I happen to entirely agree with you, but the counterargument is that a treatment (not vaccine) becomes available earlier which makes the incidence of actual lasting damage from wuflu so low as to not warrant any more shutdown.
There's likely to be a teary-eyed politician who goes up in front of Congress as unemployment benefits end and insists they be renewed because it's almost Christmas and how heartless must you be to take food out of an orphans mouth during the holiday season yada yada
I live in Boston and drive every day still. This is anecdotal - but I've seen the same amount of bad driving as ever (largely around merging, roundabouts, and turn signal usage) but now it's at a significantly higher speed because on I-95 and I-93 you can easily hit 85 mph instead of the customary 45 mph the whole way during rush hour.
I don't have any data, but I imagine that explains the similar serious accident rate.
>In 3 weeks I assume they re-assess and could very well leave restrictions in place
I had assumed that as well. No reason things will look better by then, and the preventative measures taken in that time probably won't sufficient enough to otherwise resume normal life either.
Also, the cynic in me says that the government class wants to get people used to the idea of a shelter in place piecemeal, because it might not go over as well if they said 1 month straight out of the gate.
Love the quotes on this. Those individuals you're asking are guaranteed to be risk averse from a game theory perspective, rightly or wrongly (probably rightly here).
Don't just call, get it in writing if you're in the USA. At the very least record that call if it's legal to do so in your state, but that's problematic for other reasons.
When the hospital decides after the fact to bill you thousands of dollars you won't have much of a recourse besides telling your family members to ignore the calls from aggressive medical collection agencies at 3am.
This is incorrect, it was somewhere during/after the 2008 recession that these circuit breakers went into effect (because I remember they didn't exist at that time)
I'm not defending the US healthcare system, which is deeply broken, but the particular statistic on infant morality rate can be deceiving. For example:
"...very low-birth-weight infants who are at high risk of dying within the first day tend to be counted as live births. In countries where the health care system does not place the same emphasis on neonatal intensive care, the outcomes of such pregnancies are not likely to be recorded as live births. Hence, it appears that the more resources a country's health care system places on saving high-risk newborns, the more likely its registration will report a higher IMR" [0]
> 7. California housing market will collapse due to high electricity prices, lack of electricity and wildfires
Hope you're right about the CA housing market coming down, but I think more likely is just that Gavin Newsom and ilk get booted out for their failures to reign in PG&E and housing prices aren't particularly effected one way or the other.
Wildfires are generally not in the densely populated areas, so I don't think they'll move the needle much.
Netflix doesn't quite belong with the others but FAAG is a more problematic acronym and FAAMG isn't pronounceable.
I've also seen GANDALF (google amazon netflix dropbox amazon linkedin facebook), but dropbox probably doesn't belong in that list. There's plenty of backronyms, but one ends up just hitting critical mass.
>Google is typically very lenient on harmless offences
I know somehow who got fired from Google for taking a half gallon on milk home, because it was late and he didn't feel like swinging by the grocery store.
True. Typically property taxes are to fund things at a local level though, and not sent back to the federal government for massive programs.
My biggest issue with a wealth tax on the super-wealthy is that it would quickly morph into a wealth tax on everyone above lower-middle class.
Old article but the numbers have scaled proportionately...
"If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode." [0]
I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the common refrain yes.