Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
US Pledges More Testing as Trump Hints at Aid For Workers (theguardian.com) 121
- by Anonymous Coward
Old people, get ready to die a little sooner than you expected
Just how is clearing the ledgers of liability to ever-increasing longevity “sabotaging” Social Security? If anything, it’s a particularly dark and unfortunate way to save Social Security by leaving more of the trust fund in the trust fund.
Here’s a “novel” idea (Score:4, Insightful)
by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @02:05PM (#59815528)How about guaranteeing the wages (up to a certain amount) of anyone who, responsibly, stays home sick?
Uh oh, but there’s that dirty “S” word…
Re:Here’s a “novel” idea (Score:4, Informative)
by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @02:10PM (#59815556) JournalIt’s our response where I work now that we will extend paid sick leave now to anyone who feels sick. Yes, it’s going to cost the company some cash, but not nearly enough if a third or more of the staff end up getting sick, or worse, operations have to shutter. For anyone to feel that financially they have to come to work, even if they’re sick (whether it’s COVID-19 or some other infectious disease) is not only cruel, but utterly self-defeating.
But in real life, many jobs will penalize you for any time off, whether it’s for being sick or not. Especially with unions being as weak as they are these days. The employers don’t care, they’re not getting sick but it’s other workers who will get sick. And employers are more concerned that someone might be faking it, or wanting to stay home because of a hangover, rather than actually being ill.
Hourly workers in general have to work hourly to get paid, and if they have sick leave it’s a very limited amount
There’s already talk around here of ways to get around such union contracts and company policies. One such tactic is, if needed, to hire temporary workers. Of course, these “emergency workers” would be a new classification so it will be okay to pay them $8/hr instead of the $10-$12/hr starting workers would normally be paid. This cost savings would then be used as a “special fund” to offset operational costs.
Translation: It would be sad if management couldn’t get their bonuses as well as their regular paych
There’s also the pressure that if you’re home for two weeks and your employer has a temp worker filling in, that they employer might decide to keep the temp worker who’s more productive and isn’t whining about green phlegm.
At some point the USA should join the civilised world and introduce worker protections. Replacing a worker for being sick is grounds for a huge fine in most countries.
Decided to post this as a reply to your comment so I can congratulate you en route. Too bad so few people work for such enlightened companies. Of course the obvious next question is “How long can your company afford to keep it up?”
Next question premise: Even insurance companies MUST have profits.
Deep question: How can ANY insurance system work for disasters like Covid-19?
Delusional Trumpists like the lying Conway will insist there’s a profit to be made in there somewhere. They are lying. Health care is NOT
It’s our response where I work now that we will extend paid sick leave now to anyone who feels sick.
I’m genuinely curious as to what you used sick leave for before it was extended. Did it only cover amputated limbs? Industrial accidents?
Yes, in a perfect world that would be the case. But this isn’t a perfect world, and lots of people, for lots of reasons good and bad, don’t have those cash reserves. If businesses don’t support them with some sort of paid leave so they can stay home and not infect everyone else, regardless of what one might call life choices, then that company is going to end up paying a lot more if a fair chunk of their workforce is taken out. An imperfect world requires imperfect solutions.
You’re assuming workers get paid enough to have a little left over at the end of the month. It is very common for many families to not have enough savings to cover a month off of work. Much of the new wave of homeless is coming from people who can barely keep up with rent, despite the glowing economic reports being manufactured by the government, and an unexpected illness can tip one over the edge and their car now becomes their home. These aren’t irresponsible employees, they’re just not as rich as you.
People should have enough money saved to easily afford a few days at home if sick. It’s not the responsibility of employers to cover irresponsible employees.
But it is the responsibility of employers to pay employees enough that they CAN save money in case they are sick. Or really, they should provide paid sick/personal days.
People should have enough money saved to easily afford a few days at home if sick. It’s not the responsibility of employers to cover irresponsible employees.
But it is the responsibility of employers to pay employees enough that they CAN save money in case they are sick. Or really, they should provide paid sick/personal days as well as pay them enough to save.
FTFY
People should have enough money saved to easily afford a few days at home if sick. It’s not the responsibility of employers to cover irresponsible employees.
But it is the responsibility of employers to pay employees enough that they CAN save money in case they are sick. Or really, they should provide paid sick/personal days.
And where does that responsibility end? How many of these employees will take that extra pay and upgrade to the new 65″ TV, latest smartphone or PlayStation or Xbox when it comes out? Or use it to pay off unsecured debt used to buy the current cache of luxury items they chose to purchase, then purchase more on the newly paid off credit? The employers can’t force their employees to save, so how many times do they have to raise pay when the employees spend the money rather than save it?
People don’t save be
Re:Here’s a “novel” idea (Score:4, Funny)
by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @02:59PM (#59815776)No – it’s the government’s job to assure that people don’t NEED to scrimp, save, slave, and be “responsible” in self-denial while the corporate fat-cats get fatter.Re:Here’s a “novel” idea (Score:5, Insightful)
by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @03:06PM (#59815812)in an economy on the brink of collapse, we don’t unnecessarily increase expenses.
This is completely backward.
When the economy is on the brink of collapse is exactly when the government should open the spigot and spend like a drunken sailor.
Conversely, the government should conserve money and pay down debt when the economy is strong.
Keynesian Economics [wikipedia.org]
- by barakn ( 641218 )
Yes, because it’s somehow the employees’ fault that the healthcare system is broken, that Federal minimum wage is below the poverty line, and interest rates on savings are below the inflation rate.
Riddle me this genius, How will you feel about it when a cafeteria worker at your kid’s school (who right or wrong can’t afford to miss a couple day’s pay) shows up sick and gives half the kids there the virus to take home to their parents.
Don’t be so smug if you don’t have kids, one or more of your co-workers probably does, and they will be showing up for work after their kids bring the virus to them.
Or perhaps it’ll be the barista at the Starbucks half a block from your office, or one of the guys that va
Throwaway assertions are superior in every way to whatever.
What do bread and cheese have to do with socialized medicine? Just because we socialize some things, like libraries, schools, roads, fire and police departments, and hopefully health care, does not mean we socialize everything.
At least try a more original fallacy than the old slippery slope.
- time for UBI in the form of a negative income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]
- so, I am confused, where does this mythical money come from to pay everyone? I mean, about 60% of what is collected in taxes right now in the USA goes to various programs to help those less well off… Actually do the math and tell me, don’t just say some dofus answer like “google it” I have googled it and it never works out math-wise to fit… what I mean is that, let’s say you increase taxes (double them) for the wealthy so they are all paying 79%, well, the wealthy are the top 1 % of earners,, the IRS s
sI mean, about 60% of what is collected in taxes right now in the USA goes to various programs to help those less well off.
I’ll take Right Wing Media Talking Points Pulled Out of My Ass for $800, Alex
The same place as the money that banks are allowed to poof into existence in order to loan out for a tidy profit.
It’s funny how it’s OK when the banks do it, but if someone does it in order to not live under a bridge the Earth will spontaneously fall into a black hole, isn’t it?
time for UBI in the form of a negative income tax.
Most negative income tax schemes are targeted at the working poor. But most poor don’t work. 60% of the bottom household income quintile have no one in full-time employment.
If non-working people recieve NIT, then that it is a huge disincentive to work.
NIT also pays a lot of money to people that are income-poor but asset-rich.
- by barakn ( 641218 )
Provide a citation or be content with the liar label.
If non-working people recieve NIT, then that it is a huge disincentive to work.
Consider the irony in your statement. If the people who can’t find a job receive NIT, they might not get a job.
If the people who can’t find a job receive NIT, they might not get a job.
If people can qualify for NIT by quitting their job or working fewer hours, many will.
If people lose their NIT benefits when they get a job, many won’t seek one.
- by dryeo ( 100693 )
Doesn’t a NIT work such that you have to be making over $20K-30K before it negatively impacts workers? Here the NIT was introduced so minimum wage workers had more take home pay but it is not enough to even come close to living on if you don’t work.
Doesn’t a NIT work such that you have to be making over $20K-30K before it negatively impacts workers?
$20k-$30k in annual income is equivalent to a full-time hourly rate of $10 to $15. In many areas, that is below minimum wage.
NIT generally does not have a set income threshold. It depends on household income, not individual income. It also depends on the number of dependents.
- by dryeo ( 100693 )
Doesn’t a NIT work such that you have to be making over $20K-30K before it negatively impacts workers?
$20k-$30k in annual income is equivalent to a full-time hourly rate of $10 to $15. In many areas, that is below minimum wage.
Yes, minimum wage at the time was about $10 an hour and the government didn’t want to raise it so their solution was more tax credits which worked as a NIT for low or no income people/households.
NIT generally does not have a set income threshold. It depends on household income, not individual income. It also depends on the number of dependents.
Yes, that is how income tax works in general and why I said 20k-30k as it depends on whether a single person or family. I’ll note that the family benefit, which works as a NIT for low income workers did more to get people out of poverty then the tax cuts.
I’m in BC.
Re:Here’s a “novel” idea (Score:4, Interesting)
by Brett Buck ( 811747 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @02:12PM (#59815562)How about Congress passing a law to that effect, approved by the Senate, and then signed? Trump cannot dictate what private companies have to do unilaterally, and there’s no taxpayer money intended for this purpose, so it would be unfunded if the government did it in place of the companies?
For the most part, we didn’t suspend the laws of the nation *during the civil war*, and the few attempts were rebuffed as unconstitutional. Sure don’t need to do it during a flu outbreak.
How about House passing a law to that effect, approved by the Senate,
Hahahahahahahahahahaha….. oh, oh. hahahah. Oh, I’ve lost my breath. ah. ah. ah. Hahahahaha.
This is too funny. Ask your senator where HB1 is from 2019.
and then signed?
I can’t stand it. hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Now I’m crying from laughing so hard.
- by narcc ( 412956 )
HB1 was passed by the House and is sitting in the Senate, where it, along with many others, will continued to be ignored by McConnell for no apparent reason.
Re:Here’s a “novel” idea (Score:4, Insightful)
by LatencyKills ( 1213908 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @03:07PM (#59815814)It’s not no apparent reason. McConnell doesn’t want to bring legislation to the floor that will either (a) force his members to vote for/against when they later may have to defend that vote or (b) if it passes, force Trump to go on the record as for or against something he would rather leave in a fuzzy gray area where he can say things out of both sides of his mouth without proof of his actual position.- Which instead leaves the Republicans of being labeled a bunch of do-nothing’s.
Care to explain or give a link as to what HB1 is for those of us who have better things to do than memorize dead House bills?
For the People Act of 2019 This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government. Specifically, the bill expands voter registration and voting access, makes Election Day a federal holiday, and limits removing voters from voter rolls. The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions. The bill also sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence
Numbering of House bills starts over with each new Congress. There have been literally dozens of “HB1″s. Not to mention the fact the “HB1” can mean lots of things other than a bill in the House of Representatives. Googling on such a generic term didn’t seem like it would terribly productive. Just because it’s the center of the world to you doesn’t mean it’s incredibly important to everybody else.
Wow, you’re going to give yourself an ulcer over the fact that the bill didn’t pass. Calm down, you’ll live longer.
- Let’s not forget the 395 bills sitting on McConnell’s desk [newsweek.com] that he has admitted he won’t pass along for a vote. I wish they’d look into expelling this tratorist asshole, he’s clearly not doing the job he’s supposed to be as the House Majority Leader.
- by Kjella ( 173770 )
For the most part, we didn’t suspend the laws of the nation *during the civil war*, and the few attempts were rebuffed as unconstitutional. Sure don’t need to do it during a flu outbreak.
They’re not going to do it unless the death toll exceeds the civil war either. Nobody from upper management needs to physically be at work, all the money wants the wheels to keep turning. Most people in working age will pull through fine, it’s those who are 70 and maybe could have lived until they’re 90 that’ll pay the price.
Your standard is the civil war?
The payroll tax relief idea is for *economic stimulus*. It’s not a public health measure.
Because the president is more concerned about having a good economy to ensure a good re-election than the health of the citizens. The same money being given in tax cuts could be spent getting more testing kits and restaffing gutted health services.
Well, the president *should* be concerned about the economy. I wasn’t necessarily being critical of him by saying this is not a public health measure.
His problem, that is to say one of his problems, is that he’s already painted himself into a corner by running a trillion dollar deficit. That leaves him with little choice but to raid the social security and medicare trust funds.
Re:Here’s a “novel” idea (Score:5, Insightful)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @03:43PM (#59815908) JournalThat was by design. The goal was always to cut social security and medicare. Didn’t you wonder where all the GOP deficit hawks went when we ran the deficit up to unprecedented levels? They knew that they’d get what they want.
First, when Republicans control the federal government, and particularly the White House, spend money like a drunken sailor and run up the US debt as far and as fast as possible. This produces three results – it stimulates the economy thus making people think that the GOP can produce a good economy, it raises the debt dramatically, and it makes people think that Republicans are the “tax-cut Santa Claus.”
Second, when a Democrat is in the White House, scream about the national debt as loudl
The President should also be concerned about the deficit, but, so far, he hasn’t. All he has shown concern for is the wealth of the wealthiest people.
The President should also be concerned about the deficit, but, so far, he hasn’t. All he has shown concern for is the wealth of the wealthiest people.
You’re surprised that the self-described “King of Debt” doesn’t care about the deficit? (google: Trump king of debt)
He doesn’t really understand that a Country is not and cannot be run like a company and, apparently, many of his followers don’t either — quoting Trump: “I love the poorly educated”. (google: Trump love poorly educated) (His educated followers are often rich enough to not be affected by or they actually benefit from his/Republican policies — in the short-term anyway.)
Perhaps he should consider that based on demographics, if covid-19 isn’t contained, he will lose more voters than Bernie will.
Perhaps he’ll start tossing rolls of paper towels again.
won’t matter, they’ll both be ‘out of commission’
- That’s kind of what he’s proposing:
‘he was seeking help for hourly-wage workers to ensure they’re “not going to miss a paycheck” and “don’t get penalized for something that’s not their fault.”‘
The article doesn’t have specifics so who knows what it actually is.
Re:Here’s a “novel” idea (Score:5, Informative)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @03:46PM (#59815924) JournalThere aren’t any specifics. It was a throwaway comment. When asked, he’ll say either that he’s “looking at it very closely” or that we’ll “hear about it very soon”.
Rest assured, no one is working on anything remotely resembling help for the working poor.
Considering that we’re still waiting for that replacement for Obamacare that we’re all going to love nearly 4 years later, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
- We got that: it looked like lower taxes. Don’t you love it?
All consumed (and then some) by increases in health insurance premiums.
- by Ichijo ( 607641 )
Welfare for people is socialism.
Welfare for corporations is not socialism.
Socialized roads are also not socialism because it’s really just a form of corporate welfare for Big Oil which as I’ve explained above is not socialism.
Is it clear now?
Road subsidies are for people who drive, ride and walk on the roads. Not for “Big Oil” or other contrived fantasies.
When government subsidizes something, the payer is who benefits. That translates to the people using the transportation, not some rich guy in a top hat you saw on a graphic in your Monopoly game set.
- by Ichijo ( 607641 )
When government subsidizes something, the payer is who benefits.
That’s true, when the government subsidizes fuel, the person paying for fuel benefits. However, the taxpayer who subsidizes that fuel does not benefit. The person who breathes in the fumes and particulates kicked up by car tires also does not benefit. And the driver sitting in traffic because all the drivers around him are taking advantage of artificially cheap fuel also doesn’t benefit. (Sometimes these are all the same person, sometimes not.
- by Kjella ( 173770 )
Road subsidies are for people who drive, ride and walk on the roads.
Not to mention all that transport goods on the roads, but that’s too simple a model. For example when the government subsidizes public transport it’ll reduce congestion which is a benefit to car drivers. Reduced pollution will benefit everyone. Sure, you shouldn’t “oversell” it like you bought a burger at McDonald’s and the McDonald’s employee used his paycheck at Wal-Mart and the Wal-Mart employee… in fact the whole world economy runs off that burger.
It’s not hard to see that good roads leads to people w
- by skids ( 119237 )
Socialized roads are also not socialism because it’s really just a form of corporate welfare for Big Oil
I used no oil when I drove to work this morning, yet I benefit from roads. I also benefit by being able to go to the grocery store, doctor, and hot grits shoppe.
- by Ichijo ( 607641 )
I also benefit by being able to go to the grocery store, doctor, and hot grits shoppe.
Don’t those businesses benefit from you being able to access them? Without subsidized roads, wouldn’t they find some way to get people in and out?
Uh oh, but there’s that dirty “S” word…
It’s okay, Trump’s into it. He’s suggesting bailouts — I mean, financial help — for airlines, cruise ship, and shale oil companies impacted by the Corona virus downturns and drop in oil prices. Wonder if he’d want to do all that in a non-election year? Then there’s his proposal to eliminate payroll taxes through the election / end of the year — at an estimated cost [washingtonexaminer.com] of $40B / month — which actually only helps people *still* working, if the little it would actually help matters.
It’s already widespread in the US (Score:3, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @02:12PM (#59815568)There are likely hundreds of thousands of people exposed already. There will be upwards of a million exposed by the end of this week. Community spread is happening and has been since early January. The positive side of this is that the people being detected are the sickest and that the severity of the infection is much lower than initially feared when the entire group of infected people is considered; including those that never seek medical attention. The negative side is that once the current crop of infected becomes symptomatic in the next week or so and the disease gets into more assisted living and nursing homes, it will basically wipe out an entire generation of seniors. I guess another side effect of that will be the solvency of Medicare and Social Security will be better than what most experts have been predicting.- YEP, I’ve been saying this since January myself. I work for a supplier whose main customer is airports. Our guys go in there, make deliveries and installations, and always come back sick. Everyone, and I mean everyone who was there in January was coughing, and it spread to the whole office (dozens), and everyone is pretty much recovered now except for one of the admins who just came down with the symptoms. The inept CDC could have ordered a million tests without FDA approval and just tested a bunch of Ameri
Just eliminate wide swaths of the FDA. They are beholden to Big Pharma and their main function these days is to block new entrants to the drug and medical device markets. We have broad widespread communication networks now.
The patent medicine shysters that the FDA uses as examples of why they need to exist would be quickly debunked in the free market of communication we now have.
The FDA are big business cronies at this point and should be cut back severely.
The CDC doesn’t have the budget to do that unilaterally without support from the administration, and they likely don’t have authority to bypass FDA either without a nod from the higher ups.
There are likely hundreds of thousands of people exposed already.
If that’s true, then it’s great news – with just a handful of Covid deaths and hospitalizations to date, it means the disease has a very low mortality and severity rate.
Also if you look at the official contraction rates, around 97% of people exposed showed symptoms within five days if they caught it after exposure. So we would see a ton of people sick by now if it’s truly widespread. The 14 day figure for quarantine is an outlier.
Tips to avo
- Salt water doesn’t do shit to viruses. It’s effective against bacteria only.
- by narcc ( 412956 )
The (intentional?) lack of tests has, quite obviously, kept numbers here artificially low.
If you don’t have a test to show that a patient is infected, they’ve just got the flu, right? Severely restrict the number of tests and you can claim victory for the wonderful response to the outbreak. KAG, right?
The (intentional?) lack of tests has, quite obviously, kept numbers here artificially low.
Only detected cases. Not deaths – you can be sure that everyone who dies of “flu” currently is being looked at very carefully.
That’s what I am saying. Yes there are probably a lot more people being infected than reported, but since the death rates have not risen dramatically the mortality rate is not very high.
It will be interesting to see what actual infection rates are like when we get more tests going (in the U.S.
- Or to say what really happened… restrict tests to only international exposure, and you’ll never detect domestic transmission. The CDC has clearly completely ceased to function.
But there are people who don’t understand this, they fail to realize that when there are 1000 cases reported that this means usually means only those sick enough to have gone to the doctor and been tested, and there are likely 10,000 then with milder symptoms, and even more who are symptom free but who can transmit the virus. Then they’re dumb enough to go and try to compare those 1000 cases to number of flu cases and declare that the flu is deadlier and more infectious.
…I guess another side effect of that will be the solvency of Medicare and Social Security will be better than what most experts have been predicting.
Your theory certainly sounds nice, but cannot get any more delusional in reality.
Re:It’s already widespread in the US (Score:5, Informative)
There are likely hundreds of thousands of people exposed already. There will be upwards of a million exposed by the end of this week. Community spread is happening and has been since early January.
My girlfriend is a nurse, and has access to the real case information in our area. For our area (Frisco/Plano, TX), the real numbers are higher by an order of magnitude than what’s being publicly reported. She lost 3 patients (immune-compromised infants) to it on Friday alone.
The positive side of this is that the people being detected are the sickest and that the severity of the infection is much lower than initially feared when the entire group of infected people is considered; including those that never seek medical attention.
This is, at best, a distinction without difference in the general case and plain wrong in the specific case.
Given that the number of deaths is a fixed, known number, if you inflate the number of cases in an effort to reduce the fatality rate, what you’ve actually done is reduce the likelihood that any infected person will die by increasing the likelihood that any given person will get infected. It’s a wash. You’re robbing Peter (the transmissivity rate) to pay Paul (the fatality rate). Whether you (magicall
- Is there some reference for this “10 times as many are asymptomatic carriers” line? Some diseases have a lot of asymptomatic carriers, others don’t. I don’t think we even know this number for this particular disease. On the flip side, we do have some symptomatic people who have had their contacts tracked, isolated, and tested and they didn’t get sick or only a small number did. I think claiming things are super bad when they aren’t is downright dangerous because it discourages people from doing what the
Good strategy (Score:4, Interesting)
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @02:19PM (#59815598) JournalThe idea to cut payroll tax is a good one…it uses a crisis to give Republicans what they want anyway (he didn’t say a temporary payroll cut), and if Democrats oppose it, they can be blamed for coronavirus and the recession.That would be funny if it wasn’t true.
If it *weren’t* true.
- by barakn ( 641218 )
Better that than a sausage party.
You cut off the water supply to the weeds and the weeds die.
There will be tremendous deals at the auctions as they liquidate surplus office equipment and furniture from emptied government office buildings.
They should have saved the stimulus for slumps & emergencies like this rather than agitate the budget earlier via tax-cuts for the rich. That was premature estimulation.
- by BenBoy ( 615230 )Exactly that. And later, the complaint will be: “OMG, social security and medicare are bankrupt. Gummint is always the problem, not the solution, etc.”
- I’m not sure that Republicans do want this, it seems to be mostly Trump (probably because he thinks it will boost his reelection chances). From what I see, other Republicans are waffling on it: trying to balance their disdain for Keynesian-style stimulus with the fact that openly opposing it would mean taking Trump’s cock out of their mouths.
Also: it’s a tax cut, which they generally like, but the payroll tax is regressive. That’s not the kind of tax cut that they generally go for, though it depends on h
- Payroll tax goes both ways: you and I have to pay part of it, but companies have to pay part of it, too. So it has a regressive part, and a part that companies want to get rid of.
BTW: after that, social security becomes an unfunded liability.
Trillion Dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, that was the result of the last tax giveaway. A more reasonable expense would be health care for workers that have none. Republicans would rather die with their money than let that happen.
- by thaylin ( 555395 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @02:34PM (#59815658)
He assured us already there was enough kits to test everyone who needed it, so why is there need for more?
- by makomk ( 752139 )
For the people who don’t actually need testing, but will insist on it anyway, presumably. We are talking about Americans here.
Nurses who were symptomatic and had worked with patients with the disease were turned away from testing as recently as Friday
- by narcc ( 412956 )
Oh, that’s because he was lying. There is very obviously a severe shortage of tests.
Get your news about COIVD-19 from here:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru… [cdc.gov]
They aren’t paid by the click.
- by makomk ( 752139 )
The CDC have been absolutely terrible about keeping their website up to date during this. Completely hopeless. They can’t even keep important stuff like the official advice for medical professionals on testing up to date and consistent.
Their current cases page is updated every weekday at 4PM. It was just updated half an hour ago from writing this.
Do you have a source that is verifiably more accurate than the CDC? They can be slow to update their information sometimes because they actually double check with the parties involved instead of reporting rumors, or blatantly making stuff up.
- by tsuliga ( 553869 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @03:16PM (#59815840)
This is my goto site/section for daily numbers on what is happening in the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]
- by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @03:52PM (#59815944)
Trump Hints at Aid For Workers
What ever it takes to goose the stock market I guess — which is what the President really seems to care about. Senator Mitch McConnell has already said he’s adamantly opposed to the payroll tax reduction Trump’s floating, so it’s not going to go anywhere. Trying to force companies to give hourly employees paid sick time is going to end up in court and trying to get the federal/state governments to pay for it isn’t going to pass — ’cause, you know, fiscal responsibility (ha, was almost able wrote that w/o laughing). But seriously, politicians don’t really care about poor people ’cause they usually don’t vote and can’t donate (much).
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/g… [cbsnews.com]
Impressive, if true. It’s kind of pointless politically to encourage testing if CDC and FDA sabotage it. Heads will roll when this is over.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
- 498 commentsPropelled By Spread of Misinformation About Vaccines, Measles Outbreak Hits ‘Completely Avoidable’ 25-Year-High in the US
- 472 commentsAlone In A Crowded Milky Way
- 426 comments44 US States Still Allow ‘Religious Exemptions’ For Vaccines
- 424 commentsTree Planting ‘Has Mind-Blowing Potential’ To Tackle Climate Crisis
- 419 commentsMeasles Cases Top Last Year’s Total
Slashdot Top Deals
- Get more comments
- 100 of 120 loaded
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. — Dennis Ritchie
