It doesn't sound like a hint to me. Limiting the terms of reps and senators is a great idea but only works if ALL are limited. If Senators and Reps in some states are not limited while others are, it would give unfair advantage to those states that do not limit the terms.
Term limits in congress to start. 2 terms and done. And no flipping from the senate to the house or vice versa. Limit bills to one item each. Each bill needs to pass on its own merits.
Of course in the long run it comes down to the $$$ needed to be elected. I can't imagine that much of the people's work gets done as elected officials need to do so much currying favor of corporate and private interest to make sure their warchest for the next election is well filled.
To bring this thread back on track:
The OP asked if it was worth it. There's been talk recently of a Federal Reserve and MIT study done on the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic and how those cities that implemented aggressive social distancing not only had fewer deaths, but recovered economically faster than those cities that did not lock down as rigorously.
Some other charts in the article too.
So, yeah, we do have some possible precedent/evidence that saving lives and social distancing may be actually be BETTER for the economy(ies).
Hmmmm, this is a good point, Flyy1220. It looks like we're both only partially right.@Flyy1220 wrote:
This is apples to oranges. They didn't tell people to stay home. They gave them masks and told them to stay away from people.
So, there is some overlap between the 1918 and 2020 responses, but not entirely, as they also write:@ wrote:
NPIs implemented in 1918 resemble many of the policies used to reduce the spread of COVID-19, including school, theater, and church closures, public gathering and funeral bans, quarantine of suspected cases, and restricted business hours. . .
For city-level NPIs, we rely on data from Markel et al. (2007), who gather detailed information on NPIs for 43 major U.S. cities from municipal health department bulletins, local newspapers, and reports on the pandemic. NPI measures consist of school closure, public gathering bans, and isolation and quarantine.
In footnote 5 after this sentence, they note:@ wrote:
The public health policy response in 1918 resembles the current response in the COVID-19 pandemic in many ways, although measures in 1918 were not as extensive in terms of closing non-essential businesses.5
So, yeah, you're right that there isn't a perfect apples-to-apples comparison. Non-essential businesses did not close altogether - some just had changed business hours. Although, we do see some overlap, such as banning public gatherings***, closing schools, closing theaters, closing dance halls, social distancing, etc. noted later in the study.@ wrote:
Rather than closing businesses altogether, staggered business hours were introduced to avoid crowding in public transport.
Thailand - 70 million people@bgriffin wrote:
New Zealand shut down everything for 2 months and now is back to normal after only a few deaths.
We slowed everything down but didn't do near enough in order to "save the economy" and we will be dealing with this crap for the rest of the year.
Whose economy will be in better shape on 12/31/20?
For the first time in close to 60 years, 20% of retirement age Americans are participating in the labor force.@ wrote:
Total debt for Americans over age 70 increased 543% from 1999 through 2019 — the largest percentage increase for any age group, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Seniors have been “disproportionately harmed” by a deterioration in the country’s “modest social safety net,” according to a study.
Stories of grandmothers working at McDonald's are real. I've seen them!@ wrote:
Just as single-income families began to vanish in the last century, many of America’s elderly are now forgoing retirement for the same reason: They don’t have enough money. Rickety social safety nets, inadequate retirement savings plans and sky high health-care costs are all conspiring to make the concept of leaving the workforce something to be more feared than desired.
Not just no, but hell no. There is a great strategy from Carnegie-Melon that came out awhile ago. Would have been MUCH better all around. Age-targeting: [math.cmu.edu]. Focus on those most at risk; leave the others working to build herd immunity. The link shows statistical analysis that the numbers would be much lower if younger people were working.
This isn't going away. The stupid lockdowns were to "flatten the curve." That happened.
Hindsight is 20-20. It's a horrible thing that so many have died. But we need to target those most at risk. Are you morbidly obese (BMI >40)? Over 70? In a nursing home? etc. Those people need different treatment than those young and healthy. Shutting everyone down made no sense.@shoptastic wrote:
What approach would you have gone for, Shopetal? .