COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[atxcyclist]

12 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

NO.  Watch it no one is just happy with what they have.  They do work to improve their lives and to get more.  

In fact since they have the power to travel to other Earth like planets everyone in that universe can get real wealth i.e. land.  There is no reason that every single person can't have a fine Chateau with heirloom furniture IF they don't mind not living on Earth.   Otherwise you get a modest house in the desert. 

We don't have that power for the masses though, only a dozen people have landed on the moon and none of them built a chateau there.

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

We don't have that power for the masses though, only a dozen people have landed on the moon and none of them built a house there.

I would agree that the concept of fronteersmanship is done.  I don’t think that’s actually what is being talked about though.  The earth ET thing works just as well for rural vs city.  The frontier was done long before the Great Depression though.  It’s been argued that the end of the frontier is part of what caused the Great Depression.  The folks with no greed brakes turned elsewhere. Gigantic corporate conglomerates overworked farmland in the west, and suppressed complaints about it and when the inevitable multi year drought rolled in, poof,  dust bowl.  

[atxcyclist]

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I would agree that the concept of fronteersmanship is done.  I don’t think that’s actually what is being talked about though.  The earth ET thing works just as well for rural vs city.  The frontier was done long before the Great Depression though.  It’s been argued that the end of the frontier is part of what caused the Great Depression.  The folks with no greed brakes turned elsewhere. Gigantic corporate conglomerates overworked farmland in the west, and suppressed complaints about it and when the inevitable multi year drought rolled in, poof,  dust bowl.  

I hope there's enough room out in a rural area for whatever container house I end up building in the future, as soon as the vaccination for covid19 is discovered. I don't expect what I currently do will be too lucrative at the end, even though we're making it right now I don't think people with money are going to want buildings designed any time soon, so I'll be in a position to make a big change.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, atxcyclist said:

I firmly believe that without 'purpose', people will not do well. Telling the able-bodied they're no longer useful will have bad consequences. The idea that someone that swung a pick-axe in a mine will all the sudden pick up a pen and write a sonnet once they're "unshackled from work" is another fallacy I see about UBI and AI takeover of the workforce. Skills are skills, some people can swing a framing hammer and some people can write poetry, very few can do both.

People will always have  purpose.  why would anyone be told they are no longer useful?  just because dangerous a rudimentary jobs are no longer a thing doesn't man people suddenly become aimless shells.

 

 

1 hour ago, atxcyclist said:

Most of those articles refer to recessions, not a depression, and the one that does is behind a paywall. I'm sure it also ignores that people in the 1930's were capable of fixing their houses and tractors themselves, and also that those people could grow food, hunt/fish, and otherwise be self-sufficient. That is not the case these days, most people have to call an electrician to change a bad breaker in their house, and many people cannot even cook for themselves. As said previously, the skills to be self-sufficient have been largely lost in recent generations. A depression on the scale of the one in the 1930's would be unfathomably bad, because beyond lacking all these skills that were commonplace 90 years ago, we're being told to stay away from everyone. There will be no bartering in-person in the case of a virus, so the people that can provide will not reasonably be able to support the people that cannot.

 

I read it, basically people don't just die from a financial crisis, life gets really hard not necessarily fatal.  I'm not sure where you are getting these ideas, but it really sounds like you imagine that's the way it will be rather than actually looking into it.  I mean you made assumptions about what survival skills the people had during the great depression, and that wasn't exactly true for the vast majority of workers.

[Uttamattamakin]

20 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

We don't have that power for the masses though, only a dozen people have landed on the moon and none of them built a chateau there.

Bringing this discussion back to the real world and to COVID 19.  

 

The types of jobs we right now deem essential are in many case jobs are prime targets for automation.  Restocking shelves in a market, deliveries, driving people from place to place.  

 

There are already robots that do essentially the restocking task and they are used in big warehouses.  Delivery is a matter of a self driving car  and at least at first, people comming outside to meet it.  Along with a system to vend out that particular pizza or package of groceries. 

 

Making the pizza  there are certainly robots that can make and bake pizza.  There are fully automated burger resutrants.  

 

Self driving busses.. ones which would travel on specific trackways have existed forever but the self driving car phenomenon would do that.  In China and the UAE they have experimented with drone VTOL air taxi services.  

 

Even my job as a college professor.  To a great extent I can set up a course in such a way that the computers do the majority of the grading, and teaching and coaching.  Students prefer it in many ways since the computer can work with them more than one of us alone ever could.  This leaves to devise and administer a final cumulative project and an exam to see if they can apply what they have learned to the real world. 

 

Covid-19 is showing us just how unnecessary much of what we did before was.  

For one thing, for sure, most office jobs currently being done from home really should still be done from home.  Why have an electric car which cost $$$$ when with a good computer (or two) and a good high speed internet line you can telecommute for work or for play?    Maybe this will lead to people living and working online then getting off line to walk around their neighborhood or such.  All with a 5G link to keep in touch if they want.    This is the future  things will be different.  

 

Indeed 9/11 and covid-19 have together defined what this new millennium will be like.  Peace punctuated with horrific acts.  Disease that leads to economic downturns instead of mass die offs.  Further use of technology and fewer and fewer people needing to toil just to be able to eat. 

[atxcyclist]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

People will always have  purpose.  why would anyone be told they are no longer useful?  just because dangerous a rudimentary jobs are no longer a thing doesn't man people suddenly become aimless shells.

 

 

 

I read it, basically people don't just die from a financial crisis, life gets really hard not necessarily fatal.  I'm not sure where you are getting these ideas, but it really sounds like you imagine that's the way it will be rather than actually looking into it.  I mean you made assumptions about what survival skills the people had during the great depression, and that wasn't exactly true for the vast majority of workers.

Some people don't have the skills to do anything but work a dangerous or rudimentary job, and without the drive of employment to get them out of bed in the morning they don't have reason to do much. Some people are fine sitting around doing nothing, but not everyone is.

 

Hard is fine if you possess the skills/determination to work around it, but most people now do not. Many of my grandparents and great grandparents worked the land and hunted for food during the depression, that's why they survived; Those skills are now considered to be for 'rednecks' and 'trailer trash' in the current world. Beyond that, Instagram influencers don't do them so the Tide Pod eaters won't learn them anyway. It's just a fact that a much lower percentage of people right now could survive if they couldn't buy food from a store, compared to the people living in the 1930's. No importance has been put into passing those skills on or learning them because society has more-or-less decided that modern people don't need to learn them.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

The world isn't going to provide anything if there's no distribution means and no money. In a world based on global trade, without currency and the logistics to distribute goods/food, the system doesn't work.

That's just saying that "doing nothing" won't work, but that's obvious. That's why no one is just "doing nothing".

Currency, on the other hand, is not an issue. We can always have as much as we need, no more, no less. The thing is that currency it's just a tool. For an individual, a dollar bill means much, but from the aggregate perspective we are discussing, it's a nuisance. And it's not a limiting factor.

 

2 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

Outside of the tech sector, where the systems were already integrated to allow offsite work, it's not really feasible. Too many people work in non-essential retail, restaurants, service-industry jobs, and other in-person jobs

Any way you look at it, many people are still working, but more important: the really important goods and services, and even many not-so-important, continue to be produced as we speak. We can't suffer the consequences of what's not happening, and a total disruption in production is not taking place nor expected to happen.

Yes, many people work in in-person jobs, but those are on the distribution part of the chain, it doesn't change the availability of products and therefore the ability to consume. It's just a matter of allowing the product to reach those temporarily without income, which won't happen on its own but it's perfectly feasible through public policy. 

2 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

to ignore that gaping hole in the economy and the amount of "stimulus"

I think you missed the point: stimulus is not what we need.

 

2 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

People that don't have access to food and shelter, whether that's from a lack of availability or from a lack of money to purchase it. There are too many people to support if this continues for a long term, so the support will eventually run out.

I don't know how long you think this is going to last, nor how bad "this" means (as I mentioned, by the end of this year we expect to do 97% as much as we did last year), but the only variable that matters is production. If we can produce, we can consume. The rest is logistics and technical details.

 

2 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

I don't think many people would survive a 10 year depression, not these days;

I don't think many people would survive a Black Death episode either. Luckily, we're not looking at either of those scenarios.

It may be worth to have a look at some of our best estimates (which, as any honest estimate, have a degree of uncertainty) on what the current situation looks like and plausible scenarios for the future, as well as the potential risks that could make things worse than expected:

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2020/04/14/weo-april-2020

 

2 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

Humans need things to aspire to, even if it's that lofty goal of making lots of money. UBI and that type of economy where robots/AI do most everything ignores that part of human psychology. Greed and the desire to be more than someone else have driven us to move away from caves and into an age where all the world's knowledge can be accessed on a handheld device.

I think you missed the "B" in UBI: people wanting more is exactly why something like UBI is not as much of a game-changer as people think. I wish we were heading to automation utopia, but that's far from happening any time soon, and a UBI programs is just a form of social insurance. I would say it is even more compatible with the "psychological aspect" you mention than, for example, Unemployment Insurance (UI), since UI payments "competes" with salaries (you stop receiving UI if you accept a job, which makes you choose between money for nothing for a little while vs. having to work for money+some better future prospects), while UBI is independent of employment status, meaning anyone desiring more can work for UBI+something as opposed to not doing so and being limited to UBI.

 

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

People will always have  purpose. 

I would argue that having a job is one of the most stupid purposes indeed, since without the need for one you can always do the same you would in it, if you happen to like it that much, but in your own terms  

[mr moose]

Just now, atxcyclist said:

Some people don't have the skills to do anything but work a dangerous or rudimentary job, and without the drive of employment to get them out of bed in the morning they don't have reason to do much. Some people are fine sitting around doing nothing, but not everyone is.

 

Are you seriously trying to argue that people are only capable of learning one job?  and if it fails for whatever reason that's it, it's over they are going to starve and have nothing?

 

Just now, atxcyclist said:

Hard is fine if you possess the skills/determination to work around it, but most people now do not.

Bollocks, and the links I provided earlier prove that,  suicides went up only.  If what you are saying was true and people couldn't cope then you would have seen a the mortality rate go up not down.

Just now, atxcyclist said:

Many of my grandparents and great grandparents worked the land and hunted for food during the depression, that's why they survived; Those skills are now considered to be for 'rednecks' and 'trailer trash' in the current world. Beyond that, Instagram influencers don't do them so the Tide Pod eaters won't learn them anyway. It's just a fact that a much lower percentage of people right now could survive if they couldn't buy food from a store, compared to the people living in the 1930's. No importance has been put into passing those skills on or learning them because society has more-or-less decided that modern people don't need to learn them.

You have a sad deficit view of people.  Having worked with many people of decades (some of which were told they'd never work) I can assure you people have a lot more fight  and resilience than you give them credit for.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, atxcyclist said:

Some people don't have the skills to do anything but work a dangerous or rudimentary job, and without the drive of employment to get them out of bed in the morning they don't have reason to do much. Some people are fine sitting around doing nothing, but not everyone is.

 

Hard is fine if you possess the skills/determination to work around it, but most people now do not. Many of my grandparents and great grandparents worked the land and hunted for food during the depression, that's why they survived; Those skills are now considered to be for 'rednecks' and 'trailer trash' in the current world. Beyond that, Instagram influencers don't do them so the Tide Pod eaters won't learn them anyway. It's just a fact that a much lower percentage of people right now could survive if they couldn't buy food from a store, compared to the people living in the 1930's. No importance has been put into passing those skills on or learning them because society has more-or-less decided that modern people don't need to learn them.

This is the complication of universal basic income.  What percentage of people will simply live on it and do nothing like the wheat dole of Ancient Rome, and what percentage of people will use it to advance themselves and retrain.  It’s unknown.  Testing.  The history of the wheat dole is interesting.  It both was and wasn’t what killed Rome in that Rome kept invading other countries and living off them, partly because maintaining the wheat dole was expensive, but also for other reasons.  It created massive international animosity.  Some of that is documented in the Bible, but it was everywhere.  It cumulated in those people rebelling and sacking Rome several times.  Towards the end there weren’t enough people to give the wheat dole to.  

[atxcyclist]

On 4/16/2020 at 6:18 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

Bringing this discussion back to the real world and to COVID 19.  

 

Spoiler

 

The types of jobs we right now deem essential are in many case jobs are prime targets for automation.  Restocking shelves in a market, deliveries, driving people from place to place.  

 

There are already robots that do essentially the restocking task and they are used in big warehouses.  Delivery is a matter of a self driving car  and at least at first, people comming outside to meet it.  Along with a system to vend out that particular pizza or package of groceries. 

 

Making the pizza  there are certainly robots that can make and bake pizza.  There are fully automated burger resutrants.  

 

Self driving busses.. ones which would travel on specific trackways have existed forever but the self driving car phenomenon would do that.  In China and the UAE they have experimented with drone VTOL air taxi services.  

 

Even my job as a college professor.  To a great extent I can set up a course in such a way that the computers do the majority of the grading, and teaching and coaching.  Students prefer it in many ways since the computer can work with them more than one of us alone ever could.  This leaves to devise and administer a final cumulative project and an exam to see if they can apply what they have learned to the real world. 

 

Covid-19 is showing us just how unnecessary much of what we did before was.  

For one thing, for sure, most office jobs currently being done from home really should still be done from home.  Why have an electric car which cost $$$$ when with a good computer (or two) and a good high speed internet line you can telecommute for work or for play?    Maybe this will lead to people living and working online then getting off line to walk around their neighborhood or such.  All with a 5G link to keep in touch if they want.    This is the future  things will be different.  

 

Indeed 9/11 and covid-19 have together defined what this new millennium will be like.  Peace punctuated with horrific acts.  Disease that leads to economic downturns instead of mass die offs.  Further use of technology and fewer and fewer people needing to toil just to be able to eat. 

 

 

Quite honestly, that all sounds rather terrible. Telecommuting only works when it works, and having done it now for weeks I can say that I do not enjoy it as much as going to my job where I have my workspace, and coming home to my own personal space. The commute is great too, I get some time outside at the beginning and the end of the day, on my motorcycle which isn't self-driving and I prefer it that way. I cannot think of a worse fate than not being able to enjoy things because they've all been automated or the humanity has been taken out of them.

 

I turned 18 a few months after 9/11, covid19 is bad but thinking you'd be drafted to go be buried in a desert somewhere was pretty unappealing. Since that didn't happen I at least got to see my friends outside though, which is not allowed right now.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by LogicalDrm
Added spoiler

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I would argue that having a job is one of the most stupid purposes indeed, since without the need for one you can always do the same you would in it, if you happen to like it that much, but in your own terms  

Propose and meaning comes from providing not earning, it comes from knowing that you are looking after someone else by doing something, by carrying your own weight.  This is something I generally hear from a lot of Americans, they refer to peoples value not by the opinions they speak, not by the size of their house or their income, but by how hard they work and how honest they are in the community.  As an outsider looking into America I can see that many people have no qualms giving to people who try but they hate the idea of ongoing dole and free health.  Why is that?  because they can see the ones who are still trying are the ones who are carrying their load as best they can, they are not selfish, it's not about me me me, it's a trait that many see high value in.  That is why doing your bit for your family, community and larger society gives you meaning and value.  Working is just a means to an end.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

This is the complication of universal basic income.  What percentage of people will simply live on it and do nothing like the wheat dole of Ancient Rome, and what percentage of people will use it to advance themselves and retrain.  It’s unknown.  Testing.  The history of the wheat dole is interesting.  It both was and wasn’t what killed Rome in that Rome kept invading other countries and living off them, partly because maintaining the wheat dole was expensive, but also for other reasons.  It created massive international animosity.  Some of that is documented in the Bible, but it was everywhere.  It cumulated in those people rebelling and sacking Rome several times.  Towards the end there weren’t enough people to give the wheat dole to.  

My understanding of basic universal income (or one version of it) is that if you work you get the basic universal wage.  It is not a payment you get when you aren't working but a payment you get for working regardless of the job.   The idea being that no matter your job you can afford all the necessities of life (which today include a flats screen tv and netflix sub).  It is something we are going to have to consider more seriously moving forward, the future will not have enough higher income jobs to sustain the population and economy as it grows.  Hence the need for a  dramatic shift in wealth distribution.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

My understanding of basic universal income (or one version of it) is that if you work you get the basic universal wage.  It is not a payment you get when you aren't working but a payment you get for working regardless of the job.   The idea being that no matter your job you can afford all the necessities of life (which today include a flats screen tv and netflix sub).  It is something we are going to have to consider more seriously moving forward, the future will not have enough higher income jobs to sustain the population and economy as it grows.  Hence the need for a  dramatic shift in wealth distribution.

So multiple versions.  Each of which need to be tested.  I agree that there is a gigantic problem with wealth distribution at the moment.  It’s worse now than it has been in modern history.  A lot of people don’t understand the incredibly huge difference between being merely rich and really rich.  A billion is a thousand million.  There are mere millionaires who think they are in the upper crust.  They aren’t.  

[Taf the Ghost]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

My understanding of basic universal income (or one version of it) is that if you work you get the basic universal wage.  It is not a payment you get when you aren't working but a payment you get for working regardless of the job.   The idea being that no matter your job you can afford all the necessities of life (which today include a flats screen tv and netflix sub).  It is something we are going to have to consider more seriously moving forward, the future will not have enough higher income jobs to sustain the population and economy as it grows.  Hence the need for a  dramatic shift in wealth distribution.

I'm not sure how a Virus thread got over into terrible theories on economics, but the answer to most of this discussion is literally "end most immigration". You'll understand the lack of higher paying jobs when you realize the point of large scale immigration is mostly to drive wages down. That quality doesn't instantly drop is the only reason the executives can avoid that reality. Most of the "AI will eliminate X jobs" has already been disproven, along with the fact humans will retrain themselves. Modern economies also have a significant reserve of Net Jobs that could be lost without much issue given 2-Earner Households with Children, if wages were higher. The 2-Wage Household, in the USA, is the result of the large immigration wave starting after 1965. 

 

Also, populations will self-regulate to the environment. The normal discussion point is Japan, but it applies to practically everywhere that isn't getting massive shipments of free food: the societies will shrink their numbers because humans have group adaptability at mass scale. It's why populations decline after empires collapse or a large city is no longer viable in a location. There were large cities with >100k population stretching back thousands of years. Many of them no longer exist because of environmental changes, mostly. 

 

Back to Virus discussion, looks the State of Washington is about wrapped up on its outbreak. https://www.doh.wa.gov/emergencies/coronavirus Second Data tab for the New Cases chart. So we're still on track for the last week of April to see a State that was a hotspot unwind the restrictions. Granted, the big issue for a while is Travel between locations is an issue, especially given a few places are only now starting to peak. Everyone is suddenly going to be really suspicious of people from out of the area for the rest of the year, which is a very human response.

 

As a reminder, it's really public restrooms, eating locations and door handles that are the worrisome infection vectors. Starting to see why gloves are historically so popular.

[mr moose]

On 4/16/2020 at 7:34 AM, Taf the Ghost said:

I'm not sure how a Virus thread got over into terrible theories on economics, but the answer to most of this discussion is literally "end most immigration".

Spoiler

 

You'll understand the lack of higher paying jobs when you realize the point of large scale immigration is mostly to drive wages down. That quality doesn't instantly drop is the only reason the executives can avoid that reality. Most of the "AI will eliminate X jobs" has already been disproven, along with the fact humans will retrain themselves. Modern economies also have a significant reserve of Net Jobs that could be lost without much issue given 2-Earner Households with Children, if wages were higher. The 2-Wage Household, in the USA, is the result of the large immigration wave starting after 1965. 

 

Also, populations will self-regulate to the environment. The normal discussion point is Japan, but it applies to practically everywhere that isn't getting massive shipments of free food: the societies will shrink their numbers because humans have group adaptability at mass scale. It's why populations decline after empires collapse or a large city is no longer viable in a location. There were large cities with >100k population stretching back thousands of years. Many of them no longer exist because of environmental changes, mostly. 

 

Back to Virus discussion, looks the State of Washington is about wrapped up on its outbreak. https://www.doh.wa.gov/emergencies/coronavirus Second Data tab for the New Cases chart. So we're still on track for the last week of April to see a State that was a hotspot unwind the restrictions. Granted, the big issue for a while is Travel between locations is an issue, especially given a few places are only now starting to peak. Everyone is suddenly going to be really suspicious of people from out of the area for the rest of the year, which is a very human response.

 

As a reminder, it's really public restrooms, eating locations and door handles that are the worrisome infection vectors. Starting to see why gloves are historically so popular.

 

 

Now it's into terrible theories about immigration.

Edited April 21, 2020 by LogicalDrm
Added spoiler

[atxcyclist]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

Are you seriously trying to argue that people are only capable of learning one job?  and if it fails for whatever reason that's it, it's over they are going to starve and have nothing?

 

Bollocks, and the links I provided earlier prove that,  suicides went up only.  If what you are saying was true and people couldn't cope then you would have seen a the mortality rate go up not down.

You have a sad deficit view of people.  Having worked with many people of decades (some of which were told they'd never work) I can assure you people have a lot more fight  and resilience than you give them credit for.

 

 

Not everyone has the aptitude for more than a rudimentary job or can be trained to do something more difficult than swing an ax or bag groceries. I have met these people, and I have at times worked with these people. They will either be a leech on society or they can work a menial/rudimentary job, some circumstance has put them at that level of capability.

 

Different time and different society. Those people in the 1930's knew how to be self-supporting because life required it, many people now don't. Many otherwise capable people don't learn to drive a manual transmission these days because they don't have to, there's an automatic option readily available, or they'll take public transport and forget driving all-together. In the same way, many people don't learn to hunt/fish or work land, because there's a store to buy things so it's not required of them; They've become reliant on the conveniences of the modern world and don't know how to survive otherwise. Any economic depression caused by covid19 will result in significant problems in society, especially since people will be ordered to stay away from each-other so bartering won't really work. Many people completely ignorant of the skills and knowledge to provide for themselves, will not make it if supply chains break down and they cannot go to a store for food; It will be chaos.

[kaiju_wars]

So my state decided to continue keeping certain non essential businesses closed till the 30th.  

 

Quote

Burgum today signed an amended executive order that extends closures for an additional 10 days for businesses including recreational facilities, health clubs and athletic facilities; theaters, including movie theaters and music/entertainment venues; bars and restaurants except for take-out, delivery, curbside and drive-through; licensed cosmetologists, including salons and barber shops; and personal care services including tattoo parlors, tanning and massage facilities. 

So basically if you don't serve/sell food or medicine, or certain retail goods, you're staying closed.

 

Quote

Burgum noted the extension of closures through April 30 aligns with the President’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America, known as “30 Days to Slow the Spread,” which were released March 31.

It's something.

 

Quote

The governor outlined what needs to be in place to have a graduated reopening process past April 30:

 

• Robust, widespread rapid testing capacity
• Robust contact tracing and infrastructure
• Targeted, effective quarantine
• Protections for the state’s most vulnerable populations
• Sufficient health care capacity, hospital/ICU beds
• Adequate PPE availability for the health care system and public
• New standard operating procedures for reopening
• Plans for dealing with a resurgence or additional waves of COVID-19.

I'm hoping this means we'll only start reopening shit after we've met all these bullet points, but closures are extended if we don't.

 

Here's the article if anyone cares about my tiny state.

https://ndresponse.gov/news/burgum-extends-business-restrictions-10-days-outlines-path-forward-reopening

 

Also here's the full press conference from the 15th.  

 

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

Not everyone has the aptitude for more than a rudimentary job or can be trained to do something more difficult than swing an ax or bag groceries. I have met these people, and I have at times worked with these people. They will either be a leech on society or they can work a menial/rudimentary job, some circumstance has put them at that level of capability.

You severely underestimate the average person.  Maybe less than 10% of the population can't be gainfully employed for a variety of reasons, but they have always been that way.  The rest can and often do have multiple jobs.

 

Quote

Different time and different society. Those people in the 1930's knew how to be self-supporting because life required it, many people now don't. Many otherwise capable people don't learn to drive a manual transmission these days because they don't have to, there's an automatic option readily available, or they'll take public transport and forget driving all-together. In the same way, many people don't learn to hunt/fish or work land, because there's a store to buy things so it's not required of them; They've become reliant on the conveniences of the modern world and don't know how to survive otherwise. Any economic depression caused by covid19 will result in significant problems in society, especially since people will be ordered to stay away from each-other so bartering won't really work. Many people completely ignorant of the skills and knowledge to provide for themselves, will not make it if supply chains break down and they cannot go to a store for food; It will be chaos.

 

People are just as capable now as they were then.   Your estimation of human endeavour and fortitude is sad. 

 

 

EDIT: for the record, one of the main parts of my existence for the last tens years has been building people up, helping them to overcome disabilities/descrimination and become contributing members of society.    Many of the people I work with get written off, most of them can hold a job and hold more than 1 Job.  If you think the majority of the workforce are at that level of functioning or worse then you are either intentionally not looking or just don't want to accept your earlier claims were most likely inaccurate.  Most people are capable of learning a new job, in fact it would be significantly rarer to know someone who can't learn a second career rather than someone who can.

[PhantomJaguarr]

Quote

What does this mean for immunity in California?

We’re not “immune” in California, because we’re already starting to get antibody tests, and we don’t have a high rate of antibody prevalence in just the few tests that have been run. In the coming weeks, we plan to use our own Stanford tests to look at antibody levels, and we’re just not going to see very high levels. As devastating as this epidemic is, around the world we estimate that about 5% or less of people have actually been infected.

 

So how do we move forward?

With a disease like this, you probably need somewhere on the order of 60% or more people to have immunity in order to prevent an epidemic. Right now, if we’re at less than 5%; you would need at least ten- to twelve-fold that level. The only way to get there is to vaccinate people or else have horrific transmissions, and we can’t do the latter. So we’re going to have to continue some social distancing efforts.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/california-coronavirus-herd-immunity-early-spread-stanford-expert-interview

[atxcyclist]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

People are just as capable now as they were then.   Your estimation of human endeavour and fortitude is sad. 

 

Many people honestly couldn't survive without a store to buy food. Optimism is great, but it's quite obvious that people are not as capable in these regards as they were 90 years ago, why would they be? You cannot expect someone that's been able to walk into a store and buy food all their life, and never learned how to live off the land, to be able to do so effectively and especially under the duress of a pandemic. I'm not saying people like that are bad, they're just ignorant and have probably never had to consider the situation they may be facing. The good news is that ignorance is something that can be worked-on by learning, and they might want to at this point.

[Falkentyne]

34 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

 

Many people honestly couldn't survive without a store to buy food. Optimism is great, but it's quite obvious that people are not as capable in these regards as they were 90 years ago, why would they be? You cannot expect someone that's been able to walk into a store and buy food all their life, and never learned how to live off the land, to be able to do so effectively and especially under the duress of a pandemic. I'm not saying people like that are bad, they're just ignorant and have probably never had to consider the situation they may be facing. The good news is that ignorance is something that can be worked-on by learning, and they might want to at this point.

Your comment is depressing and makes absolutely NO logical sense.

How are people supposed to live off the land if there is no land for them to live off of ?  Do you you expect everyone to turn their back yards into gardens and get livestock and start farming?  Not everyone lives on a ranch or a mansion sized plot of land.  For most people they are going to be lucky to have a small flower patch to plant a few tomatoes or something.  And maybe they can get an orange or apple tree planted in their back yard.  IF they have a back yard...And what about the people who rent rooms or apartments?  Or even townhouses?  What land do they farm?

 

Society evolves.  You completely forgot about the exploitation of Native Americans and the conquest of their land.  You completely forgot about the slave trade.  Indentured servants.  Not everyone did their own work back in your so-called "Good old days."  Some did.  Many others FORCED others to do the work for them and profited off it.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, atxcyclist said:

 

Many people honestly couldn't survive without a store to buy food. Optimism is great, but it's quite obvious that people are not as capable in these regards as they were 90 years ago, why would they be? You cannot expect someone that's been able to walk into a store and buy food all their life, and never learned how to live off the land, to be able to do so effectively and especially under the duress of a pandemic. I'm not saying people like that are bad, they're just ignorant and have probably never had to consider the situation they may be facing. The good news is that ignorance is something that can be worked-on by learning, and they might want to at this point.

You do realise that as a society we haven't "lived off the land" for thousands of years, right? Farming has been around since before the bible was supposedly written (there's evidence of Snail farming dating back to the Iron Age or 1200bc), domestication has been happening for just as long and shops/markets selling food to people who didn't know how to grow/make it followed farming. Farming & baking (bread especially) are 2 of the oldest jobs in existence.

 

To go back to a time when everybody lived off the land you'd be going back to the caveman era.

[atxcyclist]

20 minutes ago, Falkentyne said:

Your comment is depressing and makes absolutely NO logical sense.

How are people supposed to live off the land if there is no land for them to live off of ?  Do you you expect everyone to turn their back yards into gardens and get livestock and start farming?  Not everyone lives on a ranch or a mansion sized plot of land.  For most people they are going to be lucky to have a small flower patch to plant a few tomatoes or something.  And maybe they can get an orange or apple tree planted in their back yard.  IF they have a back yard...And what about the people who rent rooms or apartments?  Or even townhouses?  What land do they farm?

 

Society evolves.  You completely forgot about the exploitation of Native Americans and the conquest of their land.  You completely forgot about the slave trade.  Indentured servants.  Not everyone did their own work back in your so-called "Good old days."  Some did.  Many others FORCED others to do the work for them and profited off it.

 

Since there’s no parks or lawns anywhere to farm, nor could they hunt/trap or fish in the wilderness areas around them, that’d be impossible. Oh wait, if they learned how they could do all of that on available land around them. I’m saying people should learn how, if they did they’d figure out what area to use for these tasks.

 

Society is going to have to take a few steps back if there’s a huge economic depression, evolved or not it will be necessary.

 

As for the rest of your second paragraph, chill. That’s quite a lot of undue assumptions you’re making of me. Just to clarify here I’m talking about the 1930’s, not the 1860’s, and why do you think I forgot any of that? Why are you turning this into your soapbox?

 

[atxcyclist]

15 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

You do realise that as a society we haven't "lived off the land" for thousands of years, right? Farming has been around since before the bible was supposedly written, domestication has been happening for just as long and shops selling food to people who didn't know how to grow it followed farming. Farming & baking (bread especially) are 2 of the oldest jobs in existence.

 

To go back to a time when everybody lived off the land you'd be going back to the caveman era.

There were enclaves of people in rural communities that produced nearly everything they needed to survive locally  just some decades ago, in the United States even, so I’m not sure why that’s not considered living off the land in your eyes. Maybe you’re Insisting I use the phrase ”farm to table” or something like that?

 

It’s not buying packaged food at the store, which is clearly what I was getting at. In a covid19 depression people might have to use the approach of small farms and small community distribution of food if supply lines go away.

[Master Disaster]

4 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

 

Since there’s no parks or lawns anywhere to farm, nor could they hunt/trap or fish in the wilderness areas around them, that’d be impossible. Oh wait, if they learned how they could do all of that on available land around them. I’m saying people should learn how, if they did they’d figure out what area to use for these tasks.

 

Society is going to have to take a few steps back if there’s a huge economic depression, evolved or not it will be necessary.

 

As for the rest of your second paragraph, chill. That’s quite a lot of undue assumptions you’re making of me. Just to clarify here I’m talking about the 1930’s, not the 1860’s, and why do you think I forgot any of that? Why are you turning this into your soapbox?

 

Oh boy....

 

The reason people starved in the GD is not because all of a sudden shops stopped selling food (though there were definitely food shortages happening). It was because people had no money to buy food and people who have no money to buy food also have no money to grow food either. Land isn't free, seeds aren't free, water isn't free plus the people who were so broke they literally couldn't afford to buy themselves a loaf would have been homeless and no home means no way of storing or cooking anything.

 

There probably was a rise in people growing more food at home during the GD but that only helps the people who can afford to keep a home in the first place.