FVBrewerFan

Nah, there's always a day that has broken the trend. We're at 3 days in a row now, so it's going to be a while. That will depend, of course, on the WI Supreme Court ruling.

Oh, some "experts" do have agendas. Andrew Wakefield is one of the worst human beings on the planet, and his fraudulent "research" and an all-to-eager-to-get-the-scoop media has resulted in death and an almost eradicated disease being brought on thousands of people. As someone whose job it is to draw conclusions from data, I can tell you that rarely does one single piece of data ever tell you the whole story. You have to learn to synthesize multiple sources of data and then ask yourself what makes sense. Correct. Absorb all the information you can, then it comes down to instinct.

It's not one person, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Entire countries have based their response on the science of herd immunity. GB started that way, went to lockdown and it got worse. I'm not saying we know what approach is best, but let's not pretend Levitt is some sort of fringe outlier.

It is likely a nothingburger, but it will get the conspiracy theorists and tinfoil hat crowds talking. But those are the same people who believe that national, state and local governments are in cahoots to keep things shut down for some unknown benefit, so their opinions are moot. National, state, and local governments ARE in "cahoots." That isn't exactly a secret.

Well, I'll use science then. Here's what a Nobel-winning scientist had to say yesterday: "I think the policy of herd immunity is the right policy. I think Britain was on exactly the right track before they were fed wrong numbers. And they made a huge mistake. I see the standout winners as Germany and Sweden. They didn't practice too much lockdown and they got enough people sick to get some herd immunity," Levitt explained. "There is no doubt in my mind, that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor." Michael Levitt is currently on staff at Stanford. Boiling down his reasoning, the experts who came up with the models made the wrong assumption that the R value would remain constant. It doesn't, it goes down. Plenty of scientists disagree with Levitt. He thinks you can get herd immunity at 30% infection rate. I've seen some epidemiologists say you need 60 - 70%. He could absolutely be right but I'm not going to hitch my wagon to one guy even if he won a Nobel. Levitt also believes in global warming. I'm guessing there are plenty of skeptics that still don't believe in it simply because one Nobel winner does. Exactly my point. There are plenty of experts who disagree with Levitt, plenty who disagree with Fauci. Others in between, still others have even different views. So science differs all the time. That's when we use our reason, instinct, call it what you will to form an opinion.

Well, I'll use science then. Here's what a Nobel-winning scientist had to say yesterday: "I think the policy of herd immunity is the right policy. I think Britain was on exactly the right track before they were fed wrong numbers. And they made a huge mistake. I see the standout winners as Germany and Sweden. They didn't practice too much lockdown and they got enough people sick to get some herd immunity," Levitt explained. "There is no doubt in my mind, that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor." Michael Levitt is currently on staff at Stanford. Boiling down his reasoning, the experts who came up with the models made the wrong assumption that the R value would remain constant. It doesn't, it goes down.

Without getting too political, I think we are seeing some of the fallout from years of the dumbing down of America in this current situation. Indeed we are. Far too many people just ingest bits and pieces of what they see on Facebook, Yahoo news, whatever and don't question it. People don't ask questions anymore, and just go with the common knowledge of the day.

I go off all three. Just because I don't trust the media, and increasingly don't trust scientists, doesn't mean I don't read what they have to say.

But which data is actual? You can find data to suit your views, the information is so vast, there is just no way of knowing which data is factual, which data is agenda driven and which data is nonsense. Correct. Just as journalism is no longer journalism, all too often science is no longer science. Agenda, politics, money...name the reason.

I'd bet they'd at least hear you out if you asked them to randomly choose 1-3 out of every 100 Facebook friends they have, then tell them that those people represent those that would have died without the social distancing measures. More like .2- .225 of every 1,000 Facebook friends. And much lower than that unless this J Crew employee is a senior citizen holding down this job for extra income or because they love the fashion.

There is no evidence to support that. Many countries had/have very similar shutdowns to ours, others have had far less and are doing far better than the models. What you are right about is there's a ton of people on both political sides who would rather be right than care about the results.

I'm really starting to doubt the numbers. How does the U.S. have far more deaths than other countries? I think there may be under-reporting from some countries. Also, over-reporting here in the U.S. Anecdotal evidence that medical providers are being pressured to report any respiratory deaths as Covid, and it's no secret that all co-morbidity cases are being reported as Covid. I mean, it doesn't matter all that much if the "real" number is 45,000 or 70,000. That's still a lot of people, and at the same time still only a very small percentage of the overall population. As for the GB meat packing plant, it's my understanding they're testing everyone before they go back. At least they're doing that.

Second statement, agree - SWA doesn't have the regional jets or long-haul international jets/experience, in addition to being non-union. Part of their streamline in costs is that they only fly two different types of airplanes (two versions of the Boeing 737; technically three with the MAX-8, but those aren't flying now), and only pick routes that can support the capacity of those 737s. First statement (AIG) - disagree pretty strongly. They are the backbone of far, far more than many people realize. Watch the documentaries on the 2008 crash. I'm getting pretty far OT, but most business units of AIG were profitable. They could have weathered the storm if they sold off a lot of their business units to raise capital. AIG was too big to fail, you're right about that. I just think the feds didn't want to take any chances. Back to the airlines a minute, without help UAL and American would likely have to merge. That's fine, except for people wondering why a flight is now $1,500 instead of $300.

Bosch is solid, always look forward to it. Also, final season of Homeland just completed. Showtime is offering a free 30 day trial, so I'm going to binge that next. Not as good as the first few seasons, but I still enjoy it.

Apple's guidance will be far more important (and interesting) than results from last quarter.

I have no problem allowing poorly run companies to fail. AIG should have been allowed to fail. As far as SWA goes, no, they wouldn't take over AL/UAL business. Maybe a small amount of their routes, and their best pilots. But that's it. SWA is non-union, so they wouldn't want to take over East Coast, ORD, LAX etc. That's why SWA is successful to begin with, they purposely avoid that.

Cute bumper sticker, but wildly inaccurate. Large companies are getting loans which they have to pay back. Individuals are getting paid for being out of work, a huge percentage are getting paid more to be out of work than when they were working. People and small business are getting far more assistance than corporate America. Large companies are getting loans because they've overly privatized past profits. If they hadn't they wouldn't require the "loans" (how much of the 2008 bailout money was repaid?) to socialize their losses. If people & small businesses are getting far more assistance than Corporate America then people & small businesses should emerge from this whole thing with some of their providence reclaimed from Corporate America, er no? I'll stay tuned for the results. 2008 bailouts were all paid back, at least the auto makers. So their losses weren't "socialized." They were loans, and they were paid back. This time around, the same thing will happen. It's not like loans are being given to Amazon and WalMart. They're being given to industries like airlines and soon healthcare providers. These industries don't need loans because they've "overly privatized profits." Sorry, but that's just factually wrong. Take airlines for example. Thin margins to begin with, then see your business go down 80% for a couple months, and it will probably be down 50% for many more months. That's not greedy evil corporate greed, govt loans are necessary to survive. That said, I'm sure I would agree with you on the need for loans for some industries/companies. As with everything else surrounding this pandemic, there are no easy answers. But I think you would agree having airlines is pretty important.

Cute bumper sticker, but wildly inaccurate. Large companies are getting loans which they have to pay back. Individuals are getting paid for being out of work, a huge percentage are getting paid more to be out of work than when they were working. People and small business are getting far more assistance than corporate America.

First, pandemic insurance is not realistic. Lloyds of London was really the only one offering it before, it was ungodly expensive. Moving forward, I doubt they will even offer it, and if they do it will be too expensive for any company to buy. As far as bailouts go, I really don't agree with the concept either. But important to note, a lot of the big corporations are being given a loan, not a bail-out- big difference. For example, without loans from the government all airlines would go under relatively quickly. Now we could let that happen, but when there's a reasonable way to avoid that you do it.

The Wire is also "free" on Prime Video, for those of you who have it. I've never had HBO, so finally watched it on Prime last year. If you haven't seen it, put it to the top of the list. Argument can be made that it's the best drama series ever.

We're forgetting about government too, they carry the largest debt of all. Federal govt, and many states. Our society is built on having debt at every level, it is encouraged.

This whole plan is maneuvering from the original plan, absolutely. The original plan was to stay at home to flatten the curve. Avoid hospitals from getting slammed. That's exactly what we were told, the reason was very specific. Your numbers above prove the point, the curve in WI has been flattened for quite a long time, if there ever was one. Covid- related hospitalizations have also been very stable (and low) since the start. It's very difficult statistically to have numbers down every single day when the numbers are so small to begin with. Plus, add in inconsistent reporting. We could go to Phase 2 today, and I would be fine with that. But we're starting more slowly, that's fine too, as long as phase 1 starts ASAP. And there's no reason phase 1 can't begin in the vast majority of the state today. There will be outbreaks. This will happen if Phase 2 starts today or phase 1 starts in October. Of course this has everything to do with the state losing billions in tax revenue. And hundreds of businesses closing. And thousands losing their jobs.

Forever is a long time. I think all of these things being brought up will be short term changes, a couple a little longer term. But I don't see anything fundamentally changing forever because most people had to sort of stay home for a couple months.

Dogs can now legally get a haircut in WI. We can not. Back to the last couple posts, I think we have a pretty good idea how to greatly lower the number of two cases. As a society we are much more aware now of how to interact with others in public. We can open retail, restaurants, most places really. It's just a matter of keeping your distance, cleaning surfaces, cleaning hands often, etc. There's no reason we can't start doing this today, not much is going to change a month or two from now. Then continue to be vigilant in nursing homes, medical facilities, etc. If you work from an office, continue to work from home if you can. Let common sense prevail. (For example, the GB meat plant should have been shut down by the health dept a long time ago.) I mean, these phases aren't going to work if common sense decisions like that aren't made.

Better Call Saul is GREAT tv, and I am inclined to agree with you, or at least say they are equal in quality... I have yet to start Ozark, but it is on my list. I must be the only person left in the USA who hasn't seen any Tiger King yet. Honestly, I have no intention of doing so. The overexposure in memes and media hype is enough for me to veto the idea of watching. Yea, I'll probably get around to Tiger King sometime but I have like 15 things on my watch list before that.