The big issue with this virus, Shopetal, is that some people can't really be safe unless others do their part.@Shop-et-al wrote:
We are not free to force people to submit to our personal idea of what caring looks like. We can do what we can to reduce risk.
Flash, the first batch of PPP loans were actually eligible for forgiveness already. That was end of June. Some have wondered whether some of the recent unemployment claims numbers are from PPP recipients laying people off the past couple of weeks (now that they're allowed to). It's too early to tell perhaps, but if it continues, it'll be noticeable/deducible from the data that is released each Thursday morning on the number of unemployed in America.@Flash wrote:
but at the end of this month many/most will be laying off most off their employees because their PPP obligation of keeping folks on payroll to achieve loan forgiveness will be over.
@Shop-et-al wrote:
Moving on, then.
In support of a potentially new condition that might be called 'covid brain death'... or possibly 'what happens after a few weeks of delving into someone else's odd business'... I transferred money to cover my tax and recent medicals. I nearly had apoplexy when I saw that my bank balance had increased by a whopping two dollars. Two Dollars?! I needed two thousand! I was able to make the correction. But still. Now that I have finished berating myself, I hope that my goof brought someone in money world a giggle amid the dratted disease and ongoing concerns on many financial fronts.
Do we need a shutdown? Maybe. Do I need a nap? Definitely!
@shoptastic wrote:
Flash, the first batch of PPP loans were actually eligible for forgiveness already.
@shoptastic wrote:
The big issue with this virus, Shopetal, is that some people can't really be safe unless others do their part.@Shop-et-al wrote:
We are not free to force people to submit to our personal idea of what caring looks like. We can do what we can to reduce risk.
It's not like skin cancer, where not wearing sunscreen and going to tanning salons and bathing in the summer heat and sunshine only is a risk to yourself. Skin cancer won't transmit to your neighbor.
The poor and frontline workers are particularly vulnerable. The grocery clerk making $8/hour cannot afford to stay home and has to work a job serving hundreds a day. That person cannot stay safe just wearing a mask. She/he depends on you/us to do our part. Same for medical personnel.
The same is true for everyone really, b/c even if you're not on the frontlines, someone you know can bring it back to you. We're all in this together. To truly squash COVID w/ as few deaths as possible, we need full cooperation.
If one is ever tempted to think of some counter-argument, then just think of the grocery clerk who makes $8/hour serving you. It is not possible to love thy neighbor in this situation by saying it's your right to not wear a mask and that we all die at some point. The grocery clerk knows the risk and is probably fine to die from some random thing. What the grocery clerk doesn't want is to die totally unnecessarily from people not even trying to be safe.
@bgriffin wrote:
@shoptastic wrote:
Flash, the first batch of PPP loans were actually eligible for forgiveness already.
I believe Flash is talking about the fact that to receive funds you had to agree to maintain employment through Sept 30.
@Shop-et-al wrote:
In the covid era, it is best to let each person do what they can for their health as this pertains to covid. You might choose to isolate, wear a mask, ramp up nutrition and exercise, avoid IC work, or do something else that might benefit your health directly or indirectly.
If you believe that others' choices (not wearing masks, not distancing, etc.) increase your risk, then reduce your own exposure accordingly.
@Flash wrote:
@Shop-et-al wrote:
In the covid era, it is best to let each person do what they can for their health as this pertains to covid. You might choose to isolate, wear a mask, ramp up nutrition and exercise, avoid IC work, or do something else that might benefit your health directly or indirectly.
If you believe that others' choices (not wearing masks, not distancing, etc.) increase your risk, then reduce your own exposure accordingly.
We require driver's licenses and auto insurance not to keep the driver safe but rather to compensate for the damage they do to others. The penalties for driving without a license or with an uninsured vehicle are not insubstantial. Perhaps we should take a lead from that rather than declare it is a right to drive without a license and route to compensation for victims of the carelessness of others.
We have helmet laws for motorcyclists. They were modified to IF you are over 21 AND you carry insurance of at least $10,000 to cover YOUR injuries in case of an accident--regardless of cause--you can ride without a helmet. What it boils down to is that short of deliberately plowing down a helmetless motorcyclist with my car, the court is not going to listen to the biker's complaint of loss or expense. Perhaps those without a mask who get sick should just be quarantined and get to pay for their own treatment from their own insurance or pocket, not become a public expense--as is most COVID treatment at this time.
We're getting off-topic, but just curious if you meant that we shouldn't have driving laws?@Shop-et-al wrote:
You can do what you want to do about that. I will neither suggest nor force.
I think we're all talking about the same thing.@bgriffin wrote:
@shoptastic wrote:
Flash, the first batch of PPP loans were actually eligible for forgiveness already.
I believe Flash is talking about the fact that to receive funds you had to agree to maintain employment through Sept 30.
@Shop-et-al wrote:
People still go into grocery stores? I thought that was replaced by distance shopping and contactless delivery.
@2stepps wrote:
Yes but what about the mentally ill they are out in public since they are no longer warehoused anywhere unless they are a danger to someone other than family.
@shoptastic wrote:
The first batch of PPP loans were eligible for forgiveness at June's end and thus employers can lay people off they don't need now.
It might just be semantics here, bgriffin, so no worries if it is. Just to restate what I meant in a possibly more clear way:@bgriffin wrote:
I think some wires are getting crossed. Loan forgiveness and the ability to layoff employees are not the same thing.. But yes, early PPP recipients can lay off employees, I was getting them mixed up with the large company funds. Those recipients can't layoff employees until 9/30, which means on 10/1 we will have a huge amount of newly unemployed workers.
What we *should* have done is provided funds for all those workers for 8 weeks and then shut the damn country down. As it is we wasted all that time and money and things will only get worse.