Major spike in business bankruptcies due to lockdowns

[Hilltrot]

China has been successful in controlling COVID, like it or not. Some of their methods are impossible in free societies. And yes they are a totalitarian country, and that is bad. Welcome to the complications of the real world. And no, I did not say it was 'impressive'- please put words into your own mouth, not mine.

China is blowing smoke up your rump, believe it or not.

Remember, China has also insisted "The CCP virus is not transmissible between people", "The CCP virus did not originate in China", "Ignore our pile of dead bodies", etc. China has never been truthful and unless you are fluent in Chinese, your "friends" in China will not be understood by you.

 

[Hilltrot]

1. Lockdowns work

Empirical evidence disagrees with this - Florida vs. New York.

2. Lockdowns are not the best way of dealing with the epidemic

With some viruses, that may be true. However, the empirical evidence disagrees with you - Florida vs. New York.

3. This really isn't so difficult

It seems to be very difficult for you to accept empirical evidence.

 

[chair]

Empirical evidence disagrees with this - Florida vs. New York.

With some viruses, that may be true. However, the empirical evidence disagrees with you - Florida vs. New York.

It seems to be very difficult for you to accept empirical evidence.

There is more to the world than Florida and New York.
But hey- cherry pick your examples. whatever it takes.

 

[Hilltrot]

There is more to the world than Florida and New York.
But hey- cherry pick your examples. whatever it takes.

I pick examples which are applicable to the country where I live and where I know that most of the information is not that corrupted - like China.

Pitcairn island is not very applicable to my country, so I wouldn't use it.

Texas has an additional problem with so many infected illegals entering the state and devastating the Hispanic population.

Florida and New York are applicable to my country, so I use those.

And yes, when one has conflicting evidence, is the right action to do the thing which will cause the greatest harm to civil liberty?

 

[chair]

I pick examples which are applicable to the country where I live and where I know that most of the information is not that corrupted - like China.

Pitcairn island is not very applicable to my country, so I wouldn't use it.

Texas has an additional problem with so many infected illegals entering the state and devastating the Hispanic population.

Florida and New York are applicable to my country, so I use those.

And yes, when one has conflicting evidence, is the right action to do the thing which will cause the greatest harm to civil liberty?

Lockdowns have proven useful in many countries. There are many countries in a place called "Europe" where these have proven effective. It is a complicated business, as the conditions in each place are different, and how strict the lockdowns are differs in each place.

There have been articles written about this. If you're interested you can find them. Or you can stick in your Florida vs. NY comfort zone.

This has been fun, but I think I'll step back now.

 

[Hilltrot]

Lockdowns have proven useful in many countries. There are many countries in a place called "Europe" where these have proven effective. It is a complicated business, as the conditions in each place are different, and how strict the lockdowns are differs in each place.

There have been articles written about this. If you're interested you can find them. Or you can stick in your Florida vs. NY comfort zone.

This has been fun, but I think I'll step back now.

Losing the argument I see. Stick your head in the mud and completely ignore well-founded evidence.

You talked about Europe? Which country has avoided lockdown or didn't shut their borders to other countries? Remember what I said about Pitcairn Island?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Anywhere that doesn't supply food, toiletries or medicine in context of a lockdown. I don't make light of the significant impact that such measures have on businesses, especially smaller ones either.

Such businesses supply (through wages) the means of purchasing food, toiletries, and medicine.

Ergo, essential to not only the business owners themselves, but also to the people employed by them.

But we know you would rather have everyone sucking on the government's teat than earning an honest wage.

 

[chair]

Losing the argument I see. Stick your head in the mud and completely ignore well-founded evidence.

You talked about Europe? Which country has avoided lockdown or didn't shut their borders to other countries? Remember what I said about Pitcairn Island?

I am getting tired of these "arguments". If you want to count this as a win, and boost your ego- please do. Self delusion is always fun.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Such businesses supply (through wages) the means of purchasing food, toiletries, and medicine.

Ergo, essential to not only the business owners themselves, but also to the people employed by them.

But we know you would rather have everyone sucking on the government's teat than earning an honest wage.

I don't know what procedures you have over in America but over here we've had grants afforded to businesses who have had to shut and a furlough scheme for staff who have been unable to work because of that. This aids both employers and employees in such a time of crisis. The benefits system also provides a net for some who need aid while waiting to return to work.

Your latter is either the height of ignorance or a flat out lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former because nowhere on this forum throughout my years of tenure here have I even implied any such thing. I support a benefit system. That in no way means that I would rather people be on such than having a job and earning an honest wage. In no way, shape or form. If you repeat any such claim then it will simply be a lie on your part.

 

[JudgeRightly]

grants afforded to businesses who have had to shut

AKA sucking on the government's teat, rather than simply allowing businesses to operate.

and a furlough scheme for staff who have been unable to work because of that.

Unable to work because of the government, forcing them to take such measures where not needed.

This aids both employers and employees in such a time of crisis.

Because you say so? Seems like it's harmed businesses more than it's helped.

The benefits system also provides a net for some who need aid while waiting to return to work.

How about they simply return to work then?

All it takes it to release the lockdowns.

That in no way means that I would rather people be on such than having a job and earning an honest wage. In no way, shape or form. If you repeat any such claim then it will simply be a lie on your part.

That's what a "benefit system" is, Arty.
That's what socialism is.

The government has no right to give or subsidize food, water, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, or education to/for people (excepting for emergency relief from natural disasters and short-term life-or-death crises).

 

[Hilltrot]

I don't know what procedures you have over in America but over here we've had grants afforded to businesses who have had to shut and a furlough scheme for staff who have been unable to work because of that. This aids both employers and employees in such a time of crisis. The benefits system also provides a net for some who need aid while waiting to return to work.

Your latter is either the height of ignorance or a flat out lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former because nowhere on this forum throughout my years of tenure here have I even implied any such thing. I support a benefit system. That in no way means that I would rather people be on such than having a job and earning an honest wage. In no way, shape or form. If you repeat any such claim then it will simply be a lie on your part.

Arthur contradicts himself in the same post. First, he supports a lockdown which he explains puts people and businesses on the government dole. In the very next paragraph, he insists that he's rather have people earning an "honest" wage - whatever that means to him. He's so simple he doesn't even realize he is contradicting himself.

And no, the Democrat governors gave nothing to the businesses they shut down or the people they put out of work.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur contradicts himself in the same post. First, he supports a lockdown which he explains puts people and businesses on the government dole. In the very next paragraph, he insists that he's rather have people earning an "honest" wage - whatever that means to him. He's so simple he doesn't even realize he is contradicting himself.

And no, the Democrat governors gave nothing to the businesses they shut down or the people they put out of work.

I support lockdown measures because we're in the middle of a pandemic in case you somehow hadn't noticed. If you think that means that I'm not keenly aware of how it can affect businesses or people's lives in a myriad different ways then you are clueless. It's an extreme measure taken to curb the flow of virus transmission. I can't wait for things to get back to normal, for all businesses to be able to reopen and where one of my friends can get back to working at the local pub. There's no contradiction in anything I've said other than what you've made up in your own head.

 

[Arthur Brain]

AKA sucking on the government's teat, rather than simply allowing businesses to operate.



Unable to work because of the government, forcing them to take such measures where not needed.



Because you say so? Seems like it's harmed businesses more than it's helped.



How about they simply return to work then?

All it takes it to release the lockdowns.



That's what a "benefit system" is, Arty.
That's what socialism is.

The government has no right to give or subsidize food, water, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, or education to/for people (excepting for emergency relief from natural disasters and short-term life-or-death crises).

Heck, it's almost as if you seem to think that countries around the world went into lockdown on a whim or something. They didn't. We've been in a time of international crisis for over a year now. I could care less whatever bunk you may buy into regarding them or masks and whatnot. The fact is they work to an extent. Is there a negative? Of course, several in fact. Businesses suffer, especially smaller ones, it impacts on people's jobs, lives in general. They are not pleasant obviously. So, governments, responsible ones at least are obliged to help out in turbulent times like these.

The alternative would have been just to go on as normal and have the infection rate escalate to a point where the national health service would have been completely unable to cope with admissions. More victims, more deaths. It would have been catastrophic and they were barely able to handle the influx of cases as it was. Doctors and nurses were coming out of retirement in order to help out so don't bother going on about how lockdowns don't work with me, I'm not interested.

Of course it would be better for businesses to be open than aided with grants. For some, those won't be enough and lots of jobs will have been lost. None of this situation is good.

I'm well aware of what you consider a benefit system to be and I could care less about that also. Not only does a civilized government have the right to do all as you describe, it also has a moral obligation to do so if it wants to remain civilized. Regardless, that doesn't excuse your ignorance in stating that I would rather have people on benefits than in work so please don't repeat such an asinine claim unless you want to be caught in a lie.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't know what procedures you have over in America but over here we've had grants afforded to businesses who have had to shut and a furlough scheme for staff who have been unable to work because of that. This aids both employers and employees in such a time of crisis. The benefits system also provides a net for some who need aid while waiting to return to work.

Do you have magic money trees there too?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Do you have magic money trees there too?

Nope.

 

[Right Divider]

I support lockdown measures because we're in the middle of a pandemic in case you somehow hadn't noticed.

Insulting those that are opposing you is childish. They are giving you facts, but you ignore them completely.

If you think that means that I'm not keenly aware of how it can affect businesses or people's lives in a myriad different ways then you are clueless. It's an extreme measure taken to curb the flow of virus transmission.

An extreme measure that is proven NOT to work according to actual scientific evidence.

 

[Right Divider]

Nope.

Exactly. Shutdowns negatively effect everyone financially without helping stop the spread of a virus.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Insulting those that are opposing you is childish. They are giving you facts, but you ignore them completely.

An extreme measure that is proven NOT to work according to actual scientific evidence.

Um, how was I insulting him exactly? I am not being given "facts", I am being given the usual bunk with people asserting such as fact. Big difference.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Exactly. Shutdowns negatively effect everyone financially without helping stop the spread of a virus.

Nope.

 

[Right Divider]

Um, how was I insulting him exactly?

AB: "...we're in the middle of a pandemic in case you somehow hadn't noticed".

I am not being given "facts", I am being given the usual bunk with people asserting such as fact. Big difference.

Compare places that had extreme lockdowns and those that have not.
You CANNOT tells the difference based on the NUMBERS.
That is a FACT that you and others here cannot handle. You just poop poop it and ignore it.