Coronavirus Outbreak...

[demi-conservative]

And let's hope Pelosi and her gestapo stop holding up necessary funds for people to make it through this unprecedented time just to get back at Trump and the Republicans....

6 months ago, can anyone believe that the average Republican voter would yell at Pelosi to stop delaying the welfare checks? Unbelievable.

Trump is working his magic again in real time, singlehandedly shifting the mainstream Republican position. Truly the greatest.

[carpedm9587]

I have to admit that my admiration with Fauci is growing daily. He's becoming the primary source of truth we can all count on. There was an excellent interview with him here, where he was refreshingly honest about the dynamic with Trump. Now it will be interesting to see what happens. Trump doesn't usually tolerate someone publicly contradicting him or talking him down, so there is a good chance he will be fired. On the other hand, he has become a pretty widely valued and positively viewed face of the crisis, so Trump may face a backlash if he does so.

My prediction: first we will see the usual wave of people attacking his character and record to turn public opinion against him, and then he will be fired. That's the pattern we've seen for the last 3+ years. People with sterling records, as soon as they speak out against Trump in any way, become pariah and have their character and history attacked and denigrated. Part of the ongoing TSD problem!

[lilpixieofterror]

Again, Pix, you made a claim about how people spend their money in the context of the study that showed that 40% of Americans cannot deal with a $400 unexpected expense. Presumably, you were commenting on that 40%. or your post makes no sense. So can you show where you get the data that shows that a significant part of this 40% is updating their iphones every year and paying hundreds of dollars a month in cell phone bills? I'd just like to look at it. If true, it would make your case.

[oxmixmudd]

Cell phones are more than a simple luxury these days for adults. If you own a marginally competent vehicle, they are your lifeline to help when it stalls on you driving to work. If you get lost, it's what you will use to find your way home. If you get kidnapped, they'll be what police use to try to find you. If you are a witness to a crime, it's how you will alert police. If you are late to work, it's what will tell your boss why. If you are homeless, it's how you'll be able to continue to look for work. And you can often get some form of cell phone even when your credit is bad, meaning you don't have access to plastic money for big, unexpected expenses.

There are many more reasons than this that cause people of marginal incomes to prioritize having a cell phone over other expenses. And being able to a squeeze in a regular $50 or $70 expense, even $100, doesn't mean your income will allow for a $400, one time, out of budget expense.

[rogue06]

Years ago when I first started doing some research for a radio station talk show (in exchange for access to LexisNexis) the host was upset about a story in the local paper complaining how a woman couldn't afford to feed her son when school was out (or something to that effect). There was a picture of them and the host of the show was pointing out the carton of cigarettes, bag from McDonalds and the new expensive tennis shoes/sneakers that the kid was wearing. He was noting that if they had the money for that they had the money for his lunch if they just made better choices.

Now, not everyone is in that situation but most can find $400 if they really wanted to just by making a couple sacrifices.

[rogue06]

Cell phones are more than a simple luxury these days for adults.

I seem to manage just fine without one.

And you don't need one with all the bells and whistles if it is truly a necessity.

[lilpixieofterror]

Cell phones are more than a simple luxury these days for adults. If you own a marginally competent vehicle, they are your lifeline to help when it stalls on you driving to work. If you get lost, it's what you will use to find your way home. If you get kidnapped, they'll be what police use to try to find you. If you are a witness to a crime, it's how you will alert police. If you are late to work, it's what will tell your boss why. If you are homeless, it's how you'll be able to continue to look for work. And you can often get some form of cell phone even when your credit is bad, meaning you don't have access to plastic money for big, unexpected expenses.

There are many more reasons than this that cause people of marginal incomes to prioritize having a cell phone over other expenses. And being able to a squeeze in a regular $50 or $70 expense, even $100, doesn't mean your income will allow for a $400, one time, out of budget expense.

One can have a cell phone, without having an iPhone 11 Pro or a Galaxy s20 Ultra. It takes around a year to save 400 dollars total, by saving 30 a month. Not impossible.

[lilpixieofterror]

I seem to manage just fine without one.

And you don't need one with all the bells and whistles if it is truly a necessity.

A flip phone would work just fine, for around 20-30 a month. If you need something to call and text with.

[KingsGambit]

I had a flip phone when I started working at the post office. I rushed to get a smart phone after the manager implied she might fire me if I didn't have mapping software on my phone.

[Sparko]

Generalization without substance. Obama consulted and followed his science advisors. Trump hide in the closet until the coronavirus got in the closet.

funny, California's governor, a democrat has been praising Trump's quick response and follow through on everything he promised and they asked for.

[Sparko]

Read my post carefully, Sparko - it says "many," not all. Some of the countries with excellent survivability rates include Sweden, Norway, Canada, and Finland, to name a few. Yes, there are also outliers like Italy. But if you look at the death rates, they skew towards lower for most of these countries.

This is a habit many people have: take a claim about trending, find an outlier that does not conform, and use it as evidence that the claim is not valid. If you want to show a claim about trends not valid, you have to show the trend to be different - not cite a single case. That's statistics 101.

Did you see the chart I posted for you Mr. data?

[Sparko]

Yes - there are some at high death rates. But if you scan the lower part of the list, you find more single-payer countries low down on the list than high up on the list. Indeed, since the discussion in the U.S. is currently about a possible single-payer system, use the U.S. as a cut-off and see what percentage of single-payer countries are faring better than the U.S. and what percentage are faring worse. It's interesting to examine the distribution.

LOL. Yeah when presented with actual data you ignore it or twist it to fit what you previously said.

[RumTumTugger]

Also in slowing the spread since if you test positive you can self quarantine

Just like Paul Rand did.

[carpedm9587]

Again - if a comment is about a statistic, like "40% cannot afford an unexpected $400 crisis," an example is meaningless. If my claim was "no one in the 40% spends money on luxuries," an example of a single person doing so would destroy the argument. When the proposition is "40% cannot afford a $400 unexpected expense," if you wish to show that this 40% (or any significant part thereof) is spending their money frivolously on luxuries like annual phone upgrades and hundreds of dollars a month on cell phone bills, you need to cite a few statistics that actually associated such expenditures with that 40%. If you cannot, then your response is rather pointless since it does not address the argument.

I absolutely agree that some people spend money frivolously, even when they are impoverished. I have no statistics about how prevalent this is, and given the wide range of disagreement on what constitutes a "luxury," I'm not sure how anyone could make this case. And the "hundreds of dollars a month" claim, which you originally made and now have adjusted to "$100 or more a month" (somewhat lowering the bar in the process) is also rather difficult to support. Most carriers now have all-you-can-eat plans that are below $60 per month. I'm paying $150 per month and for that I am providing phones to myself, my wife, my elderly mother, and my parents-in-law.

All in all, I'm not finding your argument very compelling given the original post it appears to be responding to.

[carpedm9587]

Years ago when I first started doing some research for a radio station talk show (in exchange for access to LexisNexis) the host was upset about a story in the local paper complaining how a woman couldn't afford to feed her son when school was out (or something to that effect). There was a picture of them and the host of the show was pointing out the carton of cigarettes, bag from McDonalds and the new expensive tennis shoes/sneakers that the kid was wearing. He was noting that if they had the money for that they had the money for his lunch if they just made better choices.

Now, not everyone is in that situation but most can find $400 if they really wanted to just by making a couple sacrifices.

Again, "most" is another statistical claim. Can you provide the evidence that supports this position?