ironpanther5 said:Honestly, the real headache here is that this virus seems specifically designed to make a huge chunk of the population dependent on ventilators just to hang on. They might survive, sure, but the massive issue is that we simply don't have enough respirators or medical staff to go around. In plain English, we’d likely see quite a few young people passing away simply because they couldn't get a timely response from the healthcare system.
They always tell you that during flu season, everyone is bumping into the virus, but some people just don't catch it because they have better immunity, they got their shots, or they're just naturally tougher—but it feels like absolutely nothing is working for us here.
So, what is the solution then? Boost everyone's immunity? Or should we tell retirees—who fall into that high-risk category—that they aren't allowed to leave their houses? And what about those with chronic illnesses?
mellowotter36 said:Honestly, maybe we should just let urbanhawk17, Anthony Jackson2, and Paul Sanders5 handle the measures to stop this virus. I have this gut feeling they might actually be better epidemiologists than the professionals who have spent their entire lives studying this.
Look, I'm no expert, so I'm definitely not going to second-guess the medical pros. I’ll just point out one thing: those people who were looking to get out of places like Washington, D.C. already made their move last week (I was right there with them). So, I really wonder if these new rules will even achieve what they're aiming for.
And then there's that guy who couldn't care less whether a thousand people end up suffocating in a hospital hallway...
Epidemiologists who have never faced a pandemic of this magnitude—all while having Božinović and Plenković sitting above them in the chain of command, dictating their every move? 🙂
Amanda Evans2 said:Look, forgive me if you disagree, but some people just think differently. They look at the big picture from every possible angle, they question everything, and they don't take anyone's word at face value. Then there are others—actually, there are quite a few of them—who crave total state control and draconian restrictions on movement. Personally, I can't stand that. Hiding away at home and waiting for the storm to pass... To me, freedom matters more than living like an insect trapped in a shell. For some, survival is the only priority, and they couldn't care less about liberty. As long as I make it through, that's all they care about. All this hysteria exists because everyone is just terrified for their own skin, rather than staying home out of a genuine concern for protecting the elderly.
Hmm, can you really predict what things will look like three months from now, when not only will the grocery store shelves be empty, but you won't even have the money to buy anything, and the entire system collapses under its own paralysis?
Your system is the only one that actually works. Yes or no? Every single time things get intense and the quarantine breaks, we all end up taking a month-long break together.🤔
And you still have the nerve to bring up slow dilation?🤦 I honestly wonder where you think all our essentials come from—the gas, electricity, water, food, and fuel. If everyone actually stayed home and strictly followed a quarantine, what kind of service do you really think could possibly keep running?🤔
And we’ll just conveniently ignore those "scientists" who claim quarantines actually work, knowing full well that none of them are ever going to hold up in the long run.
Does this only apply to scientists, or does it go for everyone? When a general messes up, when an engineer fails, or when a politician or a doctor gets it wrong... what about when an actor admits a movie they were in was total garbage, yet they still went ahead and did it? We’re supposed to listen to those supposedly "expert" economists who work for big banks or other special interest groups just because they spend their entire lives in that sector. I highly doubt any of them don't have some hidden agenda tucked away somewhere. or they’re just thinking narrowly about their own little bubble.
Instead, you should be asking if four top-tier scientific institutions in the European Union have actually secured enough funding to keep the lights on and pay those high salaries next year.
The issue isn't who you are; it's who's signing your paycheck.😈>
Think of it like a parallel to World War II. I've got some aggressive general or scientist pushing the idea that we absolutely have to go to war against this virus.
I tell him straight up: logically, I can't supply a war for more than a month, and I want to know his timeline for winning.
And what do I get back? "Listen, you don't understand science."😁 Just brilliant. 👍 Seriously, man, hasn't anyone noticed that you simply cannot sustain a quarantine for any length of time—not even a month in the best-case scenario.🤔 > The whole point of what I'm saying is that once your "scientific" quarantine is over, we'll be left with a situation where most people won't even be able to afford a loaf of bread. You're going to wreck what little prosperity we had left, and then we'll all be wondering why everyone is migrating away.
P.S. I was just telling a friend the other day, man, come on. He can comfortably believe that a local grocery store fills its shelves every single day and still be considered great at his job. A quarantine means a total halt in production and supply chains, which makes this an economic problem. The issue most people are whining about is economic.
I feel like you guys think you're arguing with Flat Earthers. Just realize that after a month of this, most people will be completely broke and deep in the red. Businesses will burn through their reserves, leading to bankruptcies and layoffs. If the Germans start moving again and we aren't ready to export, they'll find partners in Poland... Honestly, 🤷 I'm not really in the mood to philosophize or play the humanitarian card here. Everything is literally going to hell if this small slice of the economy disappears.
Hmm... 🤔 So, what exactly are those immune Poles going to do for the Germans—are we talking about Martian technology, or will they just be training chimpanzees...
If someone had told me just a month ago that the military would be patrolling downtown—that I wouldn't even be able to make it to the coast, let alone grab a beer at a pub with a friend to catch an LP match on Tuesday... nobody would have believed them 😢 what is the point of living like this? 🤷
Anthony Jackson2 said:No, we can't—that's the whole problem.
Economically, we won't last a month, but the mental breakdown will be much worse.
Even during wartime, people find ways to socialize—to lean on each other and share the depression. But if we're stuck unable to move an inch, people are going to snap like popcorn.
Think about how much easier it would have been after the earthquake yesterday if people could have just popped over to a neighbor's, or visited family to make sure everyone was okay... instead, they had to bottle it up and fight it alone. Mental health isn't some joke.
A solid post... 👍 The question remains—is this how one chooses to live? To simply grind away indefinitely, driven by the singular, exhausting pursuit of trying to save as many souls as possible... So, the choice remains: do we take the risk and simply let things play out naturally—hoping that in a few months, life returns to its previous state—or do we act? From a purely economic standpoint, this kind of instability is unsustainable... and if you ask most people about the mental toll, I suspect they would agree that some things just have to happen as they will.
Good luck with the bread baking... assuming you've actually done it before 👋 since if you haven't—and you probably haven't—you'll likely overdo the yeast, leaving you needing every roll of toilet paper you've stocked up on 🙂
A continuation of my previous point: just a few days before the March 31st deadline, I get a call from my local JPMorgan Chase branch—they claim they need a photo of my ID because the old one expired, asking me to send it over... I sent it via email, but really, is it necessary to resort to threatening an account freeze over such a thing?🙄
Bang! 🙂 Just when I thought things were quiet... I received a notice from JPMorgan Chase today regarding my business account—they need me to update some information. They’re practically threatening me, stating that if this isn't handled by March 31st, they reserve the right to: "terminate specific agreements entered into with the business entity." 🤔 Naturally, just like every other time, they insist I have to show up in person at a branch... Since I already submitted all this documentation for the business account a few years ago, I really have no desire to waste my time trekking down to a branch again. Besides, I find these kinds of threats toward a client to be quite unprofessional—it's hardly how one conducts business—so this time, I intend to see this through to the end. ☕ My question is this: Has anyone here actually had their account frozen by JPMorgan Chase following one of these notices? I'm trying to decide whether I should just move everything over to a different bank—one that doesn't make a habit of harassing its customers under the guise of anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulations.
It doesn't say they ask for those details during the initial application—rather, it happens once you move everything online... They’re essentially just verifying what’s already on file, because if they didn't have that information to begin with, they wouldn't have an account at JPMorgan Chase in the first place.
I find myself wondering what tomorrow actually holds... 🍿 Quincy:
Starting May 25th, every citizen within the European Union will be granted enhanced oversight and genuine control over their personal data—including the "right to be forgotten" once they no longer wish for their information to be processed. They will also have the right to know exactly how long their data is being stored, as well as the ability to request corrections, deletions, or file formal complaints. Personal data encompasses a vast array of details: a physical address, email addresses, phone numbers, photographs, Social Security numbers, educational background, professional credentials, salary info, credit history, bank account details...
Tyler Chavez3 said:When it comes to this whole deal, the relationship between the state and the banks is pretty much a two-way street. But like you said, it's legally easier (and frankly, a lot more polite) to push these regulations through the banks rather than shoving them directly down the throats of citizens—that way, the government maintains its "plausible deniability."
In my opinion? Throwing around terms like "terrorism financing" and "money laundering" is often just code for trade protectionism.
If the government handed your private info straight to a bank, you could actually sue them for it!
Full disclosure: I actually filled out the questionnaire at Zayre, but I refused to sign it, so that was that... for now.
I did the exact same thing—filled it out but refused to sign—and after a few months, they sent me a notice demanding I comply or face having my accounts frozen. So, I headed down to the bank, withdrew my cash, and I'll be closing all my accounts shortly...
neondriver5 said:🤣 Talk about acrobatics. Even a circus performer would be embarrassed by this performance.
And where exactly are they supposed to keep them? In a sock drawer?
It’s all such noise. A handful of self-proclaimed experts have decided they're suddenly vital because of a few bucks, and now they think they can lecture the big banks on how things work. If it were up to me, I’d send account closure notices to people like this immediately. Just go play lawyer inside your own four walls.
Back in post 1281, Mystical laid it out perfectly regarding how banks handle client data collection. These institutions would love nothing more than to be based in a tax haven, but laws exist—mostly imposed from abroad (take that ridiculous situation where certain countries accepted terms one-sidedly; we have to investigate for the USA, but they don't return the favor). The government adopted these rules, and the penalties are what they are. If you want to play cowboy, do it in your own little shop.
But no, the conspiracy theorists are convinced the banks have formed a secret alliance against them. They’re obsessed with whether the theorist is single or married—I’m betting on single, personally—and what their degree is in.
Heh, then why do you think we even have data privacy laws on the books?...
It’s being dragged out until May 25th—right when the Privacy Act finally takes effect... if they keep threatening to pull cash out of the bank only to deposit it back on the 26th
I spent about half an hour talking to a contact over at Azop—he made it pretty clear there’s no point in pushing back, since the bank will just hide behind anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering laws indefinitely, reciting the same tired script over and over... In short: the bank can essentially do whatever they please because they hold all the cards. There was no sense in me trying to go toe-to-toe with a wall of lawyers and legal jargon I don't even specialize in—I wouldn't have changed a single thing anyway. It felt much simpler, and frankly easier, to just close my accounts and move my business to another bank.
I reached out to Azop—they claimed they don't have jurisdiction over matters like this... As for my bank (Wells Fargo), I've already switched over and closed my accounts; they’ve been acting quite arrogant for some time now.
So, here is the dilemma: Who can one actually turn to when facing unauthorized requests for private information—especially when those requests come accompanied by threats to freeze an account? (Unfortunately, Azop isn't able to step in here; they claim it falls outside their jurisdiction) 👎 One user mentioned being asked about her marital status at a bank—an inquiry that even a potential employer in this country has no right to make anymore... Yet, banks seem to persist with these questions regardless. Is there a specific federal regulatory agency or inspectorate that ought to be notified regarding this sort of thing?
Back when they first rolled out Social Security numbers, the government just handed them over to the banks... I actually found out mine before I even received my official card in the mail ☕ Well, if we are truly talking about preventing terrorism and money laundering—rather than just finding sneaky ways to harvest client data— then the government should be applying that same logic to all other sensitive information... Terrorism and money laundering are far too serious matters to leave to the discretion of private banks through mere survey questionnaires