their product.
BINGO!!!!!!!!!
politicians have been acting as if only one side of this ledger matters”
a rather extraordinary understatement. sort of like saying the French Revolution was a “little excessive” and “not well thought out”
Chicken Freepers mostly agree with the Democrats that saving one life, especially their own, is worth any cost to the rest of us.
It should seem obvious but anyone who wants to can avoid this virus by self isolating which is more draconian then social distancing. Everyone else can go about their life. Yes hospitals may get overloaded so factor that into your choice as to whether you chose isolation or engagement.
If we are going to live our lives based on hospital capacity then we have given the Dems the prefer method to control our lives. They will not add capacity and then everything will become a health threat the will overwhelm hospital capacity. Global Warming will certainly cause our hospitals to be overwhelmed. So will gun violence. So will eating meat.
That “save one life” canard is really tiresome, but it DOES shut off discussion.
I understand the fear, and right now we are mostly under uncertainty.
Separate issue, I find it amazing that Congress is going to try to pass a bill without a quorum, and not discussion on that. Will the law pass constitutional muster?
Article I, Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
I understand that technology allows different ways for people to be considered “present” than being phsically in the same room. How is attendance established in this case?
Trump knows that those politicians are hoping to use the pandemic to tank the economy and blame it on Trump so that he will not be re-elected.
In a sense that is true as the FED will sell the debt and then monetize it with fiat currency.
I don’t know the mechanics and legalities of it, but Pelosi may be using the same type of process here.
Personally, I would almost expect some retard like Justin Amash to be the only objector — which means the “absent quorum” approach can’t be used.
Chicken Freepers
That sounds yummy!
The legalities of the chambers of congress having a quorum are long established as physically present. There is no precedent. If fewer than a quorum gather, all the group can do is adjourn, so says the constitution.
Again, I accept that “to gather” might include virtual presence, but THAT takes attendance. I’ve been involved in that recently.
No notice required, or notice already exists. Congressional record says the House adjourned last night, and is open as of 10:00 am today. Congress is in session. Point only being that any notice requirement is met.
Can the board conduct business if a quorum is not participating?
How do you establish that a quorum is present?
I'm currently involved in regular meetings of a deliberative body, we are not meeting in the same room, but we are taking attendance, all the people present can participate. But if only two of us are there, we lack the power to conduct business. All that meeting can do is adjourn.
If we conducted business without a quorum, I assume ANY member could object, whether thay had notice or not. IOW, the issue isn't notice, the issue is quorum itself.
I’m curious. If we could speed the return to normalcy by having everyone wear masks when they go out, would folks on this forum find that accetable?
When the federal government spends a billion dollars, it costs you $10. When it spends a trillion dollars, it costs you $10,000.
When the federal government spends two trillion dollars, it costs you $20,000.
Ask yourself, would you write that check tonight if given the choice?
If the bill goes through, you have no choice.
They need to wear more than masks this bug is airborne and aerosolized. Masks and eye protection. There’s plenty of cases of eye droplet transmission most famously the doctor who sounded the alarm to the world and was later forcibly silenced for it. N95 masks only remove 95% of sub micron particles they lengthen the time it takes to get exposed to the critical threshold for infection but they do not prevent infection past that threshold. If the CDC says 6 ft for 15 minutes is enough for the unprotected person to get past the critical threshold for infection then 95% lower viral load that 15 minutes becomes 19 times longer for the same viral load. There’s 3 separate studies that show SARS COVID 2 stays airborne for 1.8 to 9 hours with 3 being the mean time where the particle density is above the critical threshold. The science shows that an N95 mask would allow someone to enter and remain in shared air space with an single infected person for 285 minutes, add more infected and each one halves the time as they double the viral load. When the infected leave that starts the clock for the particles to settle out of suspension with a mean time of 3 hrs. The simple truth is none of those masks will give a 8 hour time window to share office air with other employees and not get past the infection threshold while sharing the same air space. P100 filters would give a full days worth of time but the effort tp breath through that tight of a filter pack is significant I know I have 4 full face respirators with P100 and above filters 15 minutes walking around at the store is enough to be mouth breathing and short on O2 by the wrist O2 monitor from 99% down to 85% in 15 minutes I don’t smoke and have good lung health those filters are just tight because of the nanosized pores that make them functional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.