Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
DWCAP
Participant[quote=zk]
A vaccine is unlikely to work? Where are you getting that from?[/quote]
Google it. This is from end of April, but I think most of the concerns are still valid. It isn’t like we have not been trying to make a Coronavirus vaccine before.
“We’ve tried getting vaccines for coronaviruses before, particularly SARS and MERS. We just haven’t done it yet. We think this is going to be a hard effort.”
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/story/2020-06-06/race-for-vaccine
ParticipantActually SARS-1 virus in 2003 had anti-body immunity measured at about ~24months. Most flu virus’s immunity only lasts about 8 months. The human body SUCKS at remembering COVID type virus’s, and yes, you can get both the flu (and prob) COVID-19 repeatedly. I have no idea where people get the idea this is a one and done virus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/
My feeling is that we will all have an experience with COVID-19. Most of us (esp under the age of 60) will get it, have no idea, and be done with it. This will be repeated bi-annually (24-36 months) unless the virus mutates away from us (if ever).
Every year a few will get sick, and a even smaller number need hospitalization. We already have a MUCH MUCH better idea how to treat this disease (notice no one talks about ventilators anymore, they were a mistake). A very small number of people, overwhelmingly over 65, will die of it. Some people may be able to hold out for a vaccine, maybe, but I doubt it’ll be more than 50-60% effective, will last more than 1-2 years (so you’ll get it annually) and will have other side effects that will mean some people shouldn’t be taking it. Even if there is a great vaccine, it will be like the measles, hiding just out of sight and constantly flaring up when people get dumb and don’t vaccinate.
The reality is everyone’s life expectancy just got alittle bit shorter and we as a country need to realize this and deal with it. This is why we have the WHO and normal health protocols where we praise Dr’s for finding these things early, not arrest them. The time to stop a disease like this is when it is first discovered. China blew that one and everyone pays for it.ParticipantI would just like to point out a few key details here. This isn’t a ‘no beds for you level’ of crisis.
1) Many ICU’s run in the low to mid 90’s% full at any given time, even pre-Covid. So, 85-95% ICU beds taken is “normal”.
2) Of the ICU patients in hospital right now in Riverside, 28% are due to COVID-19. All Hospital beds are only 63% occupied right now, so alot of beds can be expanded, and non-critical surgeries and medical care can be delayed again to free up more beds. Remember, if 28% of ICU patients are COVID, than 72% of beds are not COVID. These turn over quickly.
3) San Bernadino County has only 82% of beds taken, which is actually rather low.
Surgeries can be moved or delayed. ICU beds turn over daily. There is more than 1 hospital “nearby”. There are beds available if needed.
March 29, 2019 at 1:07 PM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #812211ParticipantWhat FLU refers to as old timers were a group of people with similar observations but differing opinions. Many of whom have shared the little ups and downs life throws at all of us, health, family, etc. I was proud to be a part of it. We were a community and I’m thinking of getting a MPGA hat, because I want to make piggington great again. I think the hat should be gray, because we don’t represent a political ideology, we were just geeks who figured out the great recession before it happened.
TG,
I moved to San Diego in 2006 and couldn’t figure out what was going on with Housing/economy. I was a relatively well off young guy, but couldn’t afford squat using ‘good valuation tools’. My basic college economic classes taught me everything was all wrong. Finding piggington was like finding friends in a new town when you had none. Sure there were a few you never ‘got’; but it was still a great breath of fresh air to find people who didn’t buy the ‘housing will go straight up 20%/year forever’ lie, and had the data to prove it. AND then we would have the happy hours and I really liked the people I met. and to see so many people who sat out the worst of the market rise get to buy in the resulting fall was great. To see peoples solid choices rewarded made me really happy. I moved away in 2010 (bought my house in Santa Barbara in 2011), but I still come back to read from time to time. I am glad you and flu and the rest are still here.
March 20, 2013 at 4:36 PM in reply to: I’m now officially Small Government on Police Funding #760783ParticipantI dont live in SD anymore, but I totally agree with the OP. In the space of about a year I had two run-ins with SDPD. In one, I got a speeding ticket when litterally going around a turn where the speed limit dropped from 35 to 25. I got hit up for 30mph, and the cop told me flat out “I know you were slowing, but you need to be at the posted speed limit when you pass the sign.” Open street, no one on it, car slowing in a controlled manor not slamming on breaks or going well below speed limit in the 35mph zone. TICKET HIM……
Year later my house house got broken into. Laptops, TV, $ all stolen. This was a smash and grab opperation where they broke our window. My roommate at the time found his laptop on Craigslist (ID’d by his navy stickers, USS Salt Lake City if I remember right, that they dont make anymore). He called the officer incharge, and she told him flat out to call the number, buy the laptop back, ID it positivly by a serial number or something and then she would do something about it. So we are suppose to run our own stings now too.
Thanks for nothing SDPD.
ParticipantIt is my understanding both AJ and Norv are out as of today. Finally!
Participantplus, the number I see are more like 4 trillion dollars for public pensions. That is no insect bite!
http://www.economist.com/node/17248984?story_id=17248984
(and to add the the public pensions would be illegal in private sector…)
Private-sector companies are no longer allowed to use assumed returns when calculating their pension-fund liabilities on their balance-sheets. They have to use corporate-bond yields. The contrast makes it appear as if public-sector pensions can be delivered on the cheap. “The accounting suggests that governments can provide pension benefits at half the cost of a private-sector fund,” says Mr Biggs
( Or that the stock market crash isnt the overriding problem of public pensions)
21 states failed to make their full contribution to their pension funds over the past five years, according to Eileen Norcross of George Mason University in Washington, DC.
Participantplus, the number I see are more like 4 trillion dollars for public pensions. That is no insect bite!
http://www.economist.com/node/17248984?story_id=17248984
(and to add the the public pensions would be illegal in private sector…)
Private-sector companies are no longer allowed to use assumed returns when calculating their pension-fund liabilities on their balance-sheets. They have to use corporate-bond yields. The contrast makes it appear as if public-sector pensions can be delivered on the cheap. “The accounting suggests that governments can provide pension benefits at half the cost of a private-sector fund,” says Mr Biggs
( Or that the stock market crash isnt the overriding problem of public pensions)
21 states failed to make their full contribution to their pension funds over the past five years, according to Eileen Norcross of George Mason University in Washington, DC.
Participantplus, the number I see are more like 4 trillion dollars for public pensions. That is no insect bite!
http://www.economist.com/node/17248984?story_id=17248984
(and to add the the public pensions would be illegal in private sector…)
Private-sector companies are no longer allowed to use assumed returns when calculating their pension-fund liabilities on their balance-sheets. They have to use corporate-bond yields. The contrast makes it appear as if public-sector pensions can be delivered on the cheap. “The accounting suggests that governments can provide pension benefits at half the cost of a private-sector fund,” says Mr Biggs
( Or that the stock market crash isnt the overriding problem of public pensions)
21 states failed to make their full contribution to their pension funds over the past five years, according to Eileen Norcross of George Mason University in Washington, DC.
Participantplus, the number I see are more like 4 trillion dollars for public pensions. That is no insect bite!
http://www.economist.com/node/17248984?story_id=17248984
(and to add the the public pensions would be illegal in private sector…)
Private-sector companies are no longer allowed to use assumed returns when calculating their pension-fund liabilities on their balance-sheets. They have to use corporate-bond yields. The contrast makes it appear as if public-sector pensions can be delivered on the cheap. “The accounting suggests that governments can provide pension benefits at half the cost of a private-sector fund,” says Mr Biggs
( Or that the stock market crash isnt the overriding problem of public pensions)
21 states failed to make their full contribution to their pension funds over the past five years, according to Eileen Norcross of George Mason University in Washington, DC.
Participantplus, the number I see are more like 4 trillion dollars for public pensions. That is no insect bite!
http://www.economist.com/node/17248984?story_id=17248984
(and to add the the public pensions would be illegal in private sector…)
Private-sector companies are no longer allowed to use assumed returns when calculating their pension-fund liabilities on their balance-sheets. They have to use corporate-bond yields. The contrast makes it appear as if public-sector pensions can be delivered on the cheap. “The accounting suggests that governments can provide pension benefits at half the cost of a private-sector fund,” says Mr Biggs
( Or that the stock market crash isnt the overriding problem of public pensions)
21 states failed to make their full contribution to their pension funds over the past five years, according to Eileen Norcross of George Mason University in Washington, DC.
Participant(Brian, you’re arguing a claim that was never made. The claim was that the financial crash is the primary cause of the pension crisis. This is fact. It is inarguable. If not but for the financial crash, there would be no pension crisis. The end.)
I disagree. The pension crisis was the result of piss poor decision making on the part of city hall and the people elected to run the pensions.
Investments go up and down, this is investing. Risk is what gives return, and risk involves the possiblity of loss.When times were up, benifits got raised without raising contributions, something that was very popular. Problem was, then times came down, and $$ was needed to make up for the increases. Rather than paying the $$, which would be unpopular because taxes would go up or services down, city hall severly underfunded the pension, and since they needed the union blessing to do so, bought off the unions with even more increases (future increases also not paid for), which the unions happly went along with. Well the bill came due when overly optimistic return assumptions didnt pan out. But rather than admit the fact, and make hard decisions, the penisons went swimming in subprime and CDO crap (adding risk) to goose returns. The bet failed in 2008 and now the question is “who pays?”
Both of the above quotes seem to completly miss the role of the public employees in this process. As if Wall Street has been the one and only bad guy in the whole thing. The unions sit on the pension boards, they spend alot of money and work very hard to get politicans elected. THey pay lots of money to consultants and managers, they are not ignorant investors. The unions went along and agreed with everything. They are the only ones who voted directly (tax payers only vote for their represinives, not on the increases itself)on the increases that took the system down. Their culpability in every step is in no way less than anyone on Wall Street.
As for public fervor, part of it is the percived “unfairness” of the situtation. The “if I cant have it you cant either”. But part of it is the real unfairness. I have family that spend their careers setting up private pensions, and what public employees have would be flat out ILLEGAL in the private sector. Private pensions generally count 3-5 years of last salary, not the 1 last year public servents get. Plus they dont get to “goose” their pensions with sick time accrued, or taking overtime, or that last second promotion they stay in for just long enough to qualify for higher payments (the whole point of 3-5 years). And if they ruin the system or the company goes under (which has happened to alot of companies like autos, airlines, etc etc) private workers get a penalty in greatly reduced benifits paid for by other pensioners, not tax payers. Public worker dont loose a dime.
Sure, part of the anger is misplaced from politicans to union workers, but part of the anger is rooted in the truth that public pensions ARE better (for the worker) than private retirment plans, and private workers have to pay for it.Participant(Brian, you’re arguing a claim that was never made. The claim was that the financial crash is the primary cause of the pension crisis. This is fact. It is inarguable. If not but for the financial crash, there would be no pension crisis. The end.)
I disagree. The pension crisis was the result of piss poor decision making on the part of city hall and the people elected to run the pensions.
Investments go up and down, this is investing. Risk is what gives return, and risk involves the possiblity of loss.When times were up, benifits got raised without raising contributions, something that was very popular. Problem was, then times came down, and $$ was needed to make up for the increases. Rather than paying the $$, which would be unpopular because taxes would go up or services down, city hall severly underfunded the pension, and since they needed the union blessing to do so, bought off the unions with even more increases (future increases also not paid for), which the unions happly went along with. Well the bill came due when overly optimistic return assumptions didnt pan out. But rather than admit the fact, and make hard decisions, the penisons went swimming in subprime and CDO crap (adding risk) to goose returns. The bet failed in 2008 and now the question is “who pays?”
Both of the above quotes seem to completly miss the role of the public employees in this process. As if Wall Street has been the one and only bad guy in the whole thing. The unions sit on the pension boards, they spend alot of money and work very hard to get politicans elected. THey pay lots of money to consultants and managers, they are not ignorant investors. The unions went along and agreed with everything. They are the only ones who voted directly (tax payers only vote for their represinives, not on the increases itself)on the increases that took the system down. Their culpability in every step is in no way less than anyone on Wall Street.
As for public fervor, part of it is the percived “unfairness” of the situtation. The “if I cant have it you cant either”. But part of it is the real unfairness. I have family that spend their careers setting up private pensions, and what public employees have would be flat out ILLEGAL in the private sector. Private pensions generally count 3-5 years of last salary, not the 1 last year public servents get. Plus they dont get to “goose” their pensions with sick time accrued, or taking overtime, or that last second promotion they stay in for just long enough to qualify for higher payments (the whole point of 3-5 years). And if they ruin the system or the company goes under (which has happened to alot of companies like autos, airlines, etc etc) private workers get a penalty in greatly reduced benifits paid for by other pensioners, not tax payers. Public worker dont loose a dime.
Sure, part of the anger is misplaced from politicans to union workers, but part of the anger is rooted in the truth that public pensions ARE better (for the worker) than private retirment plans, and private workers have to pay for it.Participant(Brian, you’re arguing a claim that was never made. The claim was that the financial crash is the primary cause of the pension crisis. This is fact. It is inarguable. If not but for the financial crash, there would be no pension crisis. The end.)
I disagree. The pension crisis was the result of piss poor decision making on the part of city hall and the people elected to run the pensions.
Investments go up and down, this is investing. Risk is what gives return, and risk involves the possiblity of loss.When times were up, benifits got raised without raising contributions, something that was very popular. Problem was, then times came down, and $$ was needed to make up for the increases. Rather than paying the $$, which would be unpopular because taxes would go up or services down, city hall severly underfunded the pension, and since they needed the union blessing to do so, bought off the unions with even more increases (future increases also not paid for), which the unions happly went along with. Well the bill came due when overly optimistic return assumptions didnt pan out. But rather than admit the fact, and make hard decisions, the penisons went swimming in subprime and CDO crap (adding risk) to goose returns. The bet failed in 2008 and now the question is “who pays?”
Both of the above quotes seem to completly miss the role of the public employees in this process. As if Wall Street has been the one and only bad guy in the whole thing. The unions sit on the pension boards, they spend alot of money and work very hard to get politicans elected. THey pay lots of money to consultants and managers, they are not ignorant investors. The unions went along and agreed with everything. They are the only ones who voted directly (tax payers only vote for their represinives, not on the increases itself)on the increases that took the system down. Their culpability in every step is in no way less than anyone on Wall Street.
As for public fervor, part of it is the percived “unfairness” of the situtation. The “if I cant have it you cant either”. But part of it is the real unfairness. I have family that spend their careers setting up private pensions, and what public employees have would be flat out ILLEGAL in the private sector. Private pensions generally count 3-5 years of last salary, not the 1 last year public servents get. Plus they dont get to “goose” their pensions with sick time accrued, or taking overtime, or that last second promotion they stay in for just long enough to qualify for higher payments (the whole point of 3-5 years). And if they ruin the system or the company goes under (which has happened to alot of companies like autos, airlines, etc etc) private workers get a penalty in greatly reduced benifits paid for by other pensioners, not tax payers. Public worker dont loose a dime.
Sure, part of the anger is misplaced from politicans to union workers, but part of the anger is rooted in the truth that public pensions ARE better (for the worker) than private retirment plans, and private workers have to pay for it. -
AuthorPosts