Started by Morgan Williams · · 👁 1.6K views · 18K replies
…
Paul Martinez73 said:In Germany, it goes up to €25,000
Austria is at €5,000
South Australia is 25,000 Australian dollars ($14,480); in Queensland is 13,345 Australian dollars ($7,730) and in Victoria, 20,000 Australian dollars ($11,580).
Looks like they have their fair share of consequences too, apparently... ☕
Seriously though, everyone just needs to chill out...
Paul Martinez73 said:In Germany, it goes up to €25,000
Austria is at €5,000
South Australia is 25,000 Australian dollars ($14,480); in Queensland is 13,345 Australian dollars ($7,730) and in Victoria, 20,000 Australian dollars ($11,580).
Looks like they have their fair share of consequences too, apparently... ☕
Seriously though, everyone just needs to chill out...
Anthony Jackson2 said:
Paul Sanders5 said:They definitely do. Bit by bit. It's all about shearing the sheep, if you ask me. I'm totally with you on that.
Paul Martinez73 said:No actual arguments? Classic move from you critics...☕
You still owe me that info on how long it takes to recover when symptoms are mild—you said six weeks.
While you're digging for that, maybe explain why this bothers you so much? Most countries have already rolled out quarantines, and most places are handing out even harsher penalties for violators. Is the issue with Bozinovic, the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party? Or is it just some wild conspiracy theory about the government trying to turn us into a police state full of mindless consumers? Oh wait, we've basically already been there...
Paul Sanders5 said:They definitely do. Bit by bit. It's all about shearing the sheep, if you ask me. I'm totally with you on that.
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."
urbanhawk17 said:What really gets under my skin is this mindless obedience to orders. Instead of increasing traffic flow, if they aren't cutting it entirely, they're actually slowing it down.
Terrible.
restlesssurfer97 said:I didn't ignore you, I just didn't want to write a damn novel, so I focused on the part that was actually bothering me.
You can't seriously ask me what benefit America will get from mass testing. Aside from suppressing the epidemic—basically making sure it doesn't flare up faster than everywhere else—we'll end up with much more precise data on all those unknowns regarding the virus, which is the real issue here since the virus itself is still a mystery, right?
I get what you're getting at, and I agree, America isn't here to run non-selective testing, build complex models, conduct scientific studies, and invent solutions; America is here to put out the fire, mitigate the damage as best it can, and wait for a solution to come from elsewhere.
And I mentioned that in another post: mass testing should really be part of the strategy for whoever eventually provides the actual answer and solution to this mess.
As for the argument that we'd waste resources on "unimportant cases" and drain the capacity needed to fight critical cases, well, the critics of this panic have the exact same argument; they're saying the focus has completely shifted away from the mountain of serious cases just to deal with something like the flu, whose true mortality rate hasn't even been settled yet.
Basically, we're in agreement on the fact that America needs to be testing a lot more.
restlesssurfer97 said:I didn't ignore you, I just didn't want to write a damn novel, so I focused on the part that was actually bothering me.
You can't seriously ask me what benefit America will get from mass testing. Aside from suppressing the epidemic—basically making sure it doesn't flare up faster than everywhere else—we'll end up with much more precise data on all those unknowns regarding the virus, which is the real issue here since the virus itself is still a mystery, right?
I get what you're getting at, and I agree, America isn't here to run non-selective testing, build complex models, conduct scientific studies, and invent solutions; America is here to put out the fire, mitigate the damage as best it can, and wait for a solution to come from elsewhere.
And I mentioned that in another post: mass testing should really be part of the strategy for whoever eventually provides the actual answer and solution to this mess.
As for the argument that we'd waste resources on "unimportant cases" and drain the capacity needed to fight critical cases, well, the critics of this panic have the exact same argument; they're saying the focus has completely shifted away from the mountain of serious cases just to deal with something like the flu, whose true mortality rate hasn't even been settled yet.
Basically, we're in agreement on the fact that America needs to be testing a lot more.
restlesssurfer97 said:I didn't ignore you, I just didn't want to write a damn novel, so I focused on the part that was actually bothering me.
You can't seriously ask me what benefit America will get from mass testing. Aside from suppressing the epidemic—basically making sure it doesn't flare up faster than everywhere else—we'll end up with much more precise data on all those unknowns regarding the virus, which is the real issue here since the virus itself is still a mystery, right?
I get what you're getting at, and I agree, America isn't here to run non-selective testing, build complex models, conduct scientific studies, and invent solutions; America is here to put out the fire, mitigate the damage as best it can, and wait for a solution to come from elsewhere.
And I mentioned that in another post: mass testing should really be part of the strategy for whoever eventually provides the actual answer and solution to this mess.
As for the argument that we'd waste resources on "unimportant cases" and drain the capacity needed to fight critical cases, well, the critics of this panic have the exact same argument; they're saying the focus has completely shifted away from the mountain of serious cases just to deal with something like the flu, whose true mortality rate hasn't even been settled yet.
Basically, we're in agreement on the fact that America needs to be testing a lot more.
urbanhawk17 said:I mean, cutting taxes would definitely give private businesses a boost. But then again, that's when the public sector takes the hit.
But we aren't going to see that movie play out.
William Kim said:I just got back from Germany last week... you can say whatever you want, whenever you feel like it. Absolutely nobody asks you a single question at the airport. A colleague of mine was just coming back from Amsterdam this morning, and it was the exact same story. By the way, he was moving around Germany without any issues whatsoever.
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.
Anthony Jackson2 said:because a fine worth two Austrian salaries and six American ones is basically the same thing ☕
Michelle Palmer6 said:Actually, I don't think the issue is blindly following orders—it's that some of those orders are just bad! It makes zero sense to me why shops are closing at 5:00 PM. Most people who still work don't get off until 3:00 or 4:00 PM. So, anyone planning to run errands is forced to rush into stores during that tiny one or two-hour window, and everyone ends up swarming the same big-box retailers like Walmart or Target to stock up.
Well, Iceland is actually hit harder by the epidemic in relative terms than we are, and they didn't start seeing cases any later than we did, so I don't see them having a massive advantage here. What they're doing is brilliant from a scientific and epidemiological standpoint, but the real question is what the actual real-world cost-benefit ratio looks like.
At the rate they're going, how long do you think it'll take them to test their entire small population? They haven't even hit 10% yet, so we're looking at at least a month and a half. How are they going to protect the people they haven't tested yet, or those who tested negative but might actually be infected in the early incubation stage? They'll need general measures—which they should be implementing anyway—like self-isolation. They'll get some results, sure, but that kind of approach is hard to translate to larger populations.
That’s not the same thing; that's a major strawman argument.
I'm not saying testing isn't important or that we shouldn't do more of it, but there still needs to be some level of selection, alongside general measures designed to prevent or significantly slow the spread independent of testing.
And it’s true! We absolutely should, and honestly, they have stepped up significantly compared to when this first kicked off. But we still need much better selection. In my opinion, the priority has to be screening people whose actual jobs force them into constant contact with the public—people who just can't stop working even in these situations. I'm talking about medical staff, police officers, firefighters, and even the ladies working at the local grocery stores...
Paul Martinez73 said:Oh, so we're talking about the Anonymous movement and all those conspiracies now? Like the global elite are out to restrict our freedom of movement or shove microchips into our brains or something...
Matthew Young35 said: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.
Bryan Adams6 said:It’s going to be wild seeing what soccer even looks like after all this hits the fan.
If this lasts as long as they're predicting, it's questionable if we'll even have soccer to watch by the fall, and it's even more doubtful what kind of financial shape these clubs will actually be in by the next season.
Finally, the bubble is about to burst, and soccer might actually return to its "factory settings." Will this close the gap between the big clubs and the rest, or will the little guys struggle even more to stay afloat?
🍿
