MookieMonstah Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, Xenos said: Posted this previously but apparently wearing masks and being outdoors were less of a problem than packing inside bars without masks. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/01/research-determines-protests-did-not-cause-spike-in-coronavirus-cases/amp/ Psh fake news man. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Xenos said: Posted this previously but apparently wearing masks and being outdoors were less of a problem than packing inside bars without masks. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/01/research-determines-protests-did-not-cause-spike-in-coronavirus-cases/amp/ sure, dont pack bars inside. Also, dont gather thousands and thousands of people outside. The two arent mutually exclusive. And while this is somewhat anecdotal, bars in Atlanta still arent and havent been packed inside. Almost all have limited indoor capacity, and the majority havent even allowed indoor service. And that had been going on for a month without an real increase in cases, well past the delay we expect to see with positive tests returning. So why this pop over the last two weeks, are we to believe its just coincidence that it coincides with mass gatherings of people. Not hundreds of people but literally thousands? Again, in no way am I commenting on the reason why gatherings took place, however to ignore what we know and just say "nah, its cool. Corona wont spread if people are there for a good reason". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 8 hours ago, candyman93 said: 9 hours ago, naptownskinsfan said: If too many people are evicted, then the property owners will have a severely limited pool of renters to choose from. They need to tread very carefully here. I’ve read the asinine notion that they believe people will always be moving and looking for places to live. Uh, not if their broke and don’t feel comfortable moving around during a pandemic chief. I'm several pages late so this may have already been said: this is a tricky situation. Most landlords have mortgages on their properties, and most are leveraged so much they depend on the income of the properties to pay those mortgages. So not only are the renters in trouble, but so are the landlords. It's not necessarily greed. They might be trying to avoid a foreclosure of their own. This is something I try to point out to people when they get into the rental property business. If you plan on leveraging then your financial well being is very tightly correlated to the renters you have. And you can't control them. If you own the property outright, that pressure is off. But that's a different topic. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: sure, dont pack bars inside. Also, dont gather thousands and thousands of people outside. The two arent mutually exclusive. And while this is somewhat anecdotal, bars in Atlanta still arent and havent been packed inside. Almost all have limited indoor capacity, and the majority havent even allowed indoor service. And that had been going on for a month without an real increase in cases, well past the delay we expect to see with positive tests returning. So why this pop over the last two weeks, are we to believe its just coincidence that it coincides with mass gatherings of people. Not hundreds of people but literally thousands? Again, in no way am I commenting on the reason why gatherings took place, however to ignore what we know and just say "nah, its cool. Corona wont spread if people are there for a good reason". Just like the earlier protests in the year, the recent ones had minimal effect on the spread. Edit: With regards time Atlanta, what did you think was going to happen when the state’s governor opened up as early as he did? It’s now catching up to him. He should be mandating masks at least this point if not earlier. Edited July 13, 2020 by Xenos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, Xenos said: Just like the earlier protests in the year, the recent ones had minimal effect on the spread. Edit: With regards time Atlanta, what did you think was going to happen when the state’s governor opened up as early as he did? It’s now catching up to him. He should be mandating masks at least this point if not earlier. firstly, your first statement isnt a fact. secondly, also not factual, but also not rooted in logic. or do you kow of something that says it takes 5 weeks to see the results from a pattern of behavior. hasnt most of whats been said say itd more like 7-10 day? ill answer that for you, yes, it has. for the fourteenth time, no, the gatherings arent the only cause. yes, huge gatherings of people very likely played a part. i dont know why thats controversial? actually i do know why, regardless how well the states that opened up where doing, plenty of people were going to point to any increase was going to be attributed to opening up. regardless of time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: firstly, your first statement isnt a fact. secondly, also not factual, but also not rooted in logic. or do you kow of something that says it takes 5 weeks to see the results from a pattern of behavior. hasnt most of whats been said say itd more like 7-10 day? ill answer that for you, yes, it has. for the fourteenth time, no, the gatherings arent the only cause. yes, huge gatherings of people very likely played a part. i dont know why thats controversial? actually i do know why, regardless how well the states that opened up where doing, plenty of people were going to point to any increase was going to be attributed to opening up. regardless of time frame. The first statement is factual in the sense that is what the research showed so far. Albeit not peer reviewed yet. But as it is currently, the contact tracers show that the spikes are not due to the protests. So for the 14th time, you are the one not stating facts. Edited July 13, 2020 by Xenos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Xenos said: Posted this previously but apparently wearing masks and being outdoors were less of a problem than packing inside bars without masks. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/01/research-determines-protests-did-not-cause-spike-in-coronavirus-cases/amp/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 24 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: for the fourteenth time, no, the gatherings arent the only cause. yes, huge gatherings of people very likely played a part. i dont know why thats controversial? actually i do know why, regardless how well the states that opened up where doing, plenty of people were going to point to any increase was going to be attributed to opening up. regardless of time frame. Its controversial because many places that had the largest demonstrations like New York, Minnesota, and Boston have had no spike meanwhile places that had lesser demonstrations like Alabama have had huge spikes. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between large demonstrations and the spikes. There have also been large demonstrations in places in Europe and Canada that have not seen spikes. We've also had health officials literally go out and test a large number of people who participated in the demonstrations and the percentage of those people testing positive was no higher than the overall population. I just see zero evidence that the spikes are related to the demonstrations and a lot of evidence to the contrary. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 Just now, mission27 said: Its controversial because many places that had the largest demonstrations like New York, Minnesota, and Boston have had no spike meanwhile places that had lesser demonstrations like Alabama have had huge spikes. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between large demonstrations and the spikes. There have also been large demonstrations in places in Europe and Canada that have not seen spikes. We've also had health officials literally go out and test a large number of people who participated in the demonstrations and the percentage of those people testing positive was no higher than the overall population. I just see zero evidence that the spikes are related to the demonstrations and a lot of evidence to the contrary. Its almost like being outside and wearing a mask poses very little risk...No way, its the protestors man. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 9 minutes ago, Xenos said: The first statement is factual in the sense that is what the research showed so far. Albeit not peer reviewed yet. But as it is currently, the contact tracers show that the spikes are not due to the protests. most importantly it a singular, non peer reviewed article which is close to useless. with that said, and granted i only have a light read through the whole thing, they daid on mutliple occasions that while mass gatherings like that would imcrease spread, the gatherings themselves also keep people off the street who arent involved so theres an offset. they had to make some assumptions to get there as well. it wasnt all assumption but there was some. on top of that, when you saw contact tracers is that in the actual paper? if so, i missed it. if it was the secondary links, i saw numerous prefaces about how those arent always reliable and we already know that at least one major city has said you cant ask if theyve recently been at a protest. so can you clarify that part? lastly, in the same paper they say resukts show up in 7-12 days. we didnt we see a pop much, much earlier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingseanjohn Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 I'm so confused on what is even trying to be argued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naptownskinsfan Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 1 hour ago, theJ said: I'm several pages late so this may have already been said: this is a tricky situation. Most landlords have mortgages on their properties, and most are leveraged so much they depend on the income of the properties to pay those mortgages. So not only are the renters in trouble, but so are the landlords. It's not necessarily greed. They might be trying to avoid a foreclosure of their own. This is something I try to point out to people when they get into the rental property business. If you plan on leveraging then your financial well being is very tightly correlated to the renters you have. And you can't control them. If you own the property outright, that pressure is off. But that's a different topic. I get all of that completely, it's why I was wondering if something could be done to help subsidize the property owners as well. We don't need people homeless, and facing foreclosure for both homeowners and landlords is not something we want either. Also, some money coming in is better than nothing. But I'm not well versed on renting or being a landlord since I am neither, and never looked too deeply into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingseanjohn Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said: I get all of that completely, it's why I was wondering if something could be done to help subsidize the property owners as well. We don't need people homeless, and facing foreclosure for both homeowners and landlords is not something we want either. Also, some money coming in is better than nothing. But I'm not well versed on renting or being a landlord since I am neither, and never looked too deeply into it. Someone lawmakers suggested a rent and mortgage pause a while back. No clue how that would work. But on the surface it sounds like it'd be good for a higher number of people than the alternative. Personally, I'd prefer they look at extending the CARES Act to individuals. Give people money and they'll pay rent and other bills. Those who can will spend it on non-necessary goods. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said: I get all of that completely, it's why I was wondering if something could be done to help subsidize the property owners as well. We don't need people homeless, and facing foreclosure for both homeowners and landlords is not something we want either. Also, some money coming in is better than nothing. But I'm not well versed on renting or being a landlord since I am neither, and never looked too deeply into it. I'd like to see it. It just seems unlikely, since most stimulus or w/e is directed toward the top 1% and not the bottom rung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 IE they'd rather bail out the banks holding the mortgages than the people defaulting on the mortgages. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts