What does a post covid-19 world look like to you?

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

Well, that made me cry.  

My sister would love talking with you, Luna.  She is a very brilliant mind...although she is prone to depression.  I hope she makes it through all this as she has made great strides coming out of her depression.   I guess I'm crying for her.  This is not a good time to be someone with a depressed illness that is for sure.  

Hugs.  

We better get out our sun lamps and turn them to xtra high....

Hugs

[FairreLilette]

16 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

We better get out our sun lamps and turn them to xtra high....

Hugs

Well, sadly, my sister was unresponsive to everything for seven years in hospital.  She is home now.  I am worried about her.  I don't know if she can handle this...so the worry on a lot of us has been horrid.  The worry is just horrid is about all I can say.

I look for news every day of a way out.  We could bury ourselves and businesses here if we don't find an anti-viral soon.  

I mean Van DykeParks just came out and said this could make the Great Depression look like a cakewalk.  

Hugs again and to all.  

Edited April 14, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Tolya Ugajin]

20 hours ago, Roxy Couturier said:

I don't think you quite understand how unemployment works (or doesn't work). At all.

You can't just quit and then get benefits. You have to have lost your job due to no fault of your own. Many employers will challenge when an ex-employee tries that. Because Fraud.

You don't just sit around living the good life (on $275/week max here in FL wooo hoo party time!), you have to report your job search while on unemployment. which means you have to provide contacts. Don't go looking? Don't get benefits. Could you lie? I guess, but many states are really really really afraid of benefits fraudsters and will investigate iffy claims. Because that's somehow more cost effective than just paying a pittance in benefits.

Many are finding out how frustrating the unemployment system is. People here are complaining that nearly 2 weeks after losing their job they still can't get through to even apply for the first week. I know you don't want to hear this, but it's due to decades of Republican lawmakers gutting the system. When I was on unemployment it would take hours to get through to the benefits line. Oh, of course I could always just go down to the conveniently located Career Center just up the street when I couldn't get through either by phone or computer.. only to find an empty office with.. a phone and computer. That was over 6 years ago. Long before Corona.

I know this is a wild and crazy idea, but instead of subsistence wages, maybe these employers could pay a living wage and make those jobs something to covet. How radical of me to suggest that we treat people as something other than an easily disposable resource.

Also add into those calculations that the majority really do want to work and the 'extra' benefits are only for 4 months. Most unemployment benefits run out after 12 weeks (that's 3 months). Thanks Republicans for being the guardians of whatever it was you were protecting us from. Like voting fraud.

Oh, but if you get sick or have to quarantine, you aren't eligible for unemployment. Hope that crap job pays for it!

Oh and one last thing. You mentioned parents being able to state they have to stay home to watch kids that cannot go to school as if it was a bad or somehow morally wrong to do. I, personally, would much rather have them home, watching their kids. There's already been a rise here in petty crime because the schools are closed. So which is better in your mind? Go to work and not be a lazy unemployment seeking party town resident, or be a responsible parent and watch your lazy criminal kids? I'm pretty sure either way whichever is the most negative light at the time is the way you'll go with at any given time.

You aren't, as you always claim, thinking things through logically at all. Your suppositions are anecdotal at best. Most people generally listen to their better angels. Most people aren't lazy and feckless even those already on unemployment. Voter fraud really isn't a thing except as an excuse for voter suppression. It's really a Faux News inspired knee jerk. But you do you boo.

 

Here, let me educate you:

"There are, however, circumstances under the CARES Act in which specific, credible health concerns could require an individual to quit his or her job and thereby make the individual eligible for PUA. For example, an individual may be eligible for PUA if he or she was diagnosed with COVID-19 by a qualified medical professional, and although the individual no longer has COVID-19, the illness caused health complications that render the individual objectively unable to perform his or her essential job functions, with or without a reasonable accommodation"

"As a general matter, you are likely to be eligible for PUA due to concerns about exposure to the coronavirus only if you have been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine as a result of such concerns."

"The CARES Act does provide PUA to an individual who is the “primary caregiver” of a child who is at home due to a forced school closure that directly results from the COVID-19 public health emergency. "

Wow, what I said is...true?  I know, I know, Faux News, right?  Wrong.  See link at the bottom.

But I do love your use of personal anecdotes followed by calling my "suppositions" "anecdotal".  Classic arguing by an MSNBC junky. bBy the way, I've been handling UC claims from an employer side for, oh, 30 years now, so I think I know a wee bit about how it works.  Most likely more than you with your one-person anecdotal experience.

https://www.dol.gov/coronavirus/unemployment-insurance.

[Roxy Couturier]

1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Here, let me educate you:

"There are, however, circumstances under the CARES Act in which specific, credible health concerns could require an individual to quit his or her job and thereby make the individual eligible for PUA. For example, an individual may be eligible for PUA if he or she was diagnosed with COVID-19 by a qualified medical professional, and although the individual no longer has COVID-19, the illness caused health complications that render the individual objectively unable to perform his or her essential job functions, with or without a reasonable accommodation"

"As a general matter, you are likely to be eligible for PUA due to concerns about exposure to the coronavirus only if you have been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine as a result of such concerns."

"The CARES Act does provide PUA to an individual who is the “primary caregiver” of a child who is at home due to a forced school closure that directly results from the COVID-19 public health emergency. "

Wow, what I said is...true?  I know, I know, Faux News, right?  Wrong.  See link at the bottom.

But I do love your use of personal anecdotes followed by calling my "suppositions" "anecdotal".  Classic arguing by an MSNBC junky. bBy the way, I've been handling UC claims from an employer side for, oh, 30 years now, so I think I know a wee bit about how it works.  Most likely more than you with your one-person anecdotal experience.

https://www.dol.gov/coronavirus/unemployment-insurance.

From your posts, I infer you've never been on the receiving end (or, if you were, it was long ago, prior to Rethuglican gutting of the system.) Since you've 'been handling' UC claims for your company for 30 years, I think it's a fair guess.

So no, you do not have any experience in the long broken system in any way that's relevant to what people are experiencing.

The employees of your own company have shown you that very few people would choose to not go back to work when given the choice ( 1/2 of 6% I believe you said. So 3%?), you're assuming the worst in people. Despite 97% of your own example proving you wrong. (FYI, the example you gave is an anecdote.)

Despite having an example of a positive, somehow, you've extrapolated that greed will out. I can only guess Faux Snooze must be hammering that point. Or is it Rush Limbaugh? Whatever.. I don't watch cable news or listen to blowhards on the radio. I'm saying: YOU. ARE. WRONG. ABOUT. PEOPLE.

Now, I never said the facts you gave weren't true. I said your extrapolation and inferences were wrong. You claim you don't like people attributing things you didn't say, yet you do it over and over. As you've done to me.

You said:

"most people do not yet realize that, say, if they have kids they can simply claim they have to stay home and not work because the kids aren't in school, and collect the equivalent of $15/hr."

The inference is that this is somehow bad. That those parents are somehow being lazy greedy and feckless. It's pretty messed up for someone that has the luxury of working from home to imply that. What a privilege disconnect. So they should be punished for a situation they have no control over? Are you going to volunteer to watch their kids for them while they go into work? It sounds like your job could be automated with a google algorithm and have as much compassion as you've displayed.

$15 and hour is a pretty minimum amount for anyone in most areas to have a living wage. In major urban areas, not so much. You know, the areas that being elbow to elbow would be a bad thing right now? Maybe it will engender a shift in people to just say no to subsistence wages and demand a living wage from employers. One can only hope.

Oh, an update for good ol Foriduh: EMPLOYERS cannot access the system either. So qualified beneficiaries, the few that actually get through the process, are being rejected because the employer cannot confirm. The CARES payments? Well Florida doesn't know how to give that out.

[Mollymews]

On 4/12/2020 at 1:20 AM, Tolya Ugajin said:

Once it becomes more widely known, it seems unlikely someone would keep working for $12/hr when they could collect $15/hr on unemployment.  It wouldn't be a logical decision.  For some reason, I keep getting accused of demeaning people for saying many are likely take the logical course of action.  But, then, humans are often irrational.

as you say it would seem irrational to stay in a job that pays lower than the dole. But more people do this than don't

they do this for a rational reason. Their sense of providing for themselves is greater than seeing themselves as dependent on others to provide for them. In other words the value to themselves in providing for themselves is greater than any monetary value they might otherwise receive

as you also mention, which I never quoted, you are pretty much quibbling over some really small number of people. 3% of your workforce who if you laid them off, would not return to work for you. A question you could ask these people is: How much money would get them to return to work for you ?  You might find that the majority of them would not return no matter how much you offered. New fields, new opportunities and all that

[Amina Sopwith]

In the UK, most people who receive benefits work (or at least did before the pandemic took hold; these are not normal times). You will of course always be able to find a workshy leech if it suits your agenda to find one, but you'll have to look harder than the Daily Mail would have you believe. They are very much the minority, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that they are not. It's also interesting to note how many of these supposed leeches actually have young children and wouldn't earn enough to cover the cost of childcare if they returned to their old jobs. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

11 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

 

Here, let me educate you:

"There are, however, circumstances under the CARES Act in which specific, credible health concerns could require an individual to quit his or her job and thereby make the individual eligible for PUA. For example, an individual may be eligible for PUA if he or she was diagnosed with COVID-19 by a qualified medical professional, and although the individual no longer has COVID-19, the illness caused health complications that render the individual objectively unable to perform his or her essential job functions, with or without a reasonable accommodation"

"As a general matter, you are likely to be eligible for PUA due to concerns about exposure to the coronavirus only if you have been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine as a result of such concerns."

"The CARES Act does provide PUA to an individual who is the “primary caregiver” of a child who is at home due to a forced school closure that directly results from the COVID-19 public health emergency. "

Wow, what I said is...true?  I know, I know, Faux News, right?  Wrong.  See link at the bottom.

But I do love your use of personal anecdotes followed by calling my "suppositions" "anecdotal".  Classic arguing by an MSNBC junky. bBy the way, I've been handling UC claims from an employer side for, oh, 30 years now, so I think I know a wee bit about how it works.  Most likely more than you with your one-person anecdotal experience.

https://www.dol.gov/coronavirus/unemployment-insurance.

How does what you posted support the proposition that people will "choose not to work because they'll make more on unemployment"? None of those factors are in the control of the person receiving the benefits.

[YokaiClock]

There'll be a lot less movie theaters--that's for sure. Honestly, not sure if that industry will ever recover. One of the largest movie theater chains in the USA, AMC, is close to declaring bankruptcy. The new Trolls movie just proved that major film releases can still be extremely successful releasing straight to digital, and the studio gets nearly all of the revenue from its digital sales as opposed to ticket sales.

I am curious how events that pack large crowds of people close together will be affected--at least in the short term for things like concerts and conventions. Cons, especially, were already notorious for "con crud" being a thing, and I do think people are going to be a lot more conscious about that sort of thing.

I imagine masks will become more ubiquitous in western culture similar to east Asia. 

[FairreLilette]

41 minutes ago, YokaiClock said:

I am curious how events that pack large crowds of people close together will be affected--at least in the short term for things like concerts and conventions.

I always thought that they should have pay per view concerts.  I would have loved that as concert tickets can be astronomical.   I'd prefer to see a concert in pay per view without a small audience though as I'm really interested in the music and not the audience anyway plus the audience can be distracting with the cell phones constantly going to try to record a concert.  Musicians could still make good money this way.  There would be no need for an expensive tour.  

 

9 hours ago, Roxy Couturier said:

$15 and hour is a pretty minimum amount for anyone in most areas to have a living wage. In major urban areas, not so much. You know, the areas that being elbow to elbow would be a bad thing right now? Maybe it will engender a shift in people to just say no to subsistence wages and demand a living wage from employers. One can only hope.

Fifteen dollars is pretty low for California.   The rich man has been importing labor and now most benefits are gone in America - unions, pensions, health care because there is always someone who will work for less than you as my ex of 20 years was always told.  And not only did they say they could get someone to work for less than you, they did by importing Filipinos and all other types of "cheaper workers" from outside of America.

People from other countries were willing to work in America because exchanging the dollar into pesos, yen and rupees is a whole lotta money!  People on both sides of the border in California have been exploited.

Let me give you an example of a business in India.  They make hand-painted leather handbags.  This company from India sells their handbags in America for on average about $130 dollars per purse.  It takes this company, based in India, one month to make one purse.  Yes, that's one month to make one purse that sells for $130 on average.  How much money do you think that company in India is making out of that $130 dollars after they split some of the money with the America sellers, pay for a building in India, pay for electricity, pay for an accountant, pay for all the supplies...this could be a long list.  I'd guess to say that they might make 10 dollars profit per purse if even that.  So, that 10 dollars must go a long way in India and that 10 dollars profit per purse is split by how many people who get a share of the actual profit?  There is no way American's can compete with the countries who are making pennies a day.  Many of the Filipinos and Hispanic that work in California are also working here so they can eventually take their dollars home to their home country which again, is a whole lot of money in THEIR currency.   It's just the facts.  And, we do need some kind of health care system in America.  Many Filipinos and Hispanic don't want to take American drugs nor American medicine, so they can do without the health care too because some I've talked to are even afraid of aspirin.  They will give us the pills as nurses but they for a great and large part DO NOT WANT TO TAKE MEDICINE PERIOD.  

Edited April 15, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Luna Bliss]

Tolya, I remember you mentioning an employee of yours who didn't want to work more hours because they'd lose some of their government benefits. As usual, you were degrading the 'lazy workerbee'.  I'd be asking why wages are so low in this country instead of pointing out how someone might choose benefits over work, but I never see you analyze this.

[Lyssa Greymoon]

I don't expect it to look very much different from the pre-COVID19 world. Governments will do everything they can to make that happen. I continue to be optimistic and hope our new post-COVID19 world is dark and rainy all the time with a great Vangellis soundtrack.

 

[Lindal Kidd]

If it includes flying cars, I could put up with the rain.

[Qie Niangao]

2 hours ago, YokaiClock said:

There'll be a lot less movie theaters--that's for sure. [...]

I am curious how events that pack large crowds of people close together will be affected--at least in the short term for things like concerts and conventions.[...]

I wonder more generally about intensification -- the supposed virtue of packing people tighter into urban centers to reduce commuting and pressure on non-urban land uses, as well as promote the desirable(?) urban experience.

How many waves of pandemic death will it take for folks to flee to the countryside? I mean, how valuable is that view from the fiftieth floor, that I should want to ride in a tiny room packed with other people for several minutes, trying not to touch buttons or railings? How much fun is it exercising in a crowded gym or walking a crowded street, when everybody around you is (or should be) wearing a mask?

If there's no real benefit to increased population density -- no films, plays, concerts, conventions... galleries even -- where's the appeal of city life?

[Madelaine McMasters]

3 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

How does what you posted support the proposition that people will "choose not to work because they'll make more on unemployment"? None of those factors are in the control of the person receiving the benefits.

Well, there is one factor under their control. People could purposely expose themselves to COVID-19 with the intention of contracting it and the expectation they'll get three paid weeks off work and won't be too sick to enjoy it. I think that's unlikely.

I have wondered if there are people who'll purposely expose themselves with the intention of coming out on the far side as "certified immune". Immunity would be a competitive advantage for a job hunter.

[Amina Sopwith]

33 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I have wondered if there are people who'll purposely expose themselves with the intention of coming out on the far side as "certified immune". Immunity would be a competitive advantage for a job hunter.

Is it confirmed that you have immunity if you recover? 

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Is it confirmed that you have immunity if you recover? 

Well, you have some immunity or you'd not recover.

For both SARS and MERS, immunity was temporary (months to years) and offered varying protection against new strains. The question becomes "how long am I immune"? Someone, somewhere, might make the calculation (based on scant evidence) that the risk/benefit ratio favors getting infected.

[Ted McGregor]

19 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Is it confirmed that you have immunity if you recover? 

No. At least not a lasting one.  Actually it' s suspected ( not yet confirmed ) that imminuty fades after time until a vaccin is ready.

According to a Harvard study in my local news, afaik.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2330560-harvard-studie-zonder-vaccin-nog-jaren-afstand-houden.html

Science article in English they are referring to : https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/14/science.abb5793

Edited April 15, 2020 by TDD123
Not quite

[FairreLilette]

Please take what I am about to say as my experience only and my opinion only.

I have spoken on this forum that I was sick with a very horrible flu-like illness in January of this year....which has left me wondering about COVID-19 if it was here before, and I went through the first wave of it.  But, wondering is wondering is wondering and that is all it is because I have not had any test yet for COVID-19.

What's made me wonder also is that I have been getting the Pneumovax vaccine for several times now.  My first was because I was in the hospital so it was deemed necessary to have the anti-pneumonia vaccine as there are sick people there even though it is considered a sterile environment.

Having this anti-pneumonia Vaccine has made me wonder if those who had died from COVID-19 had the Pneumovax vaccine or not?  Since I am not a scientist nor a doctor I can only know about pneumonia from what little I read on the internet.  However, from what I can ascertain about pneumonia is there are two kinds.  The Pneumovax works for one kind of pneumonia perhaps?  

I had pneumonia when I was 12 years old.  I was in bed for two months at age 12.   So younger people can get pneumonia.  However, the complication of COVID-19 seems to be resulting in pneumonia as a cause of death but in older people mostly.  

Anyhow, I am just wondering how many died of pneumonia as a result of COVID-19 had the Pneumovax vaccine or not?  I think it's important information, maybe, but this comes from someone who only experienced and has had a very good result not getting pneumonia as a complication of just what's called the average flu that goes around every year ever since I've been vaccinated.  I hope news of what kind of pneumonia and how many have been vaccinated against pneumonia is known soon.  

I do not get the flu every year.  I usually get the flu shot.  I skipped it this year because the flu season before of 2018, the flu shot that year made me feel not too well for about two months and that was just the flu shot, so I skipped my flu shot at the end of 2019.   

Edited April 15, 2020 by FairreLilette

[LittleMe Jewell]

21 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I have spoken on this forum that I was sick with a very horrible flu-like illness in January of this year....which has left me wondering about COVID-19 if it was here before, and I went through the first wave of it. 

You aren't the only one wondering about earlier timeframes

https://nypost.com/2020/04/13/coronavirus-likely-spread-in-california-as-early-as-december-official/

[Lindal Kidd]

When we returned from a cruise in early January both the Resident Geek and I came down with something.  At the time, we figured it was norovirus, and it most likely was; the symptoms corresponded more closely to that than to COVID-19.  But it still does make you wonder.

We plan to get antibody tests as soon as they're generally available.

[Luna Bliss]

48 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I hope news of what kind of pneumonia

It appears many die from viral pneumonia without developing the secondary bacterial pneumonia that can occur.  I suppose it would make matters worse to have both, and so if vaccinated against the bacterial kind you'd have a survival edge.  I'm just imaginings things here though...guessing.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

20 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

You aren't the only one wondering about earlier timeframes

https://nypost.com/2020/04/13/coronavirus-likely-spread-in-california-as-early-as-december-official/

Yes my daughter, son-in-law, and toddler grandson became so ill in December (living in San Francisco) they couldn't participate in extended family festivities. Extreme coughing was part of the illness, and it hung on longer than usual, although was much less severe for my grandson. It could have just been the regular flu though. I read eventually they'll be able to know if Covid was spreading in Dec or even Nov in CA, as the virus mutates and so is traceable.

[Qie Niangao]

59 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

You aren't the only one wondering about earlier timeframes

https://nypost.com/2020/04/13/coronavirus-likely-spread-in-california-as-early-as-december-official/

Gee. Now I'm wondering. Mid-December, partner got back from a work trip to Beijing and Chongqing (next to Wuhan's province, Hubei) with a nasty bug that soon settled in the chest. I got it a few days later -- and lost all sense of smell for a week or two. But neither of us ever got an elevated temperature, so we figured it wasn't really that serious, despite being miserable for weeks. We'd both gotten flu shots, but they're always only partially effective -- herd immunity boosting, really -- so we figured we just caught a local strain that wasn't in the flu vaccine. Neither of us had a headache, so with neither that nor even a hint of a fever... it was probably nothing, right? But that losing a sense of smell, I thought that was remarkable at the time, before anybody had heard of the new virus, let alone that symptom.

I'm talking myself into wanting an antibody test now, too, when they're generally available.

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

But neither of us ever got an elevated temperature

I did read of a couple people positive for Covid without fevers....did not save the links..

[Beth Macbain]

Isn't there enough to worry about already without looking for more things to worry about?