US weekly jobless claims soar to a record-breaking 3.28 million, vs 1.5 million expected

CaneOil

Junior
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
3,549
We're are either going to have a very bad recession or a depression. The longer we're out of work the better chance of a depression which will be much worse than 2% of the people dying. That's just my opinion and I'm not young. Don't want to destroy it for the younger folks.
 

JD08

Evidence based and data driven
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
7,109
What does this mean? Is this to mean that we're only protecting the elderly?
No, but only a small percentage of the population is going to get it. By suffering now, we prevent a surge at hospitals that would potentially more deaths because of a lack of care.
 

CaneOil

Junior
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
3,549
I find it funny how people like you are saying this is media driven hysteria in terms of the virus, but you don't think all of your economic doom and gloom talk isn't the same thing? Again it's just a different hysteria and it's being driven by the right wing media.

Here's a fact....after every single "Worst economic disaster ever" we've come back. This will not be any different. It won't take decades, but it might take some time. It sucks, but we just passed a bill that extends unemployment benefits for 39 weeks, up from 27 weeks with an additonal $600 per check. Maybe we shouldn't have given tax cuts, rate cuts, corporate welfare and everything else in "the greatest economy ever" then we wouldn't have to add so much to the deficit so much. It would have been useful to have those tools to use right now, but they used them up when they didn't need to. The economy will turn for the next 6 months because of this stimulus. It won't turn like it was, but we were destined for a recession very soon before the outbreak.

Imagine getting a foothold on the virus, then opening up the country and going back to where we were or being worse off on the containment of the virus. What do you think that will do to the economy? IMO 1 prolonged shut down is much better than 3 shut downs of lesser time when the virus breaks out again. Until we can test 2 million people/day and contain those with the virus we should do what we are doing.

And BTW also in the stimulus is about 850 Billion to make sure people don't lose their jobs so companies can keep people on payroll. Why not ask the corps to lose some money over the next 6 months to keep people employeed instead of asking people to risk their lives.
It took ten years to get out of the 1929 crash and depression. Very few had jobs a good percentage lost everything. This generation loses their phones and they would jump off of buildings never mind not having enough food. This stimulus is BS don't be fooled. It just puts more pressure on the younger people so we can live above our means. Don't be surprised if you see some inflation here, go back to work or pay the consequences and they will be huge.
 
Last edited:

westcoastcanes

At least not Marrero
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
4,974
anyone with the ability to work needs to do so. If you are scared, wash your hands. The US is a fucking ghost town right now, and it is insulting to anyone that got laid off if your work is essential and you don’t take it. @NateDogg thats a sad situation, what is the general age group of the employees you are describing?
 

NC_Canes_11

Recruit
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
2,909
You are correct. They approach this issue fro. THEIR level of expertise. Economists and other disciplines approach it from THEIR expertise.

POTUS takes all sources he regards or disregards, and makes the decision.

Hooray democracy!
And guess what, the “experts” who predicted millions of Americans would die from this are gonna keep their jobs NO MATTER WHAT. Can’t say the same for the people who suffered and lost their jobs bc of the hysteria caused by those predictions.
 

No_Fly_Zone

Sophomore
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
3,250
My opinion wouldn’t change even if someone I knew died, we need to get back to work. If that sounds selfish, it’s not. I wouldn’t want or expect my friends and family to be out of work just because I succumbed to this virus, God forbid. A friend of mine died in a car accident years ago; I didn’t suddenly stop driving because of it.
Emotionally, sure. And maybe we should get back to work soon, let's see what the numbers bear out once we have some reliable data and can start to determine which models we should be following from a policy perspective.

But this analogy misses a critical distinction between death via a communicable and highly contagious disease and death via car accident.

If an immediate family member of mine dies in a car accident, it has no impact whatsoever on the likelihood of me dying in a car accident (unless I'm in the car). If an immediate family member of mine dies via coronavirus, it can have a direct impact on my likelihood of contracting (and even dying from) coronavirus (depending on my level of exposure to that family member). And if I hurry back to work, I might likewise put others at risk.

These things aren't the same. We can have an honest discussion about whether and when it is appropriate to start easing government restrictions on travel/operating businesses/etc..., but to do so we should keep in mind the unique characteristics of this circumstance.
 

Fawk_U Haters

Junior
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,681
It took ten years to get out of the 1929 crash and depression. Very few had jobs a good percentage lost everything. This generation lost their phones and they would jump off of building never mind not having enough food. This stimulus is BS don't be fooled. It just puts more pressure on the younger people so we can live above our means. Don't be surprised if you see some inflation here, go back to work or pay the consequences and they will be huge.
All great points and i get it mane. No easy answers here.

were already almost 2 weeks into this thing (shut down) with another 2/3 to go before decisions will be made. my premise is that it will do worse harm to the economy if we break the shut down early and the outbreak worsens and we have to shut down again, then to keep it shut until we get it under control. Which to a large extent depends on the testing and isolation of cases.
 

Fawk_U Haters

Junior
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,681
No, but only a small percentage of the population is going to get it. By suffering now, we prevent a surge at hospitals that would potentially more deaths because of a lack of care.
As i am reading your reply i can't but feel were on the same side of this discussion
 

Empirical Cane

We are what we repeatedly do.
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
5,805
And guess what, the “experts” who predicted millions of Americans would die from this are gonna keep their jobs NO MATTER WHAT. Can’t say the same for the people who suffered and lost their jobs bc of the hysteria caused by those predictions.
One thing I always said about government, their wrong calls RARELY end in accountability and ALMOST NEVER result in termination.
 

Roncaneefc

Recruit
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
147
Ultimately, decisions have to made for the greater good. I have a 93 year old father-in-law and an 87 year old mother-in-law and both say this is not sustainable and we have to think of the long term consequences of a continued shut down. Even it means their health might be jeopardized.

I believe there are ways to open the economy back up and still be able to limit exposure to the virus. We won't be able to save everybody. That's a given. What we can do is our best to limit deaths.

One small example is many major retailers - including Lowes, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Target - are installing plexi glass shields at all registers to limit exposure to both cashiers and customers. These are the types of things that can be implemented to mitigate exposure to the virus.

I'm very encouraged that companies large and small are implementing measures such as the aforementioned to help keep both customers and employees safe.
What is your acceptable number of deaths?
 

Roncaneefc

Recruit
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
147
Well said, Pop. An analogy to that is in the context of war. I come from a long line of military family. Just because a soldier is killed who happens to be someone close to us personally, while absolutely tragic, doesn't suddenly mean all affected families pull their support for the war.

Would I be sad if a loved one of mine passed due to coronavirus? Absolutely. Would that occurence therefore make me feel we need to lock down the country until a vaccine is out? No. And that's not because I enjoy watching elderly people die.
What if it wasn't an elderly loved one? Child, wife , brother or sister would that change your mind?
 

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,094
What is your acceptable number of deaths?
I've answered this sound bite attempt before, so I'll look it up and copy/paste....

Someone asked an hour or so ago "what is an acceptable loss of life then?" (it was stated in a manner designed to portray anyone writing off death as ok as being callous). What would be my answer to that question? Well, if we get coronavirus behind us and it kills less Americans this year than standard influenza killed last year, we would have to tout that as an absolutely tremendous success, right? I'd argue if the final numbers are in the same range as H1N1 we'd have to consider that a great success at this point as well. Mind you, when we talk about those numbers, we're talking millions of Americans infected, 100s of thousands hospitalized, and 10s of thousands dead. Literally. So THAT is the bar of "success", if we're looking at this rationally, not "we save everyone we are able to".
 
Top