It does seem awkwardly worded. I have been fearful that Republicans will consider any result that comes after Nov 3 (due to mail in ballots) will be seen as illegitimate.

I'd love to think the West Coast states with long-time vote-by-mail standards have precedence that would prevent this, but that's only wishful thinking.

I read a long Twitter thread yesterday suggesting that all of the opem talk about Trump stealing the election is entirely theater because it's the only position of strength left for him. He can't talk about the polls or covid or any actual results, so he has to draw attention to some of the hypothetical powers he still maintains. I don't know how true any of that is, but I guess it's slightly more comforting than taking it all at face value.

I agree. But do think there is some wiggle room here for a lot of drama if the elections are close e.g. the damn hanging chad. But good to see our checks and balances working (albeit facing some very creative challenges from Trump).

I wonder if Pelosi and McConnell have private phone chats when something big comes up. If they wrote a book together I bet it would be a best seller.

We're absolutely positive that he even cares about winning at this point? My guess is he wants to lose in a fraud Dusty Finish(tm) and then go back out and fundraise for 4 more years. It's probably the easiest money he's actually made in his life. He can wash money and keep his family on the payroll.

Yeah, I think Trump's relationship with the presidency is complicated. He loves the attention but hates the scrutiny. Loves the power but hates the responsibility. There is obviously a part of him that hates getting up every morning and having to do this job, and another part of him that would absolutely hate to give it up.

I think the struggles with this internally but I do think he wants to win. The narcissistic Trump believes he is a winner and "losing" is not in his psyche.

So if/when he does lose, he is setting it up where he can blame it on fraud.

One term Presidents are losers. It will crush his ego to leave.

Trump signed an executive order stating that it is the,


Healthcare - DONE

And Trump said he's going to send every senior a card for 200 dollars to spend on prescriptions. I guess if the Treasury will honor the debt, a President can spend any amount of money on anything without any legislative action.

Makes a lot of Dem priorities a lot easier.

If only we had a law that did this...

This might be my favorite thing Trump has ever said.

Trump, on AIDS research status, in his 4th year as president:

"When I first started they said it would take 10 years, now it's down to just 6 years," which "nobody" predicted.

— Craig Harrington (@Craigipedia) September 24, 2020

Exactly. If Trump is trounced or suddenly decides he's done when he loses, then this tweet is perfectly harmless and correct. If Trump wants to fight a close election, McConnell is saying that the vote as of November 3rd is the election result and by the time they are through with the court battle, the inauguration will be orderly because they will have prevailed.





These folks below are surely going to be pissed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz (Post 3302721) Some of the reasons are bad ones, such as the whole 'Obama did it' thing. Others are traditional conservatism; freedom is good, the government having more control of health care is bad, health care can't be a human right because goods and services aren't a human right, etc.

Can we talk more about Biden's mental decline?

Would that make Hillary the moral winner, as she resided two terms in the white house?

So let me get this straight - Trump signed an executive order protecting people with pre-existing conditions, which already exists in Obamacare, a law his administration is trying to strike down.

Makes about as much sense as opening everything back up because you declare COVID over.

I wonder if they'll have enough Justices to declare reality unconstitutional.

And if he doesn't leave, then what?

I am not trying to be contentious. I am not saying he will not leave in an orderly fashion. But this reads like McConnell has a plan to put Trump out of the White House if Trump decides he is not leaving. I guess the assumption is he will leave because every other president has left in an orderly fashion. But Trump's calling card has been that he is not like any of those other guys. I guess I don't understand the reason for the benefit of the doubt given all that we have seen in the last four years.

Just wait until he goes golfing and change the locks

I don't know how anyone reads McConnell's statement as pushing back on Trump. At best, it's ambiguous enough to cover both scenarios.

So while its nice that Trump is doing something to help with prescription costs (and I won't believe it until my mother gets the card), this is something he could and should have done in the first year of his Presidency and he would have come out looking like the hero he so desperately wants to be...instead of looking just desperate that he's going to lose and throwing out anything that might save him.

It looks like a direct bribe.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

$6 billion bailout for pharma. Cool shit.

Some will, some won't. I think this really highlights the disconnect between us, because it's clear that you don't understand the point of view I've been describing. A one-time bailout is not going to be considered to be nearly as bad by these people as a program that required citizens to buy a product, increased government control over a major industry, imposed required employee benefits on businesses, etc. It's not even close enough to the same thing to be considered apples to oranges.

They were generally against the Bush/Obama stimulus packages, wanted shorter COVID restrictions and had very mixed opinions on CARES objecting to some particulars such as the unemployment benefit, but those things simply are not remotely in the same category as the ACA.

They get pissed when other people get benefits, but they're happy to take their own benefits.

I got mine, fuck you.

yeah but they "earned" their benefits. ;)

There is no doubt Trump will cause chaos if/when he loses, that is his modus operandi. The question is whether Congress & SCOTUS will stand for it.

If it's clear cut loss, GOP Congress won't play Trump's games. Sure there'll be some whining and some of the radicals will do their thing but overall, Congress/SCOTUS won't support Trump.

If it's a close loss, it'll be a different matter. With all the BS that is sure to come, best guess it'll eventually end up with/in SCOTUS playing a key role - were the elections rigged, mail-in ballots fair, Bloomberg actions in FL, recounts whatever etc.

And SCOTUS will rule based on their interpretation of the constitution and we'll have what we have. If they ultimately rule in Trump's favor, I'll accept it and wait for 2024. Unlike many on this board, I'm not concerned about a conservative slant in SCOTUS, I believe they are good people (well, at least the vast majority of them). They grew up in the system, they'll know what is at stake and do the best job they can.

My question to you:

If Trump wins a close one on Nov 3 (or maybe 4th, 5th) will you accept it?

Do you envision Dems contesting it? Will there be violence in the streets by "antifa"?

Im going to play the "what if" game.

What if Trump has secretly been amassing a bunch of generals with his same mind set? What if he loses and refuses to leave and the military steps in and backs him? Then what?

The military stepping in to back Trump after a loss is IMO the least likely scenario.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a second stimulus by now but with how the market is tanking, good move by Pelosi to bring it up again and trying to re-start the conversation. It didn't seem that the Dems were pushing hard to continue discussions (e.g. continuously blasting the GOP publically), not sure why.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/24/coro...lief-bill.html

When has Trump ever shown any ability to organize anything even closely related to something of this scale. It’s just not how his brain works.

It's not Trump we need to worry about, it's the people around him. Trump is just the carnival barker keeping us occupied/entertained/scared while others do the heavy lifting. If anything, he hurts his/their cause as much as he has enabled them to get this far.

It won't be the military.

If it happens, it will be the glorified meter maids working for the Border Patrol along with local yokel Sheriffs.

Exactly. The military just has to do nothing and let Trump and his “ federal agents and eventually states national guards to quell all protests which this time won’t be just “ antifa”. I will never accept Trump as President after the way he has discredited the military and pissed on our constitution for example messing with mail in ballots/election. My wife and I plan on protesting and resisting (legally) any way we can. We have signed up in our conservative county to be election ballot judges for the fours days during the voting here in CO.

Because Dems have the attention span of a kitten. They are genetically unable to voice an opinion for more than 72 hours.

My employer has decided not to give us a tax holiday as they recognize it is just a deferral and would mean double the withholding in January. They have stated it is up to congress to pass legislation to address the holiday.

My employer said they weren't doing the tax holiday either.

Same here.

I haven't heard anything from my employer but my check on Friday which included the last week of August and the first week of September didn't change. So, I assume they aren't doing it either.

We were putting it in savings if they did anyway, but I am glad it appears they're not doing it.

Being a federal employee I had no choice in the matter. So I'm just going to keep it in my account knowing it'll have to be paid back from Jan-Apr. Though it's annoying.

Me, too. They sent us an email saying it would be difficult to do and we'd all be mad next year when we had to pay it back. I was very happy with that decision.

Publicly traded firms paid dividends, bought their own stock after receiving PPP loans to pay employees



This is partially why I favored a UBI as the preferred stimulus/virus relief payment method.

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) — Gov. Ron DeSantis lifts restrictions on restaurants and other businesses, moving to completely reopen Florida economy.

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) September 25, 2020

This Just In: Floridians are weak-ass quitters, too.

No word yet on whether they will organize bus trips up to Arlington National Cemetery to make fun of the KIA service members for being "too stupid to have looked out for number 1"

Dola:

Just checked. 14 hours one-way from Pensacola to Arlington. I don't see them having the patience to sit through a trip that long.

The CARES Act worked really well, but the PPP was a giant disaster and was too often used for things like the above.

Or the self-reflection

SI

That's one way to look at it. The other is that enough people - even pretty reasonable, smart people - have decided that the cure is worse than the disease. I've seen a spike in social media posts about the mental toll of lockdowns, increased suicides, drug overdoses, keeping kids out of school/away from peers, etc., that suggests even people who were willing to go along with things for a while are second-guessing the continuation of these protocols for what seems to be an indefinite period.

Of course, much of this is due to the prolonged nature of what we're having to go through because we half-assed the initial attack against the virus, which set the course of having to deal with this for months more than we might have had we really smacked it down (or at least bought ourselves a decent reprieve before a true 2nd wave hit and we had to institute another 2-3 month lockdown).

Right. It didn't have to be this way.

Just giving up and reopening may be understanable, but it's going to lead to a lot of suffering and death.

I think the military showed back a couple of months ago that they have no interest in backing him doing something crazy like this. They had no interest in doing martial law in June and I'm fairly certain (as much as anything these days) they won't do it for thee election.

SI

Same

SI

As we speak, I am sitting here getting no work done b/c I am having to help my kid through virtual school (which is going poorly). The whole thing sucks, is incredibly stressful, and seems unsustainable.

But just because this sucks does not mean that the virus is going away without interventions.

And a lot of the push for reopening isn't stressed out parents. It's 23 year olds who want to barhop

Polling or trolling?

Who do you think is more of a wimp, Donald Trump or Joe Biden?

Trump 57%
Biden 43%@EmersonPolling, LV, 9/22-23https://t.co/FzEKUeGNlY

— Political Polls (@Politics_Polls) September 25, 2020

I'm curious if there are stats that back the "cure worse than the virus" thing. Like, we have excess death stats to back up the Covid death numbers - is there something comparable for suicides, drug overdoses, mental health crises, etc.? This is something that makes sense in theory but I have yet to see any concrete evidence backing up the theory.

FTFY. I think the "kids just want to go out and party" is overstated. There are a crap ton of older folks who should be old enough to know better who want it, too.

SI

I think it's going to be something that's tough to tease out and is going to take years.

I also think there will be a number of questionable studies ("chocolate cures cancer" type p-hacking) along the way by people who want to vindicate their way of thinking, too.

SI

You are probably right. But I also know my own prejudices, and I don't want to blame literally everything on Republicans between the ages of 45-60.

There has to be something that isn't their fault, right? :-)

Before covid, i didn't realize how poorly people cooked. I'd love to see some stats based on cooking ability(or even generic how often did you go out to eat per week) vs desire to re-open.

Also Ramen is now .36 per pack for the maruchan kind. This definitely went up by 50%.

I don't think the deaths of virus v. cure can be compared, and if they could, I'm sure COVID wins.

The harms of the cure is more diverse and abstract. The impacts are on mental health, loss of experiences, damage to art and culture, the gap in educational experiences for children, people losing connections with friends and family, loss of funding for city and state public services.

It's a big toll. Bill Gates was just talking about how this is setting us back 25 years.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't wear masks and shit. But I remember how in the early days of this pandemic, expressing a concern about this toll automatically made you a pandemic denier or something. (Note I didn't even include "economy" as part of the toll because that one really set people off). But now, 6+ months in, with the reality that full normal isn't happening next year, or the probably the year after, I think more people are starting to feel that toll more.

I saw that the Met Opera is going dark until at least September 2021. That's a full 18 months. Just devastating to those involved in those types of occupations. They have big plans for September 2021, but, I still wonder with this stuff - what is our standard for "safe"? I don't know if we'll be there by then, even with a vaccine (that's not 100% effective, and which will take a long time to fully deploy even to the half of Americans that will take it).

There comes a point where adapting starts to look better than just postponing and waiting. We're all going through that experience differently.

I don't think people understand that a coup won't be Donald Trump going, "I won't leave and you can't make me." It would be him declaring victory, proceeding to act as though he won, creating a difference of political opinion about who is president as of January 20th. https://t.co/3A28ZNraBY

— Alexandra Erin (@AlexandraErin) September 25, 2020

This is what I keep coming back to.

Trump won't ever say, "I lost, but let me still be the President." That would be easy to oppose.

If he fights, he will say "I won."

And all of the GOP politicians promising to honor the election results will simply point out that "he won, so we are honoring the election results" when they support the coup.

He got his followers to reject germ theory. They did that immediately and without hesitation as soon as he told them to.

Do we really think that they will suddenly find their spine and reject something as fuzzy as election results?

But that's the thing. This is because we half assed and never really closed. We kindof closed for a month - bars, restaurants, travel, sports - basically the bare minimum. The US is living the "living with it" use case, not the "we sacrificed and closed things down" use case.

If we had actually really shut down, we could be contact tracing and trying to get back to some semblance of normal like most of the rest of the world. We'd be having debates about shutting down states (like Australia) because of a few dozen cases or what preparation we'd be doing for a second wave.

This is why a bunch of us were screaming at the beginning that if we did it right, it will look like we had overreacted. Instead, we didn't - a number of states never had lockdowns, many more opened up much too quickly, and all had some really broad exceptions about what could stay open. Has the curve gone down of late? Yes - there's always going to be some variance. And I bet it gets worse in the next couple of months. But the only thing we did was "flatten" it so that hospitals weren't overwhelmed except in a few cases (Atlanta, Houston) and only for a couple of weeks. We never flattened it enough to enable contact tracing and try to contain the virus.

I'd argue that this timeline is what "not shutting things down" looks like. 200K people have died en route to, what, 500K? Our economy is only propped up by ridiculous deficit spending from Congress and even more ridiculous spending from the Fed. There's a huge sorting going on right now that is screwing small businesses in favor of large that will have repercussions for decades. And a large chunk of the population is back to acting as if there's no pandemic, even with 2.5M(!!!) active cases.

What thing can't you do in the majority of the country right now, short of attending some sporting events (and even a number of those have had spectators now)? Some local areas have variances: Cali is more strict, Florida is more open; some school districts are online only, most are hybrid. But I'd argue those are "consumer" driven. There are a lot of us who aren't going to eat at a restaurant right now but it's not because of state or federal law.

The Met Opera probably isn't only doing this only out of an abundance of caution but because it's less costly to stay closed. That would be from the recession and decreased demand due to fear or COVID. The only way it would have opened up for the new season was if we had done better in the spring and summer months. Not if we had been /more/ cavalier with restrictions.

SI

I hate to say this, and as a white, 53 year old male that gets away with most shit, I have never had more anxiety over a presidential election than this.

Normally, Im an optimistic guy, but this federal BS has my knees knocking. The pure insanity of a president not willing to observe what the people want, be it the electoral or college or popular opinion has me tremendously worried, thus my "what if" uestion.

AND I AM THE KING OF RUN ON SENTENCES. since 1967.

He still tells people he won the popular vote in 2016 so this isn't a stretch.

Yup. They will pick the exact moment(s) that Trump is actually up in the election results and try to freeze that moment(s) in time as the REAL RESULTS. Never mind that there are still thousands or millions of ballots out there to be counted. Votes every bit as legitimate as those counted in person or ahead of time.

SI

Come on 18-29 year olds, put your money where your mouth is.

My daughter remarked about this before going back to school (after the scare with her roommate). We just were too willing to accept this as the new norm. Things aren't normal or operating at full capacity, but we also aren't willing to shut down so we can get back to normal. It's like we're in this half-efficient zombie state and we're resigned to that. "Well, this sucks, but what can you do??"

The Met, like most non-profit arts groups, losses money on the art. Tickets don't come close to covering costs, they need grants and donations to make up that gap, and in the Met's case in recent years, pulling from the endowment. There's probably no way it makes any business sense to even try to produce anything until things are much closer to normal and grant requirements can be met again.

The good news is that we are always less than a month away from getting COVID under control.

If, tomorrow, we all started a real shutdown (not the half-ass from March), we'd get it under control.

Don Jr. says basically this.

What is up with Donald Trump Jr in this video? 😳 pic.twitter.com/bineNLaDwR

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 25, 2020

I'm not sure the rest of the world "shut down" as much as Americans think they did, and certainly not for as long. Certainly plenty of countries even in enlightened Europe are struggling again now. Why isn't that considered a moral failing like it would be here?

I'm also seeing a lot of people, including on this board, sending their kids to school after previously being the louder voices about how everyone else wasn't staying home enough. Why isn't that the line? Maybe the bad people are the ones sending their kids to school? Or maybe the line is further up than that?

I've also heard from a lot of people that the pandemic hasn't altered their work or life much, or that it wasn't really a big sacrifice. Well, then, I'm sure it was easy to stay at home for 6 months and judge others who didn't. I think for other people the stakes are different, and/or bigger. Whether that be related to money or mental health or something else. Saying that we can just "shut everything down" is speaking from the height of privilege. And again, I'm not sure of a country that actually did that for any significant length of time. Quick Googling tells me that some of European countries which had heavy restrictions (not full "shut downs") started easing the restrictions in late April and early May.

But then when we lifted the "real shutdown", wouldn't it just come back?

And I just don't think it's possible. With the state of the U.S. - the size, the varying levels of wealth and income, the way things are spread out, the resistance to government and enforcement of things like this - I don't see how you keep EVERYONE fed, hydrated, healthcare needs met, etc, with people not leaving their house for a month, and how that could be enforced at all, let alone without lots of person-to-person contact with law enforcement, inevitably sparking more activity outside. With the plan be to dispatch the military and all law enforcement and arrest everyone who left their house? Does it count as a full shutdown anymore if there's hundreds of thousands of government officials enforcing it?

A second wave (which was predicted by every epidemiologist) doesn't invalidate the benefits of a shutdown in the first wave. Other countries which took things seriously and shut down for even a month significantly clamped down on the first wave of the virus.

Don Jr. not looking too healthy

Did any countries fully shut down for a month? (Besides maybe one part of China, Wuhan)

Why not just shut down for 6 months? Or at least shut down again now? I think even they've recognized there's some value to society continuing. It's not a clear line where that is. But I think there's more to it then just, "shut down, it's easy!" Or else that would have been, and continued to be, someone's solution.

Some restrictions are harmful, but necessary. A true "shut-down" is just a graver thing than I think a lot of people give it credit for. It doesn't mean you should never do it, it's just interesting to me that even the countries who were doing this well tried to move out of that status as quickly as they could, and don't seem to have any interest in going back.

And we have never needed to completely shut down outside of the NY metropolitan area.

We need an enforced mask mandate, a much higher number of tests, innovative testing ideas like testing sewage from different areas or buildings, a targeted shutdown of bars, theatres, gyms, etc, a targeted relief bill for those areas shut down, and a real push for rapid, local testing and results as well as the money to implement that. That would almost certainly allow us to have an R under 1.

But between the anti-maskers and the idiots that think we are at or near herd immunity, we're not going to do anywhere near enough to reduce transmission. A few months ago it was really bad that we'd settled for a plateau of 20K cases a day. We're more than double that now and we're projected to get worse.

I agree, molson.

I'm so tired of all this that I am overlooking the complexity of it.

It hurts, though, that so much of the country is operating in bad faith:

The Centers for Disease Control has stopped a study aimed at determining the breadth of COVID-19’s spread in Minnesota due to Minnesotans hurling racial and ethnic slurs at public health surveyors.

— MinnPost (@MinnPost) September 25, 2020

I mean, these are really hard decision in the best of times with the best of people.

And if we can't even get good data b/c people keep yelling racial slurs at CDC employees, then we are in something less than the best of times with the best of people.

Very Act 3 in a drug kingpin movie vibe.

We talk about the conflict with Don, but it's probably even worse for Junior and Eric. This is probably the most attention & power that either of them have ever had, but it involves practically working.

I believe a European countries with significant cases did a significant shutdown for a month or so until cases dropped significantly. And in addition placed strong regulations on mask wearing and how many people could be in restaurants and businesses. Shutdowns were designed to halt the virus in its tracks, so that mask and business regulations could be allowed to work in a new normal.

There is the question of whether shutdowns should return to Europe. France has started some smaller shutdown procedures (focusing on Marseille, where there has been a breakout). Czech Republic is increasing requirements though hasn't shutdown (mandatory mask wearing, limitations on businesses, etc) mostly because cases and deaths are still very low and they are going to see if the restrictions ease the numbers.

No, it's just moving the goalposts. They have proven time and time again that they don't believe in any of that shit.

I just looked at say, Germany. They didn't to a full lockdown. Supermarkets, pharmacies, gas stations, banks, post offices, dry-cleaners, hairdressers were all open. Public transportation was limited, but did not stop. I think people were otherwise free to leave the house, but needed to show they were not just on holiday if they stayed somewhere overnight. I don't know how much people complied with that or how much they could enforce it. And then those restrictions stated to ease in early to mid-April - at which time, there was definitely a push to ease restrictions - that not everyone agreed with. Not too different than some of the U.S., but we have interstate travel and no real ability to stop that entirely.

Edit: A full lockdown would probably be more possible in Europe than the U.S, but, that still didn't convince them they should do it. Here, when you consider reality, it was just never going to happen. I'm kind of surprised in retrospect just how many steps we were able to take in shutting down large activities, and air travel, and people working in the office, etc. It is a very different America than it was in March.

They had extensive testing, contact tracing, and a vastly superior health care system. There is sick pay and time off for those who may have the virus or think they do. The country is also more intelligent and had people following the science of wearing masks and keeping distance from the start.

The UK is basically the FL of Europe now.

I do think you are minimizing the extent of the German shutdown plan. Some businesses were indeed open, but there was as significant closure:

Measuring the impact of the German public shutdown on the spread of COVID-19 | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal


Germany pulls out the ‘bazooka’ against the coronavirus — But is it doing enough?


The German shutdown was not as strict as Italy's or France's or Spain's, but it also had less cases. But imagine if this could have been done in the US - and maybe it could have had things not gotten to politicized. The restrictions in Germany were loosened around April 20. So about a month.

Germany also had a ridiculously high level of testing. They ramped that up as soon as they could.

There's no moving the goalposts, I specifically provided examples that illustrate the distinctions. When you're not even willing to engage with the distinctions, you're arguing against a caricature not against reality. It's positively astounding to me, although perhaps it shouldn't be, how determined some people are to do that while not realizing how upset they get when people use precisely the same logic against positions they favor.

With all the advantages Germany has with greater social safety nets even prior to COVID, a smaller country, less poverty, maybe less general distrust of government (I think), and STILL they chose not to do a full lockdown, (and like you said, had fewer restrictions than other countries), how was such a thing ever going to be possible in the U.S?

And why didn't they lockdown more? Why not now? Apparently, even they recognized that there was a balance to this, considerations to be made for the well-being of society. Things that if you bring up here you're basically a mask-hating Trumper (probably helps too that they don't have as many Trumpers - though they have some)

I keep hearing this but most mail-in ballots that are received before election day are counted along with the regular ballots. So it would only be ballots mailed in at the last minute which wouldn't be on the election night screen.

Sure it's a bigger portion than in previous years, but I feel like most people are going to get their ballots in early. There are very few undecideds unlike 2016. And the scare of the postal service delaying mail has maybe pushed more people to send in their ballot early (which would be a hilarious backfire by Republicans).

Maybe that's just optimism on my end.

It seems to me that you are building some silly strawman here. As if the only choices were tell people to stay in their houses and never leave for anything for months or frolic around without a care in the world looking for herd immunity.

I don't see why a German style shutdown (with a huge ramp up in testing), which was quite a bit more substantial than what the US did, wouldn't have helped.

You literally argued that Trump voters do not want regulation of the health care industry and don't believe it is a right. Trump this year has heavily regulated the health care industry and provided free care to those who don't have access to it. He just announced mailing $200 gift cards to every Senior.

Your "distinction" is to state that all these things he has done don't count because I guess it's a "one-time thing" (which there is no evidence of being the case). It's moving goalposts and changing the stance because it is being done by Trump and not Obama. These people would be apocalyptic at Obama sending out $200 cards.

Also the Favored Nations Order is not a "one-time thing". It is heavily regulating the pharmaceutical industry and essentially price fixing.

That is most definitely true.

Right before an election? Torches and pitchforks.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I was responding to a different post about how a full lockdown was the answer and how if we just did that we'd be fine now, and then kind of got sidetracked.

And I think because of the politics of the U.S., the gravity of the collateral harm of COVID kind of gets a short shrift in discussions among non-Trumpers where so much of the rhetoric is just how we do the right thing and how everybody else is the ones who are at fault. Which gets me thinking about where that line really is and if the people preaching really are on the right side of it.

And then its just venting and some anxiety-based pessimism. With the symbol of the Met shutting down for 18-months and then having big plans for then, just again assuming that all of this will be gone and everything will be exactly the same as before. Where the longer we go, the more it feels that adapting to a new normal is more prudent, and more culture- and life-sustaining than just waiting indefinitely for COVID to disappear. And then when I start feeling like THAT - I definitely understand why more and more people are making the choice to travel, see loved ones, see friends, go to a movie, etc, and I feel sympathy for them being judged for that. Because the longer you go into any stressful and harmful event, the way people view risk just changes. There's a human aspect to this that just belies the "just shut it all down" mentality, coming mostly from people in position where that won't impact them.

Oregon, the state with the longest record of voting entirely by mail, doesn't even begin opening & counting ballots until 11pm Eastern, as far as I know.

I hope that will actually work against any kind of real-time declaration of victory on Nov. 3rd.

C'mon, no one ever said to just shut down for 6 months. We all know it wasn't possible. But our restrictions were quite lax compared to most places. And, yes, there's no appetite for repeating it.

Then we piled on stupid PPE bartering between states leading to a lack of masks, the cultural war portion of masking, and a completely lack of enforcement (for instance, the police chief in Houston said they would never enforce a mask mandate here, even as it became one of the hot spots in the country). We never have gotten the R0 down to where we could try and contain the outbreak via lesser measures and contact tracing.

At this points, parts of Europe and Australia, among others, have already implemented small scale lockdowns (equivalents of states) to try and stop new outbreaks. So, yes, they are going back despite having a much better situation than we have here.

And, really: "it must be easy for you", "height of privilege", etc? I'm pretty sure nobody like this. I know I don't. I hate being cooped up. I hate not being able to travel. I want to go watch a movie. I want to go watch baseball. I want a damn haircut. Hell, I just want to go to a grocery store.

Groceries are always the simplest example to me. I cook more than my wife so I mostly do the grocery shopping. I dislike shopping by app because it takes just as long (or longer) as going into the store. I have to play substitution roulette. I hate not being able to pick my own meats and produce. But I do it. Because I don't feel it's not fair for me to expose the grocery store folks that have to be there to make rent. Or to the people who work long hours and don't have time to fight the app. Or the old folks who can't figure it out. Or the people who have to go in there because of food allergies or whatever. It's little. It's dumb. Statistically, it's unlikely to have an impact on my own.

But, I think that's where the frustration comes from some of us. We're trying to do what we can. And yet I drive by the outdoor mall here and see people packed into stores and restaurants (we'll do carryout once a week - but that's about what we were doing before, only it's carryout instead of dine in). I mean - that's one of the ways, I deal with the stress: I'll drive, I'll eat, I'll walk around my neighborhood, I'm trying to reconnect with some people I've lost touch with.

So, yeah, this sucks across the board - no one likes this. I don't think those people who are mad about people not wearing masks get joy from, say, yelling "wear a mask" or telling people what to do (ok, some do). But most of us just want people to, say, wear a damn mask or stop going to bars or whatever so we can get through this all sooner.

SI

Not all states are legally permitted to start the count early.

I did a Ctrl-F search. The only person who has been saying "full" in terms of a lockdown or shutdown is you (multiple times).

The closest I could find was sterlingice's "really shut down" but even that doesn't mean you can't legally leave your home for no purpose. I think we would both say that Germany really shut down.

Sorry, molson - it's just frustration. These things seem to come and go in waves. It just feels like there are dueling theories of "hey, this sucks and it's hard to do but I'm going to try and keep doing what I can" and "I'm just going to try and get back to life even with COVID risk" and those seem to be the theories since day 1.

SI

In Boise, and I'm sure a lot of other places far more liberal, all non-essential businesses, city parks, schools, dine-in restaurants, etc, were closed, you couldn't gather anywhere with anyone who wasn't a household member, and there was and still is a mask mandate. Office workers had to work from home. Obviously a lot of places didn't have those restrictions. But was that enough? Is that "shut-down"? When I hear "shut-down" I assume people mean more than that, maybe I'm wrong. When people say, "we only need to shut down for a month and we'd get this under control!", surely they mean more than that, right?

We probably did all that too early. COVID was barely here. I'm sure the restrictions helped some, but our COVID peak came about 3 1/2 months later. That level of lockdown could never last that long. So I'm not sure what good it did. I think a consideration of human nature and how effective any enforcement is going to be is always necessary. There's some things that people have mostly accepted that have become habit, but others are just going to drift away as more peoples' personal situations become more challenging.

EDIT-- wrong thread

Not true. I specifically used examples of the Bush and Obama stimulus packages, which provoked similar responses despite the party in power being different - there was some bias in them of course because political affiliation does have an effect, but it wasn't a night-and-day difference.

You said there's no evidence of this being a one-time thing. Of course there is. That's literally what it is. It's doesn't say this will be done every year or every month or every quarter. It's not a permanent change in law.

Another part of the distinction, as mentioned, is the fact that we are in a pandemic. Responses to CARES, to the restrictions, to pretty much every other darn thing have shifted dramatically among all political groups from what they typically are during relatively normal times. It is ludicrous to pretend otherwhise.

I do agree with you that they would have reacted much differently to Obama doing this on on the cusp of an election. There's clearly political expediency going on there. At the same time, there's just no comparison between a $200 giveaway during a pandemic and the ACA.