temporal1 wrote:
i predict part of the $9.5B will be accessed to both mitigate financial burdens, and make testing possible, not something to skip because you can’t pay for it. it’s a community health hazard, not a luxury. like cosmetic or optional surgery. we will see.
Temp, I haven't been able to find anything that suggests that $9.5 Billion has been allocated to fight coronavirus. Last I saw, the Trump administration asked for $2.5 Billion, the Democrats said that wasn't enough and I haven't seen anything beyond that. I'd be thrilled if someone could confirm that this funding is in place.
There are only news reports a couple of days old saying Congress is finalizing a funding plan but I don't see anything yet saying that it is passed and signed by the president: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/politics ... index.html
Honestly the Federal government has a lot of emergency spending authority without going to Congress so they aren't waiting on this. I would expect that most of the money will go to reimburse local and state public health authorities for their emergency spending. Sort of like how hurricanes work. Rather than direct Federal spending by Federal agencies.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
temporal1 wrote:i predict part of the $9.5B will be accessed to both mitigate financial burdens, and make testing possible, not something to skip because you can’t pay for it. it’s a community health hazard, not a luxury. like cosmetic or optional surgery. we will see.
Temp, I haven't been able to find anything that suggests that $9.5 Billion has been allocated to fight coronavirus. Last I saw, the Trump administration asked for $2.5 Billion, the Democrats said that wasn't enough and I haven't seen anything beyond that. I'd be thrilled if someone could confirm that this funding is in place.
I have no idea how many billion dollars are needed. Has anyone seen a good breakdown of what is needed and how much it costs? What needs to be funded?
What do we want the government to do and why?
you have a gift for assessing stats after the fact. no one expects you to know more than the experts, before the experts. before Congress.
temporal1 wrote:
i predict part of the $9.5B will be accessed to both mitigate financial burdens, and make testing possible, not something to skip because you can’t pay for it. it’s a community health hazard, not a luxury. like cosmetic or optional surgery. we will see.
Temp, I haven't been able to find anything that suggests that $9.5 Billion has been allocated to fight coronavirus. Last I saw, the Trump administration asked for $2.5 Billion, the Democrats said that wasn't enough and I haven't seen anything beyond that. I'd be thrilled if someone could confirm that this funding is in place.
There are only news reports a couple of days old saying Congress is finalizing a funding plan but I don't see anything yet saying that it is passed and signed by the president: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/politics ... index.html
Honestly the Federal government has a lot of emergency spending authority without going to Congress so they aren't waiting on this. I would expect that most of the money will go to reimburse local and state public health authorities for their emergency spending.
Sort of like how hurricanes work.
Rather than direct Federal spending by Federal agencies.
yes. a lot like FEMA.
FEMA has not always been prompt. it is emergency RESPONSE, not prevention.
the states will not hesitate to access funds. WA is in process. not hesitating.
my daughter is fully involved with PLANNING for their public school district options and responses TODAY-NOW.
i’m praying this is over-shooting, that they will be over-prepared.
my daughter says some grocers’ shelves are empty, esp in Asian neighborhoods (everywhere).
Bootstrap wrote:I have no idea how many billion dollars are needed. Has anyone seen a good breakdown of what is needed and how much it costs? What needs to be funded?
What do we want the government to do and why?
you have a gift for assessing stats after the fact. no one expects you to know more than the experts, before the experts. before Congress.
stats run behind real life, not in front of it.
I think that's the point I am making.
Why are we even discussing what the appropriate budget allocation is if we don't understand it at this level of detail? "How many billions can we throw at this problem" is not a useful question. Trump's comments did not help explain what amount of money is needed, he just threw out some possible amounts that have been discussed, we may not know the answer yet.
Bootstrap wrote:I have no idea how many billion dollars are needed. Has anyone seen a good breakdown of what is needed and how much it costs? What needs to be funded?
What do we want the government to do and why?
You have a gift for assessing stats after the fact. no one expects you to know more than the experts, before the experts. before Congress.
stats run behind real life, not in front of it.
I think that's the point I am making.
Why are we even discussing what the appropriate budget allocation is if we don't understand it at this level of detail? "How many billions can we throw at this problem" is not a useful question. Trump's comments did not help explain what amount of money is needed, he just threw out some possible amounts that have been discussed, we may not know the answer yet.
i did not notice anyone discussing appropriate budget allocations.
who on this forum is qualified to respond to that? appleman, maybe.
(my takeaway) from Trump’s remarks is that the president and Congress are in agreement to respond in whatever extent necessary. all things considered, that’s A BIG DEAL right now.
he was not speaking at a budget meeting. he spoke in broad terms, what more could he do, or should he do, the purpose of his remarks was to announce his appointment of VP Pence as leader of the task force.
this is sufficient so the states are free to respond with some confidence that funds will be made available, with bipartisan agreement. A BIG DEAL.
temporal1 wrote: You have a gift for assessing stats after the fact. no one expects you to know more than the experts, before the experts. before Congress.
stats run behind real life, not in front of it.
I think that's the point I am making.
Why are we even discussing what the appropriate budget allocation is if we don't understand it at this level of detail? "How many billions can we throw at this problem" is not a useful question. Trump's comments did not help explain what amount of money is needed, he just threw out some possible amounts that have been discussed, we may not know the answer yet.
i did not notice anyone discussing appropriate budget allocations.
who on this forum is qualified to respond to that? appleman, maybe.
(my takeaway) from Trump’s remarks is that the president and Congress are in agreement to respond in whatever extent necessary. all things considered, that’s A BIG DEAL right now.
he was not speaking at a budget meeting. he spoke in broad terms, what more could he do, or should he do, the purpose of his remarks was to announce his appointment of VP Pence as leader of the task force.
this is sufficient so the states are free to respond with some confidence that funds will be made available, with bipartisan agreement. A BIG DEAL.
States and localities are going to respond anyway. It's really more a question of reimbursement. Direct Federal dollars are going to go to things like developing vaccines and testing protocols, medicare and medicaid reimbursements and so forth. But most of the people at CDC and HHS are already employed and working under their normal budgets.
It is going to be state and local health departments who are going to run up huge bills for testing, intensive care, treatment, etc. Especially if they have to start commandeering facilities, running up big overtime expenses, that sort of thing. I would expect a lot of people who do more mundane things like restaurant health inspections to start being reassigned to coronavirus duties. They will be mobilizing every trained person they can find and there is going to be LOTS of overtime.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
.. Researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington on Sunday said they had evidence the virus may have been circulating in the state for up to six weeks undetected — a finding that, if true, could mean hundreds of undiagnosed cases in the area.
In Kirkland, city officials announced that now 27 of their firefighters
and two of their police officers are in quarantine as they had been responding to the Kirkland LifeCare Center over the past week.
"We have also been notified that some of our firefighters in quarantine are demonstrating flu like symptoms," Kirkland city officials said. "We are working closely with Public Health –
Seattle & King County and adhering to their testing protocols." .. ..
Maybe it’s my elementary math skills, but the death rate seems much higher than 2% in WA.
like .. .. over 100% (ex: reported cases=2, deaths=6)
i do not trust reported rates of crime or disease, since politicians decided raw facts are racist.
so, i’m not in any way surprised WA may be “worse than previously reported.”
temporal1 wrote:KOMO news, Seattle. King County.
(Everett, location of first death, is a less affluent community, Kirkland quite affluent.)
The virus does not care.
.. Researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington on Sunday said they had evidence the virus may have been circulating in the state for up to six weeks undetected — a finding that, if true, could mean hundreds of undiagnosed cases in the area.
In Kirkland, city officials announced that now 27 of their firefighters
and two of their police officers are in quarantine as they had been responding to the Kirkland LifeCare Center over the past week.
"We have also been notified that some of our firefighters in quarantine are demonstrating flu like symptoms," Kirkland city officials said. "We are working closely with Public Health –
Seattle & King County and adhering to their testing protocols." .. ..
Maybe it’s my elementary math skills, but the death rate seems much higher than 2% in WA.
like .. .. over 100% (ex: reported cases=2, deaths=6)
i do not trust reported rates of crime or disease, since politicians decided raw facts are racist.
so, i’m not in any way surprised WA may be “worse than previously reported.”
They have done almost no testing in WA due to lack of test kits so they literally have no idea how many have been infected. It could be hundreds or even thousands as the first infection looks like it dates back to January.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote:They have done almost no testing in WA due to lack of test kits so they literally have no idea how many have been infected. It could be hundreds or even thousands as the first infection looks like it dates back to January.
And the first set of test kits didn't work. We are at extremely early stages of measuring what is going on.
Outbreaks of novel virus infections among people are always of public health concern. The risk from these outbreaks depends on characteristics of the virus, including how well it spreads between people, the severity of resulting illness, and the medical or other measures available to control the impact of the virus (for example, vaccine or treatment medications). The fact that this disease has caused illness, including illness resulting in death, and sustained person-to-person spread is concerning. These factors meet two of the criteria of a pandemic. As community spread is detected in more and more countries, the world moves closer toward meeting the third criteria, worldwide spread of the new virus.
While there is still much to learn about the unfolding situations in California, Oregon and Washington, preliminary information raises the level of concern about the immediate threat for COVID-19 for certain communities in the United States. The potential public health threat posed by COVID-19 is very high, to the United States and globally.
At this time, however, most people in the United States will have little immediate risk of exposure to this virus. This virus is NOT currently spreading widely in the United States. However, it is important to note that current global circumstances suggest it is likely that this virus will cause a pandemic. This is a rapidly evolving situation and the risk assessment will be updated as needed.
Current risk assessment:
For the general American public, who are unlikely to be exposed to this virus at this time, the immediate health risk from COVID-19 is considered low.
People in communities where ongoing community spread with the virus that causes COVID-19 has been reported are at elevated though still relatively low risk of exposure.
Healthcare workers caring for patients with COVID-19 are at elevated risk of exposure.
Close contacts of persons with COVID-19 also are at elevated risk of exposure.
Travelers returning from affected international locations where community spread is occurring also are at elevated risk of exposure.
the virus may have been circulating in the state for up to six weeks undetected — a finding that, if true, could mean hundreds of undiagnosed cases in the area.
(ex: reported cases=2, deaths=6)