Posts by Matthew Young35

Jacob Price95 said:Look at this—I had no idea this was happening in Europe too; I thought it was just a thing in China and those kinds of countries.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comm...gistration_of/

They actually tried to push something similar here a long time ago. It's nothing new.
I have no idea why they never pulled the trigger, nor do I know how strictly they actually enforce it in the places where it has already been implemented.

Anthony Jackson2 said:not really—it just has nothing to do with Corona

I don't buy into conspiracy theories... It's just a wrong address.
I honestly think we're looking at pure stupidity here.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I think Beroš mentioned yesterday or the day before that there are about 13,000 people under self-isolation orders. Of course, monitoring that 24/7 is a nightmare—but look, just deploy 300 cops or soldiers to patrol the streets and check in on them throughout the day. Or hire private security; plenty of them are probably out of work right now, and there are tons of them available... Most of these folks are in Chicago, which is the most densely populated area anyway, so you can hit more houses in less time. You won't have total control every single second, but once people realize someone could show up at any moment to check on them, they'll think twice before stepping foot outside.

But no, we’re going with phone tracking instead—because clearly, your phone is basically glued to your leg, so you can't exactly leave it at home.🤦

Exactly. This whole mobile tracking thing is pure idiocy, especially once word gets out that they're monitoring phones.
On top of that, a huge number of people (myself included) use prepaid cards, so the authorities don't even know who the actual owner is.
A completely senseless measure.

If they really want to track people, they should just give those ordered into isolation an electronic bracelet and call it a day.
Whatever method they choose, it has to actually work... and tracking cell phones isn't the answer.

Noah Perez2 said:So, we have people following the rules by staying home in isolation and quarantine, while those who claim to be self-isolating—or even those with a confirmed diagnosis—just wander around freely without any oversight whatsoever?

Fantastic.☕

Based on the behavior described, it’s pretty clear we’re dealing with people who have lost their grip on reality.

The situation is simple: anyone infected has to be kept under strict supervision. We can't afford to play games by just trusting people to stay home. Why take that kind of risk?
Whether we’re talking about microchipping or some high-tech bracelet, it really doesn't matter. The bottom line remains the same: we simply have to keep those who are infected under control.

urbanhawk17 said:Just heard on HRT 4 that 3,000 small business owners have officially thrown in the towel 👋

That’s just incredibly 👋

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

The government will probably end up hiking taxes on those who actually stay in business, just to cover the cost of everything else.

brightpilot6 said:

restlesssurfer97 Asks:


I hope Paul Sanders5 works for a major newspaper, so he can at least treat himself to something nice at Konzum. 👋

How much longer can this actually go on? 🙏

Honestly, how does that crowd manage to function without a shred of shame? It’s truly a marvel.

This country is absolute bottom-of-the-barrel.
And just when we think we've hit rock bottom, the government makes a concerted effort to sink even deeper.

Sharing Easter treats?
Go ahead, please do. It’s actually quite nice to see people treating themselves for once.

Amanda Evans2 said:It honestly feels to me like everyone is just desperate to find proof that this thing is dangerous.
As of right now, only one person in America has died from this disease—the same disease that has already cost quite a few of my friends their jobs.
And let's not forget that some people passed away simply because they couldn't get proper medical care, which is something I've mentioned before.

The mortality rate for people in the 20-30 age bracket is about 0.2 percent. Of course, you're going to run into someone here and there who falls victim to it, like that Spanish man with leukemia...

But what about those who aren't in that 20 to 30 age bracket?
WFT?

ruggedjackal46 said:No, the brilliant plan is for the state to hand out unemployment checks while private companies do the same. Because clearly, the best move is to leave the entire country unemployed just so we can "save" the private sector—which, let's be honest, won't actually save them anyway.🙏

Well, I have an even better idea then.
Why don't we just have the government hire everyone who gets laid off? That way, everyone stays employed.

ruggedjackal46 said:Both sides are going to suffer regardless of which way you turn this. Look, I'm no genius when it comes to damage control, but handing out mass layoffs right now? That’s definitely not the answer.

I work at a company with about fifteen employees.
The owner makes all the calls regarding layoffs.
For him, firing everyone actually seems like a viable solution.
He’s got enough cash stashed away to sit on his hands for a few years.
But as for payroll? He won't have enough for more than two or three months, and after that, he won't even have money for himself.

To him, handing out pink slips is a perfectly fine way to solve his problems.

ruggedjackal46 said:Look, this shouldn't be a situation where you're forced to pick between two different sectors, because letting either one collapse would clearly be a total disaster. And it’s definitely not a scenario where you just fire a massive number of people because "one side is struggling, so let's make sure everyone else struggles too."

The issue isn't that we need to shrink the public sector or cut pay just for the sake of it; the real problem is that the private sector actually funding it has collapsed.
There’s no one left to foot the bill for the government.

I suppose there is—we can probably keep financing it through debt for a few more years, who knows?
Judging by the current trajectory, that’s exactly how it will play out.

ruggedjackal46 said:If I actually had the answers to those questions, I’d be walking up to collect a Nobel Prize in Economics by now. But honestly, I’m pretty sure the solution isn't to just go out and wreck the public sector at the exact moment the private sector is stalling and failing to hire anyone. It’s not like the government doesn't have enough on its plate without adding a massive wave of new unemployed people to the mix.

Is it obvious to you that public sector salaries are paid using money taken from the private sector?
I'm asking silly questions; I'm sure you already know.

ruggedjackal46 said:Dammit, if you started handing out non-selective layoffs to a massive chunk of people right now (we're talking 50% of the public sector?!), all you'd end up doing is creating a mountain of social welfare cases that the government would just have to deal with all over again. People are stuck in isolation, they aren't even allowed to leave their houses, and now you want to slap them with a pink slip and strip away their financial stability? Seriously, what are they supposed to live on?

The exact same way those in the private sector will manage when they lose their jobs.

restlesssurfer97 said:Just go ahead and defend your own skin then, since you finally realized exactly who's signing your paychecks.😂😂

I am under no illusions about who pays my wages.

And if I'm looking out for my own interests? Of course I am. Everyone should be.
Except, naturally, for those working in the public sector. They never have to worry about that, do they?

restlesssurfer97 said:Are these entrepreneurship posts just total nonsense, or did the Coronavirus actually fry his brain?

Look, when we're facing a crisis of this magnitude, we have to stick together. That means standing by everyone, even those among us who are completely corrupt.

Nancy Sanchez31 said:If the Coronavirus doesn't get us first, starvation might just do the trick. An economic collapse feels inevitable at this point; I guess it's just a matter of days before it hits us.

Hoce.
But it shouldn't have to come to that.
What if the government paid people directly during the quarantine instead of subsidizing employers? What if they simply froze all taxes and levies for both businesses and workers?
What if state-run services were provided free of charge for a while?

Then, once this passes, we return to business as usual.

Sure, the government would have to take on debt. Likely at poor rates, too.

But if there was enough money for massive stadiums, for General Motors bailouts, for handball arenas, or for useless vanity projects, then there has to be money for this.

As things stand now, half these businesses are going to fold, and we're looking at a total economic meltdown.

To those people claiming we’re being forced into quarantine just because of some "heavy flu"—has it ever occurred to you, even for a fleeting second, that you aren't the ones who are wrong? Perhaps it's actually the people implementing these measures—people who have spent their entire lives studying how to manage infectious diseases—who actually know what they're doing?
Where exactly are you getting your information that this is all harmless? From the very same people who are advocating for the quarantine? Don't you see the glaring logical flaw there?
Every country hit by this epidemic is introducing restrictions based on the recommendations of epidemiologists, not some lunatic dictators. Even someone as erratic as Trump backed down. Johnson did too.
Want to bet that Sweden will end up following suit?

Where does this misplaced confidence come from? The idea that you somehow understand this epidemic and its consequences better than actual epidemiologists?

In my view, the government is handling the infection control aspects quite well, but when it comes to the economy, they are a complete and utter failure.

Thank God, it looks like the tremors are moving toward Canada.
One of the recent ones was halfway to Krskog.

wearywolf49 said:The first quake was around 6:25 AM. You're saying if it hit a few hours later there'd be dead bodies, Darkness, and zero clue what's happening outside?

Good God, when does the sun even come up in New York City? In San Francisco, you can see everything by 6 AM even without power.
And those people who supposedly would've been outside—what, camping under the roofs of drafty old buildings waiting for dawn like they usually do a few hours after 6:25 AM? Then they'd all "suddenly" die?

You're just a jerk/troll.

It would have been pure Darkness if it had happened a few hours earlier, say at 4:00 AM. No electricity, just total Darkness.
Perhaps I phrased it clumsily, but my intent should be clear from the context.

If it had happened a few hours later, say around 9:00 or 10:00 AM, there would have been plenty of people out on the streets. There were damn near endless chimneys and roof tiles falling from buildings. In my own yard, about 300 to 400 pounds of bricks fell from one side of the building, and just as much from the other. Is there any chance someone could survive being hit by that?
Everything happens in a matter of seconds; it’s hard to imagine there wouldn't have been people who simply didn't have time to take cover.

I truly don't see why I'm being labeled a bad person just for stating that, given the circumstances, it happened at the least catastrophic time possible.
How you see trolling in that, I have no idea. It's just you.

At the very least, the main impact hit at the most ideal moment possible.
If it had gone down just a few hours later, people would have been out on the streets, and we’d be looking at a much higher death toll.
The second the strike happened, the power cut out completely. If the shaking had coincided with total darkness, we would have seen absolute chaos.
I mean, you wouldn't even know if the room you're standing in was still intact, let alone what was happening outside.
The panic would have been exponential.