Token Daily

Misleading headline.

He is attacking Zoom's claim that they implement end-to-end crypto', which is tangential to his opinion on whether end-to-end crypto' should be permitted.

Though, this all rests upon his misinterpretation of the phrase "end-to-end".

It's clear to anyone with even a vague understanding that this refers to communications between each user and Zoom, not between Zoom users.

1

Globin347 28 mins ago

Let me guess... Republican?

1

Hairy_Al 23 mins ago

"Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal dings Zoom for false end-to-end crypto claim."

1

Globin347 21 mins ago

Ah. My bad.

1

redog 40 mins ago

Because he wants his back door into it.

1

shill779 46 mins ago

Well well well Ouroboros, the snake eating it’s tail. How we are failing fast. Great job.

2

elusiveshame 53 mins ago

People who have no background in technology should not be allowed to make laws on technology. If this shit flies, say goodbye to e-commerce.

3

bcbasebal11 58 mins ago

Encryption is not crypto

2

jjseven 1 h ago

Hypocrisy is not exclusive to the GOP.

2

StoicLumberJack 1 h ago

I don’t know how to feel about this. Yes, Zoom should have much better security. But yes, end-to-end encryption has the drawback of enabling the exchange of child pornography.

The Daily had a two-part podcast explaining that mediums that can read messages (Facebook Messenger) are able to flag known child pornography photos and ban and report the users because they have the ability to read the data. Mediums that can’t read their messages (Apple iMessage) are willfully ignorant of everything being sent on it and have no ability to have oversight because they can’t read the data.

2

Choreboy 1 h ago

Let's put this another way. Let's say the child pornography is not sent via email, but rather printed out on paper and transported to someone else's house in a bag. Does that mean you should get to stop and search everyone walking around with a bag? Or pull anyone over just to see if they have a bag in the car and search it? Just because it makes law enforcement's job a bit more difficult catching 0.00000001% of the population breaking the law doesn't mean the rest of us should give up our right to privacy.

2

scurrilousgoat 1 h ago

Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham.

To think something this moronic could get bipartisan support...

To think our senator would support that moron Graham...

9

bdy435 1 h ago

Two old people who dont understand the internet, or how it works..

6

scurrilousgoat 30 mins ago

I already wrote in to the office & threw my credentials in there. I'll be calling later. Hopefully it resonates.

2

Bootysmoo 1 h ago

Can we all agree that "crypto" means "related to cryptocurrency", and encryption doesn't need a fucking abbreviation?

3

Tobax 1 h ago

Just goes to show that people on both sides have no idea on some subjects, and why lobbying shouldn't be legal, it's just paying to be able to lie to people who make ill informed decisions.

1

blockcontroller 1 h ago

pointing spider-men

1

RedSquirrelFtw 1 h ago

The way politicians can flip flop what they stand for truly shows how much they don't actually stand for anything, they just take whichever side is more convenient for each situation.

1

secondtrex 1 h ago

It’s incredible how ill informed Congress is. Lindsey Graham hasn’t ever sent an email (as of 2015 at least)

2

deck_hand 2 hs ago

end-to-end encryption is the ONLY thing we can use to ensure privacy. And, once we give the Government a back-door way to spy on private conversations, abuses will happen. The only way to ensure we have a minimal level of abuse is to ensure that the Government doesn't get an "all access pass" to our private lives.

14

nsefan 2 hs ago

"No, silly! Only ApProVeD GoVeRnMeNt BoDiEs should be able to break crypto!!"

11

prettymuchamine 2 hs ago

So they want a backdoor? That’s absolutely _won’t_ get discovered by _anyone_ else

7

NakedMiguel 2 hs ago

"crypto"

No.

2

Mgzz 16 mins ago

Maybe they should have added more cloud based quantum blockchain machine learning. Couldn't have happened if they'd done that.

1

Kanoral 2 hs ago

Thought it meant cryptocurrency :/

1

Kellog_cornflakes 2 hs ago

"I want things to have a backdoor, but if the backdoor doesn't go to the US I'll complain"

4

theislander849 2 hs ago

Funny people still think our legislators work for us.

2

Its_N8_Again 2 hs ago

"Senator Pot, I have a friend I'd like you to meet, his name's Kettle..."

3

N-I_TNY 2 hs ago

This guy....

12

tehchubbyninja 2 hs ago

Oh my a hypocrite in Washington?! It can't be! /s

2

oriaven 2 hs ago

Zoom is end to end encrypted. It's just one end is your machine, the other is their server. They can decrypt it. They are sometimes using servers in another country. Sometimes that country is China. I don't doubt that the US forces providers to decrypt data or that the US doesn't already have the backdoor to algorithms they helped build, but I really would rather other nations not decrypt my traffic either.

1

firmakind 2 hs ago

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal

Give him a little credit, put his name in the title at least...

2

4

2

25 2

dhaunatello 8 hs ago

It is obvious that President Trump's quick and decisive actions have saved many thousands of lives. The media can only marvel at his success in overcoming their dire predictions.

6

2baby_maker 2 hs ago

If that were true, the US would be having better results than other countries. The US's response has been poor. New York, Detroit and New Orleans hospitals are near full and more people are coming. Respirators are needed and the economy is in lockdown. More than 10 Million people lost their health insurance with their jobs. Reality shows the president is reeling in this crisis.

1

OCNoob1 Yesterday

Because it was bullshit to begin with and it's harder and harder to support their initial bullshittery now that hard data is coming in.

7

PooperSnooperPrime Yesterday

The models began as (probably) worst case scenarios based on educated guesses with very little basis to make an educated guess from. Over time, with growing experience and increasing knowledge, the models are refined based on constantly updating information. Projected death tolls could wildly swing upward if whatever factors are working in our favor stop being the way they currently are (such as the amount of people social distancing decreases significantly).

7

MediaShatters America First! 11 hs ago

garbage in, garbage out

3

unRealityEngineer Yesterday

In short, the panic is wearing off.

Reality is returning.

10

BoondockSaint45 Yesterday

That doesn't explain why MSM keeps reporting lower numbers. Leftists literally cheer for higher numbers, like the sick fucks they are, nd they fight medicines that can help.

7

unRealityEngineer 11 hs ago

They have to restore the illusion that they report real news.

5

ME24601 Yesterday

The LOGICAL Question is WHY?

Probably because people are maintaining social distance and shelter in place orders.

2

PCisLame Yesterday

So, have you people finally gotten past blaming the Orange Man Bad for this? Logical **Q**

0

peter-doubt Yesterday

OP doesn't know the difference between death toll and death rate.

Death tolls don't go down.

(Also, not the headline)

3

id10t_you Yesterday

Perhaps because people are largely following shelter in place orders?

No? Surely the more complex, conspiracy laden theories are the answer? FOH shitheel.

3

PCisLame Yesterday

THE GREAT AWAKENING

6

PCisLame Yesterday

THE GREAT AWAKENING

0

duallyford Yesterday

You need to lay off the Q

2

kingleir306 Yesterday

Because they just dying at home?

0

zucker42 Left Libertarian Yesterday

The study assumes social distancing, and assumes the illness will follow a Gaussian error function.

4

PolicyWonka Yesterday

Yes. It assumes social distancing and business closures extend until August.

2

Teary_Oberon Objectivism, Minarchism, & Austrian Economics Yesterday

They'd better be careful. If they keep revising their models down over and over again, eventually we'll get into "bad flu season" territory. And then the doomsday prophets are going to end up looking stupid.

I mean honestly it's not even that far away now - the 2017-18 flue season killed 60,000+ people.

0

Naptownfellow hippy who enjoys thoughtful debate Yesterday

Lol. It’s crazy you’re calling anyone out about revising their models when you said we would have over 1000 deaths. Then you went back and changed your prediction to less than 10,000 deaths and then you edited them again. We are past 12,000 what is your prediction now ?

2

3720-To-One Negative externalities exist Yesterday

Holy shit! It’s almost as if after taking pro-active measures to enforce social distancing and halt the spread of the disease, the projected death count drops... Who would have known?

7

SamanthaLoridelon Yesterday

Whatever they can say to keep people out working to keep the rich, rich. Sick of all this fake news.

1

irishgm1002 Yesterday

Anybody else think the numbers were high at first so trump can boast and say that it is because of him?

1

thiscouldbemassive Yesterday

The problem is that as soon as they open schools and businesses, there will be a second wave of illness. What we need is a vaccine. We won't reach a true peak until we have one. Or everyone gets the disease and all who are going to die have died -- which is the worst case scenerio.

2

klarno shitlib Yesterday

The worst case scenario was that the virus swamps the medical system everywhere all at once in the middle of flu season, leading to deaths of many who otherwise could have been saved.

6

thiscouldbemassive Yesterday

Yes, which is what will happen if people go back to work and school. Eventually the virus will run out of hosts, but in the mean time we'll be swamped.

2

klarno shitlib Yesterday

Flu season is over. There are more medical resources to spare. Data are showing that this virus isn’t as virulent in warmer, more humid weather.

1

thiscouldbemassive Yesterday

And it will explode again come fall.

1

so_af Yesterday

Don't worry, you'll be free to continue to live your life like a coward

0

dangerweiner69 Yesterday

Damn, this will continue until August? I honestly don't know how realistic that is - personally I would be incredibly out of shape by then if the stay at home order is still ongoing...

1

syzygyperigee Yesterday

Yup. Numbers from China are dubious at best. But seems it started there in December/January and they are only now saying they’re over it (but stay home ... so not really yet). A full lockdown till August is probably unlikely. But I’d say there will be regions in lockdown through June, July and even August.

2

dangerweiner69 Yesterday

The states in lockdown for that long will need to waive rent and mortgage payments unless they want a massive homeless crisis. The unemployment rate is expected to reach 20-30%, at a minimum that would be hundreds of thousands of people facing eviction/foreclosure.

1

syzygyperigee Yesterday

Again, a full lockdown for that long is unlikely. And yes - if it proves necessary anywhere then it will be extraordinarily aweful. States, or counties, will likely be faced with a trade off of whether they try to get a faltering economy started and accept thousands of deaths, vs poverty and saving lives. While knowing that reviving the economy may not work so you end up with widespread poverty and deaths. Tough decisions for sure

1

GlobalTravelR Yesterday

It's also doesn't factor in Red State Governors acting like morons.

1

buscoamigos Yesterday

It does factor in what steps states are taking to flatten the curve

3

FrenchLlamas Yesterday

Here's hoping this is accurate. More evidence that containment and social distancing is very important.

3

Siggycakes Yesterday

This model is being shit on by people who think it's too forgiving and too pessimistic. It's hilarious.

16

nooneneededtoknow Yesterday

People calling out the assumptions made because they don't align with what the US is currently doing is constructive incite - its not shitting on the model, its pointing out discrepancies because nothing is perfect.

2

PolicyWonka Yesterday

But the newest version of the model underscores just how important social distancing continues to be: It assumes that those measures -- such as closing schools and businesses -- will continue until August, and it still predicts tens of thousands of deaths.

3

PolicyWonka Yesterday

But the newest version of the model underscores just how important social distancing continues to be: It assumes that those measures -- such as closing schools and businesses -- will continue until August, and it still predicts tens of thousands of deaths.

10

part-three Yesterday

I'm not sure we can survive a shut-down until August. Besides the question of who is going to produce and deliver the food, there's also the question of who will be able to afford it? Is the gov just going to keep printing money and giving it away? And if so, what will be the repercussions of that?

6

AnarchistBorganism Anarcho-communist Yesterday

If rent and mortgage payments are suspended, and the government implements taxes to implement a UBI, then it's just a matter of making sure that payments cover basic living expenses. If it's fueled by debt, then it's basically just printing money and it will result in inflation, or possibly just decreased deflation; it's hard to say.

2

BGPAstronaut 9 hs ago

If we implement full on communism it should be fine.

0

Mighty_L_LORT Yesterday

Model aporoved by business leaders and billionaire shareholders...

0

Lo-Kel Yesterday

Maybe, in round one, of who knows how many rounds. 18 months eta till a vaccine ( at least). I'm not looking forward to autumn...then next spring...

0

fordman84 Yesterday

Based on the numbers they are saying, I think they are basing it on this site:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

5

GiantPandammonia Yesterday

Look at that site's predictions from Louisiana, and then look up the deaths in new Orleans and decide if you think that model seems valid.

0

fordman84 Yesterday

It's a forecast, not a crystal ball. See the shaded region for deaths, that is what is possible based on variables.

8

Belikedis Yesterday

Well seeing as a good amount of us have stayed home for 1-3 weeks. It can’t do anything but help our odds.

6

Viewfromthe31stfloor Frequent Contributor Yesterday

4 weeks here in NYC. Started before the shutdown orders after a hospital started cancelling non-essential appointments. A significant number of people have done the same starting with working from home.

3

2

3

2

13 3

78east 40 mins ago

This is the epitome of "this is why we can't have nice things"

I'm sure I'm not the only one that's noticed, but more than ever I can't believe how selfish and stubborn people are. I can't imagine how many cases could have been avoided if so many people didn't think they were special and none of this applied to them.

Some people think they made the ultimate sacrifice for humanity by staying indoors for a couple weeks. And now everyone will pay the price for it. I live next to a main road and judging by the traffic since the weekend, you'd assume things were basically back to normal now. Lawn care trucks everywhere, construction projects going, car after car driving by all day. Compared to a couple weeks ago the difference is huge. Did i miss something?

It's just terrifying how little most will sacrifice if it doesn't benefit them directly.

1

css555 40 mins ago

Anyone know if the Appalachian Trail is subject to the Governor's order? It is not a State or County Park.....

1

okdba 49 mins ago

All this park stuff is like the old timers that don't want free health care for all because "socialism" but then protest "don't touch my social security and medicare!". Close all the stuff other people care about but I like going to the park so keep those open you jerks!

1

3kool5you 49 mins ago

I say close the parking lots but leave them open to bicyclists/people who walk there. Would reduce a ton of volume that way but people who are going to keep moving and not just hang out can obviously walk through/bike through.

1

nightshadecorvii 45 mins ago

The problem tends to be families that live nearby and groups of teens that use it as a meeting point and do hang out, you have a lot of people still under the idea of ‘well what does it matter if I just go see some friends?’. I agree it would be amazing to be able to have them open and properly enforced but the problem is that it isn’t linguistically possible without someone patrolling the park

1

Linus696 58 mins ago

No

Two weekends ago there was about 15 cars parked at the park right before the last exit into PA on 80 at around 11am. When I was coming back home at like 3ish, there were about 30 cars and 8 Trooper cars ushering people out and closing the park down.

While the parks themselves are sizable, there’s still a focal point where people congregate. Parking lots, bathroom stalls, etc.,. Now because there’s nothing else to do, everyone and their mothers flock to these parks. My point, the whole stance of social distancing is diminished quite a bit at these focal points. We can’t flatten the curve if this continues.

Also note: this last weekend when I rode my motorcycle into PA. This park was completely cordoned off with yellow tape and cones.

1

gtluke 33 mins ago

That's a national park and I believe will remain open.

1

Linus696 23 mins ago

Huh, I’m not sure if it’s open on weekdays. But I rode past it on Sat and Sun, parking lot was still cordoned off.

1

JCJR62693 59 mins ago

Close the parks but do next to nothing about Lakewood. Our governor has botched this at every step of the way

1

okdba 51 mins ago

Every case in Lakewood that was reported the police broke it up and arrested people.

1

Quercusalba 1 h ago

I think a better option is limiting the amount of people allowed in parks. Close the lots, keep them half full, and only allow another car in after one leaves. That or have a lottery system. The parks provide too great a benefit to close them completely and they can be utilized while practicing safe social distancing.

0

nightshadecorvii 1 h ago

The problem is that we have enough people spread thin trying to keep the peace and social distancing and curfews going on already, where are we to get the people to enforce this on _every_ park? We’ve already seen that people cannot manage themselves, and only letting select few in at a time would cause more problems/fights than it would be worth unfortunately.

1

Quercusalba 1 h ago

Then we close the parks that are not staffed appropriately. There are ways to manage the situation effectively with proper planning.

1

nightshadecorvii 1 h ago

And then people travel and drive out to the only few open parks? That would be even worse, people would be trying to pile in to only a few open spaces and would be even more upset if they came from a while away and then also had to wait to just go for a walk.

1

Quercusalba 58 mins ago

Then you have a lottery system. This would also solve the problem of people traveling to distant parks. Only allow local residents to apply to their local parks.

1

nightshadecorvii 55 mins ago

So people who just don’t live near an open park are just out of luck? That’s going to cause more divide and people asking why their park isn’t open. And also how are you going to enforce the social distancing? Have someone every so many feet watching people to make sure they’re far enough apart? That costs more manpower and will make people even more uncomfortable. Not every park is clearly visible from the entrance or exit. Edit: *who

1

Pherllerp 1 h ago

Enforced by whom? The police? Park Rangers? In addition to the obvious health crisis, this situation has laid bare how disgustingly inadequate all of our social systems are.

1

Quercusalba 1 h ago

The park rangers. I'm a former park ranger and I would have been glad to step up during these difficult times.

1

Jballzs13 1 h ago

Nah. People don’t have enough common sense and responsibility to be deserving of it.

28

nightshadecorvii 1 h ago

I honestly loved seeing the thread where everyone was outraged with the parks closing because ‘well when I was there no one else was!’ And I get it. But with the amount of people commenting that it becomes pretty clear how many people are actually going out still. And we already know we can’t trust everyone to social distance.

9

stickman07738 19 mins ago

Before the quarantine, I would walk in Thompson Park daily - 4.5 mile loop and occasional some trails in Huber Woods. I would be luck to see 10 people most days. Since quarantine, parking lot was full and sometimes 50-100 depending day and weather - individuals mingling, talking, no personal distance even though they came in separate cars - people are stupid.

1

dirty_cuban 38 mins ago

It's just like traffic on the road. Anyone "stuck in traffic" is contributing to the very problem they're complaining about.

1

hopsandhorns Red Bank 1 h ago

Like I said in that thread, no surprise, but honestly, I'm sure there were going to be plenty of easter egg hunts and as the weather gets warmer, everyone thinks they are the only ones going to a place and then you suddenly see a gathering of 30-40 people together. If it happens in front yards, I can see it happening at a park. Sucks though, it takes away a main source of being outside for a lot of people who were acting responsibly.

6

Jballzs13 1 h ago

I’m very disappointed, the only thing keeping me sane during this was heading up to the park and checking out the skyline with the binoculars.

0

Jballzs13 1 h ago

The amount of people i saw walking right next to each other, and crossing each other face to face was crazy.

6

78east 27 mins ago

It's not real unless it effects them or someone they know. Untill then, all those numbers are just numbers. Not sure if it's stupidity, bravado or what. It's terrifying either way

1

Byzantium42 Yesterday

I said from the beginning closing parks will be counter productive. It won't stop anyone from going outside, but instead of in a large park, they will be on sidewalks, bumping into each other.

There is a park near me, it's really more of a trail, but it has a playground at 1 end. I walk my dogs down there almost every day. It has a wooded area they like to play in, there's a creek.. There are usually 2 or 3 other people in the park, maybe on a really nice day 5 or 6. Now that park is closed and I have to walk into ditches and streets to avoid all the people on the sidewalks while waking my dogs.

1

chicago_bigot Yesterday

Ivory tower limousine liberals: let them crowd in parks!!

1

travuloso Yesterday

If we keep the parks open we're going to have to close the playgrounds, cook areas, any narrow trails and make sure people don't congregate. I think this means a bunch of rules and a bunch of cops to enforce them.

1

Mikazukinoyaiba Yesterday

Maybe you haven't been to the parks?

1

Benefits_Lapsed Yesterday

I have been and never have a problem keeping my distance, but again it's not about doing nothing it's about closing the parks being a worse solution than keeping them open and there are measures that can be taken to regulate number of people in parks at one time and help people spread out.

1

skoolhausrock Yesterday

YOU haven't had problems keeping your distance. But what about all the moron hoosiers who are out in gigantic groups. They have to close the parks because people are stupid.

1

YouKnowThatOtherGuy UCity 11 hs ago

They would be out in giant groups regardless and you're vastly overstating this issue.

1

Mikazukinoyaiba Yesterday

This sounds a lot like the philosophy tried before of letting bars and restaurants stay open and trust that people will just distance themselves. Mr. Parsons

1

StalkerFishy Lafayette Square Yesterday

It's much easier to social distance yourself at a park than at a restaurant.

1

ayending1 Yesterday

Tons of restaurants would argue they can help to maintain social distance at their places so they can stay open.

1

StalkerFishy Lafayette Square Yesterday

Because if they stay open they make money. I can't blame them. But unfortunately it isn't practical, whereas keeping parks open while social distancing is.

1

autosoap Yesterday

I spend a lot of time in TGP and I don’t have any problem keeping my distance from others and I don’t see many people congregating either. Closing parks sort of makes sense in queeny or creve couer since they’re mostly paths but in city parks that are fields, it doesn’t make sense and is almost unenforceable.

1

StalkerFishy Lafayette Square Yesterday

Definitely. I'm in Lafayette Park daily and it's incredibly easy to avoid people even though there are dozens there.

1

Benefits_Lapsed Yesterday

I recently read that St. Louis City officials had warned that city parks could follow suit with the county if people didn't behave. I think this article is therefore very relevant and makes some strong arguments that should be considered by all local governments. I found this quote interesting:

The outdoors and sunshine are such strong factors in fighting viral infections that a 2009 study of the extraordinary success of outdoor hospitals during the 1918 influenza epidemic suggested that during the next pandemic (I guess this one!) we should encourage “the public to spend as much time outdoors as possible,” as a public-health measure.

The author also doesn't argue for a "do nothing" approach, rather there are all sorts of common sense measures we can take to keep the parks open while making it easier for everyone to practice social distancing.

1

rickscarf Kirkwood Yesterday

Some people don't care to follow social distancing rules. This is why we can't have nice things

1

Benefits_Lapsed Yesterday

Well if they truly don't care then it makes little difference whether they violate the rules in a park or at a home. The article argues for various reasons it's better in a park than an apartment or home. Not only is the latter more likely to spread the virus but all it does is move the violations from public view. I think the vast majority do care though, and in some cases might just need some assistance from officials with things like one way paths, etc.

1

Mikazukinoyaiba Yesterday

>Well if they truly don't care then it makes little difference whether they violate the rules in a park or at a home. How does this make sense to you. If they violate at home, that cluster is at least smaller.

1

TerpsR4theKids 11 hs ago

Just depends on who it is. I’m 21 and my gf is 19 and her friends all do not care whatsoever. They have been steadily getting together for wine night in groups of 10+ and one of those friend’s mom is a nurse that flew out to NY to help last week. You’d think at least that friend would get it but she is the one having them all over

1

Benefits_Lapsed Yesterday

I don't see why it would be. The scenario is that some bad actors don't care about social distancing so they meet up with friends at the park. If park is closed, they can meet at their house instead.

1

Mikazukinoyaiba Yesterday

It's not about the group's that gather together but about the groups that mingle with others due to high density of said groups.

1

YouKnowThatOtherGuy UCity 11 hs ago

As if there aren't going to be at least as much mingling as you force all those people into now less spaces.

1

Mikazukinoyaiba 11 hs ago

Once again This is about cluster size. A group of 10 people being exposed is much better than a group of 200. When you have multiple groups in the park, they all become exposed and you create a larger cluster.

1

YouKnowThatOtherGuy UCity 11 hs ago

Nobody is gathering in groups of 200. Just because there's 200 in a park doesn't mean they're all spreading it or even spreading it.

1

Mikazukinoyaiba 11 hs ago

>Nobody is gathering in groups of 200 For the sake of the model, you must treat the entire park as one group. It may be conservative, but it accounts for all of the intergroup interactions that occur within a public space such as a park. Nonetheless, this illustrates the point that people gathering together in someones house (in which everyone would have some relation to each other prior) is much different than when multiple groups gather together in a public space. Hence the emphasis on going out only for *essential needs* to minimize exposure as much as possible, because that model minimizes exposure and why earlier recommendations were for people to keep social groups no larger than 10 before Shelter-In-Place was requested. Edit: [Here is an excellent example of the benefits of isolated clustered groups](https://youtu.be/gxAaO2rsdIs?t=349)

1

Benefits_Lapsed Yesterday

That's where other measures can help, limit amount of people in park, regulate the flow, basic stuff. Closing the park is an extremely drastic solution (but again, it's not really a solution), sort of using a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel.

1

Theogwyn Yesterday

Who decides who gets to go to the park? For how long? On what days? That is a lot to regulate. Also the parks that are closed still allow people to take walks and be on the trails from what I am reading. If people would not have abused the park to ignore social distancing etc then they would still be open. They can't spend the time and resources to regulate the area so because a lot of people ruined it they ruined it for people who were being good and responsible with the parks. Edit: I hate this as much as everyone else too but if we don't participate the longer it is going to last and more stuff is going to be taken away and I for one want to have some kind of summer rather than being stuck in my house/yard.

1

UsedToBsmart Yesterday

What closed parks have you heard are allowing people on the trails? I’ve not experienced that, the parks are me are completely gated.

1

Theogwyn Yesterday

https://www.ksdk.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-st-louis-county-parks-close-friday/63-4c464d0a-b777-4b0a-953f-3b68dadb20a5 "People can still go for walks in city parks, but social distancing must be maintained."

1

ayending1 Yesterday

All the alternatives suggested by the author are feasible, yet still at a cost. Simply closing the parks is always the easiest option for the government. It's hard to maintain social distance in forest park if thousands of people think it's a good idea to work out there today.

1

3

25 2

IIWIIM8 Yesterday

Respiratory Pathogen Emission Dynamics Video and description (RT 1:23)

Still photo image

1

SeriousTinker 6 days ago

Although such social distancing strategies are critical in the current time of pandemic, it may seem surprising that the current understanding of the routes of host-to-host transmission in respiratory infectious diseases are predicated on a model of disease transmission developed in the 1930s that, by modern standards, seems overly simplified. Implementing public health recommendations based on these older models may limit the effectiveness of the proposed interventions....

Given various combinations of an individual patient’s physiology and environmental conditions, such as humidity and temperature, the gas cloud and its payload of pathogen-bearing droplets of all sizes can travel 23 to 27 feet (7-8 m).

This is published in JAMA; have the WHO found differently?

2

bobblehead230 6 days ago

I can supply plenty of turbulent gas clouds

1

DeadlyKitt4 Moderator 6 days ago

You should contribute only high-quality information. We require that users submit reliable, fact-based information to the subreddit and provide an English translation for an article in the comments if necessary. There are many places online to discuss conspiracies and speculate. We ask you not to do so here. (More Information)

1

NotMyPact 6 days ago

These new findings, along with the asymptomatic nature of the coronavirus (1) and its ability to remain active on surfaces (2), could be an explanation for its widespread infection

Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions

Potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19

(...)

The dichotomy of large vs small droplets remains at the core of the classification systems of routes of respiratory disease transmission adopted by the World Health Organization and other agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These classification systems employ various arbitrary droplet diameter cutoffs, from 5 to 10 μm, to categorize host-to-host transmission as droplets or aerosol routes.1 Such dichotomies continue to underly current risk management, major recommendations, and allocation of resources for response management associated with infection control, including for COVID-19. ¨Even when maximum containment policies were enforced, the rapid international spread of COVID-19 suggests that using arbitrary droplet size cutoffs may not accurately reflect what actually occurs with respiratory emissions, possibly contributing to the ineffectiveness of some procedures used to limit the spread of respiratory disease.

(...)

A 2020 report from China demonstrated that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus particles could be found in the ventilation systems in hospital rooms of patients with COVID-19

(...)

The protective efficacy of N95 masks depends on their ability to filter incoming air from aerosolized droplet nuclei. However, these masks are only designed for a certain range of environmental and local conditions and a limited duration of usage. Mask efficacy as source control depends on the ability of the mask to trap or alter the high-momentum gas cloud emission with its pathogenic payload. Peak exhalation speeds can reach up to 33 to 100 feet per second (10-30 m/s), creating a cloud that can span approximately 23 to 27 feet (7-8 m). Protective and source control masks, as well as other protective equipment, should have the ability to repeatedly withstand the kind of high-momentum multiphase turbulent gas cloud that may be ejected during a sneeze or a cough and the exposure from them. Currently used surgical and N95 masks are not tested for these potential characteristics of respiratory emissions

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763852 (JAMA)

Research published by

Lydia Bourouiba is a physical applied mathematician concentrating on geophysical problems of hydrodynamic turbulence and on the mathematical modeling of population dynamics and disease transmission

http://imes.mit.edu/people/faculty/bourouiba-lydia/

Case closed for me, so far for open debate and genuine discussion on Reddit #fail

FOOTNOTES

(1) https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375

(2) https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973

2

flavormonkey 1 week ago

Brilliant

1

shiruken PhD | Biomedical Engineering | Optics 1 week ago

Your post has been removed because it does not reference new peer-reviewed research and is therefore in violation of our Submission Rules.

If your submission is scientific in nature, consider reposting in our sister subreddit /r/EverythingScience.

If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators..

1

CivilServantBot 1 week ago

Welcome to r/science! Our team of 1,500+ moderators will remove comments if they are jokes, anecdotes, memes, off-topic or medical advice (rules). We encourage respectful discussion about the science of the post.

1

sjgokou 1 week ago

Who would of thought a sneeze could travel so far. 😷

1

lisaseileise 1 week ago

mucosalivary droplets following short-range semiballistic emission trajectories

Sounds like a sufficiently metal line up. Now, we‘ll have to wait a few months for that gig.

3

pbjis2op4me 1 week ago

But oh no, don’t you see it rides on water and is therefore water droplet only. Haha, idiots claiming it is aerosolized. I am so smart because I only use info from the WHO and CCP. It can’t stay in the air because it’s not airborne. Therefore I am right.

0

Striking_Eggplant 1 week ago

Tldr when people sneez it goes about 27 feet, as such 6 feet of social distancing isn't even close to the right number for maximum effect.

6

retro_slouch 1 week ago

Indeed, but we also need to find a sweetspot of "tolerable for at least 4 months" and effectiveness.

4

qabadai 1 week ago

It would be interesting to consider directionality in this analysis. A sneeze going 7-8m forward is different than it going 7-8m in all directions. They do hypothesize that indoor climate control can have a big impact though, which makes sense.

5

billg1 1 week ago

I think there’s little point or utility to this article. It just names areas of future study for fluid dynamicists. The fact that a cough or sneeze can go farther than 6 feet shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who thinks about respiratory diseases.

8

SeriousPuppet 1 week ago

It's a beginning point in understand the means of travel of viruses. No one is thinking seriously about actually containing individual sneeze output. If we do that we can, in theory, stop the virus. A though experiment - let's say every time someone coughed/sneezed they put a big plastic bag around their nose/mouth and all of the output/cloud was captured in that bag, and that bag was tied up and thrown away; in theory, you would remove the virus from the environment (from this transmission method); the droplets would not land on surfaces (fomites); it would not hang in the air waiting for someone else to breathe in. This would greatly reduce transmission. Wearing masks help a bit, but obviously aren't full proof. What comes out when we sneeze is "mucosalivary droplets" -- ie it is basically mucus and saliva, but in "aersolized" and "dropletized" form. We would never accept ingesting a stranger's mucus or saliva, and health workers treat those fluids very carefully (when taking samples for testing, just as they would treat urine, sperm, etc); yet sick people walk right into doctor's offices and ER waiting rooms and can expel their mucus and saliva right into the air, and this is accepted because it's just always how its been. We need to start thinking differently about this. I have inventions that could solve for this but I doubt I have the resources to bring them to fruition.

2

this_kitten_i_knew 1 week ago

agreed, it's simply a computer generated predictive model. there needs to be way more modeling done in order for this to change respiratory protection in some meaningful way

1

KLP097 1 week ago

I thought it was important to learn that many masks have not been tested for high speed gas clouds. Means I'm going to be using the full face shield going forward.

3

RPDC01 1 week ago

Welp, that 7-8m photo is definitely nightmare fuel, and the video just made it worse. The cloud just hangs in the air at around 20ft.

26

[deleted] 1 week ago

[removed]

1

AutoModerator 1 week ago

[imgur] is not a scientific source and cannot easily be verified by other users. Please use sources according to [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/about/rules/) instead. Thanks for keeping /r/COVID19 evidence-based! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COVID19) if you have any questions or concerns.*

2

TrueOrleans 1 week ago

The videos are slowed down. The first 2 are less than a half a second in real time. The last one is 6 seconds. Still not incredible news but don’t get the impression that such a high concentration of exhaled air isn’t prone to diffusion like any other substance.

8

mrandish 1 week ago

> nightmare fuel Yep, not showing this to my already-germophobic wife. Since there are indications the density of viral load matters, I wonder what the falloff rate is at the edges and over time. IIRC a study posted last week had density measurements taken in an actual hospital environment (in Nebraska I think). Another study, also posted last week I think, indicated that not all detectable CV19 is necessarily infectable CV19. More distance or more protection are always better but the dynamics are complex and we need more info to balance probability and practicality. I'd love to see this expanded into a practical study in environments like hospitals, offices and stores showing the incidence of particles sufficient to cause infection as a falloff per square of the distance and time. The high frequency and viral loads found in hospital ERs and ICUs dictate maximum precaution. However, if doubling social distancing from 6 feet to 12 feet in a retail store environment only decreases the probability of actual infection slightly, it may not be worth it as it would make it impossible to navigate a typical grocery store. Yesterday I was getting groceries for an elderly family member and everyone at the grocery was respectfully navigating around in virtual six-foot bubbles and it was already at the edge of practicality. I started pondering, "If almost all the at-risk people and the currently symptomatic people are staying home (and most seem to be, viral social media reports aside), then the odds of being infected during the three seconds two people are passing in a supermarket aisle is probably pretty darn low."

18

Awade32 1 week ago

Quick question, I see all of this viral load talk. How could anyone possibly know what someone’s initial viral load was at the time of infection? Can you trace back to see that somehow? To me it seems more likely that when viral load is discussed, it is speaking of the idea that if someone currently has a high viral load, that is bad, which seems obvious. I would love to know the answer to this, and I know you might not know but I thought I would ask since you mentioned it. Thanks!

7

mrandish 1 week ago

There was a German study where they swabbed patients every day and tracked viral load but I can't find the link. Maybe someone else can link it. Here's [a CDC study](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6909e1.htm) on incidence of CV19 infectious transmission. I also remember seeing a Korean study of households where they tracked the likelihood of infection, which I also can't find (too many studies, not enough brain). From some study I read, the notion stuck in my brain that the chances of getting CV19 from someone you live or work with is dramatically higher than getting it from someone you pass on the street or in a store, which makes sense but I continue to see people act the opposite way.

4

StorkReturns 1 week ago

[German study](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20030502v1).

3

Positive-Vibes-2-All 1 week ago

Canadian health officials state that most severe cases in China happened among family members due to close contact

3

Slapbox 1 week ago

You can't know, but you can know a person surrounded by 6 symptomatic people (like healthcare workers are) are going to be exposed to more of the virus than someone who was exposed during a checkout at the grocery store with an asymptomatic spreader.

8

Awade32 1 week ago

I get that, but I keep seeing that studies say the higher the initial viral load, the worse the outcome or something similar. Are they following healthcare workers that they know were highly exposed? It seems that they wouldn’t have enough data to look at deaths and then figure out if they got it from touching a key pad or if someone on deaths door coughed straight down their throat.

6

SAKUJ0 1 week ago

Prof. Drosten speculated that severe cases might result from deep inhalation of viral load and skipping the "mild phase". He was discussing the hypothesis that the body needs some time to build anti bodies, that could fight the lung stage of CV19. Virus replicates exponentially in the body. I am no epidemiologist. However, it would seem intuitive that the virus gets a head start on its exponential growth curve. Anti body production would have to play catch up in this race condition. Please do not quote me on any of this. But I too have heard what you are inquiring and this is how I made sense of it. It's probably false to think of vaccines that way. **Edit** /u/Hai_Wayland is [confirming the hypothesis that i seem to recall and cites a study](https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fr70j1/turbulent_gas_clouds_and_respiratory_pathogen/fluoqkd/) below.

1

Positive-Vibes-2-All 1 week ago

Canadian health officials state that most severe cases in China happened among family members due to close contact

0

Hal_Wayland 1 week ago

They measure the viral load in the swabs taken during tests. Viral load is measured on a logarithmic scale, so "high" viral load means orders of magnitude more than "low" viral load. The idea is that if there's more in your nose or in your throat, the initial amount of virus that gets into your lungs is higher, sort of "surprising" the immune system which doesn't get enough time to react to it. That's why higher initial viral load could result in higher likelihood of a severe case. EDIT: Here's the study - "Viral dynamics in mild and severe cases of COVID-19" [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30232-2/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30232-2/fulltext)

6

FC37 1 week ago

That's still not fully proven, though. Figure B is missing early onset data for nearly every severe case. It's plausible that severe cases and mild cases had a similar initial dose, but that mild cases were able to mount an effective immune response while severe cases weren't. Not all progression in the study showed improvement. A couple of mild cases showed growing viral loads at different stages before reverting back to smaller loads. And there's less of a clear trend towards clearance in the severe population: more flat days at the start. When you consider that age is a highly correlated variable, there's very likely more to this than is presented here.

2

Slapbox 1 week ago

I'm pretty confident they are not following healthcare workers, but I don't know what they are doing.

0

Positive-Vibes-2-All 1 week ago

>Canadian health officials state that most severe cases in China happened among family members due to close contact

0

FC37 1 week ago

They're gonna need to cite some data.

1

onlymildlyanxious 1 week ago

I would say for a healthcare worker, hospitals are (or will be) so swamped they are nearly guaranteed exposure. Put yourself in the shoes of a nurse in NYC, out of PPE, running from patient to patient all day for dozens of patients, managing and handling god knows how many bodily fluids on literally everything, sheets, IV lines, respirometers, etc. I imagine healthcare workers know exactly what they're getting into, and they have been going in willingly or some are choosing to stay home. Not all have the privilege to speak up without consequences and I've read so many stories about docs being fired for it. It's not a good system. 😞

3

oapster79 1 week ago

Social distancing of six feet may not be enough according to a study at MIT. Especially for Health Care workers.

3

paxromana96 1 week ago

But as long as it keeps the transmission rate below 1.0, it's enough!

3

ThereAll_Is_Aching 1 week ago

MIT analysis of respiratory pathogen emissions highlights that CDC's 6 foot social distancing rule is based on an outdated model of transmission, suggest new model & need for better masks

50

bagbroch 1 week ago

I was walking the other day and realized I could strongly smell the lady’s cigarette from half a block and across the street. If there’s sickness in the exhalation, that shit reached me. 6 foot ain’t shit to air. Also, pretty sure today is day 1 of me existing after having covid. First day in 2 weeks it doesn’t feel like there’s a rubber band around my heart or little dudes with vacuum hoses scraping my throat and throwing it all into my lungs. Pretty excited about this! Edit: any idea where to get either a covid test or antibody test in Los Angeles? I’d like to go get a temporary job somewhere...

5

cybertoad1 1 week ago

Just because you could smell tobacco smoke from 100 feet away does NOT mean viral particles travel 100 feet. Similarly, one can smell wildfire smoke from fires hundreds of miles away. That doesn't mean that someone 100 miles downwind of NYC or Wuhan is going to catch Covid by walking out on their back patio and taking a breath of outdoor air.

57

[deleted] 1 week ago

[deleted]

1

converter-bot 1 week ago

100 miles is 160.93 km

1

SeriousPuppet 1 week ago

True. But the video, if I'm viewing it correctly, does show that the expelled "cloud" can travel upwards of 26 ft, which is much farther than I've heard anyone talk about, and wayyy farther than the 6 ft recommended by CDC, WHO, etc.

5

reddit_wisd0m 1 week ago

True however you also have to consider that droplets, where a virus can remain infectious, need to have a certain size. If they are too small, they dry out (vaporise) quickly and destroy the virus. However, only the small droplets reach the longest distance, since the can float the longest in the air. The larger droplets, where the virus can survive the longest, are dropping much quicker to the ground, since the can't float that the long in the air. This explanation is based on the German Virologist Prof. Drosten.

12

PrimalTreasures 1 week ago

Since, as you stated, virus survives longest in droplets reaching the ground, isn’t it likely we can carry the virus on our footwear? Should we don gloves to remove our shoes? Not asking a silly question but honestly wondering.

1

1002003004005006007 1 week ago

Yes, it is definitely possible. I think the best practice is to keep your home sterile by not wearing outdoors shoes in your house, and by washing your hands after touching shoes you wore outside in the past few days. If you’re going to stores, designate one pair of shoes and keep them far as possible away from the rest of your living space.

6

reddit_wisd0m 1 week ago

Yes, that's a very good practice in general. (my area has unfortunately a lot of dog shit on sidewalks. So there is a good chance, I get small but significant amount of feces on my shoes as well.) It also good practice to use the same clothes (e.g. Jacket and trousers) for grocery shopping but for nothing else and keep them separate from all the other clothes.

2

catch_fire 1 week ago

Out of curiosity: Are you German or has the NDR podcast of Drosten such a wide reach nowadays?

1

reddit_wisd0m 1 week ago

My German is good enough to understand those podcasts, which are usually very informative. and they also come with a script, which helps to translate difficult/unusual words/expressions.

2

SeriousPuppet 1 week ago

I mean, just watch the video. There clearly is a cloud that reaches 26 ft. So regardless of the size, the virus is traveling that far. You have to accept it - visual proof.

0

reddit_wisd0m 1 week ago

I didn't want to disprove anything here. I just wanted to make you aware that there has to be an additional dimension to be considered here. And there might be more, which we are both not aware of. So, just because this "cloud" travels far, doesn't imply that the infectiousness of a virus carried within that cloud remains the same over time. Hence, it's not wise to jump too quickly to conclusion here. On the other hand, it can't hurt to take proper precautions.

10

SeriousPuppet 1 week ago

Also, you say they "dry out" quickly. That depends also on humidity and temperature. At the end of the day, this is essentially mucus and saliva that goes from one person to others, which if you think about it is really disgusting, even sans virus. But since it is in droplet form we don't take it as serious as if it were a glob of mucus or saliva. Especially medical setting (doctor waiting room for ex, hospital, nursing homes, etc) this should be taken much more seriously. This is a very solvable problem. It's very strange to me that no one takes it serious. At least Asians's sort of take it serious, hence the mass adoption of masks, but there are even better ways to control the droplets. I have the inventions in my head and am thinking about working on this, but I'd really need some medical experts to work with.

2

reddit_wisd0m 1 week ago

The weather condition are indeed very important on the propagation of this cloud and for the change of infectiousness of the virus within the cloud but unfortunately also very complex to model. When it comes to wearing a mask for normal people, it appears that's more effect to prevent spreading the virus, if the infected person is wearing one than if a healthy person is wearing one. This also means, if an asymptomatic person is wearing one out of habite, this certainly appears useful. The problem is that the aren't enough masks for everyone at the moment and the medical personal need them the most. Hence, it may harm the health system of a country, if normal people start buying and using (excessively/inappropriately) face masks. So, if you have an unused mask at home, it might be more useful to donate it to a hospital than using it for yourself, assuming that you are still healthy.

1

pat000pat 1 week ago

The title of your post does not contain the source's original title [Rule 3]. Please use a title in accordance with our rule:

"Include a source's original title in a post title whenever applicable. Providing additional objective context, such as the authors and the published journal, is encouraged. An editorialized, sensationalized, misleading, or factually-inaccurate title will result in a post's removal."

1

AutoModerator 1 week ago

For more information about n95 respirator and general preparedness you can head out to our Wiki page.

If you are unable to find what you need in our Wiki, resubmit your question in the Daily General Post

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

qabadai 1 week ago

I have to imagine there are diminishing returns though and every foot of extra distance contributes to prevention.

1

TriFolk 1 week ago

A 2020 report from China demonstrated that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus particles could be found in the ventilation systems in hospital rooms of patients with COVID-19.5 Finding virus particles in these systems is more consistent with the turbulent gas cloud hypothesis of disease transmission than the dichotomous model because it explains how viable virus particles can travel long distances from patients.

Source of why they think it’s outdated model

1

Alisonwundrlnd 1 week ago

Was trying trying to explain this here last week and got dwnvted to hell but yeah it is airborne in a dang puff cloud.

7

InitialPush 1 week ago

28 foot social distance rule. Bam, problem solved

1

Wolf_Frozen 1 week ago

lol well yeah we’ve known this since January. Why are you guys listening to the CDC? Like the boy who cried wolf..

3

allan303 1 week ago

it's so hard to confirm it, finally

1

2

4 2

4

2

5 2

11 2

peoplesodumb 7 hs ago

Hey douche bags in my community: "I told you so."

Now go drown in your own lungs you polluting schmucks.

1

TokLwdSaNthg Yesterday

An earlier study. Italy: The Virus Hits Polluted Areas. Is There a Correlation? https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2020/03/italy-virus-hits-polluted-areas-is.html

3

UltraMegaMegaMan Wake up and... smell the ashes. Yesterday

The virus is an opportunist. Comorbidities, pre-existing conditions, pollution, stress. It capitalizes on weaknesses.

Makes Trump's repeal of all environmental regulation all the more lethal. Trump is directly responsible for thousands of American deaths.

16

SCO_1 11 hs ago

The GOP is directly responsible for millions of deaths and easily too.

8

AutoModerator Yesterday

nytimes.com is a news outlet. If possible, please re-submit with a link to a primary source, such as a peer-reviewed paper or official press release [Rule 2].

If you believe we made a mistake, please let us know.

Thank you for helping us keep information in /r/COVID19 reliable!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Quaroma Yesterday

Covid 19 deaths and air pollution are going to be higher around cities for different reasons.

1

Mike7704 Yesterday

We know everything negative in life links to higher death rates if you contact Covid.

1

coronabot22 Bot Yesterday

This appears to have already been posted: https://redd.it/fwjte0 .If you think we made a mistake, please let us know.

This is an automatically generated message

1

Moiras-Machine Yesterday

"Yeah well the people seventy years ago would have died from coronavirus at a much higher rate so it's nothing to worry about." - USS stooges, saved you some time.

21

rangoon03 Yesterday

“See? It’s better now than it used to be !” - Also USS stooges

5

Sentinel_Intel Yesterday

Haha I think you nailed it. Thumbs up.

6

ToonMaster21 Yesterday

I mean.. this makes sense from a logical stand point. If the air is more polluted, making it harder to breathe and decreasing lung efficiency over time... wouldn't the chances of dying from any lung/breathing related issue be increased?

19

dongknog Yesterday

Maybe someone should impose a light to moderate fee on these companies since they’re actively killing people faster than they usually do. That will stop them!

3

ifuckinghateueatshit Yesterday

Pgh was also crushed druing the 1918 pandemic due to pollution

3

Meisterbrau02 Yesterday

somebody get these researchers a nobel prize!

0

faceeatingleopard Yesterday

Seems like a no brainer to me. The most vicious corona infections target the lungs. So things like air pollution over a lifetime and smoking certainly weaken the lungs to some extent.

9

oldbkenobi Upper Lawrenceville Yesterday

Here's a direct link to the study, which looks at PM 2.5 levels compared to COVID-19 mortality.

Considering this region's atrocious PM 2.5 levels, this definitely something that will need to be considered here as we start discussing easing up on intense social distancing measures. Other factors that could work against us are the above-average rate of smoking here and the relatively older population.

7

Der_Missionar Yesterday

Interesting, however, that Pittsburgh (till now) appears to have a really low death rate...

4

Agent_DZ-015 Yesterday

I suspect much of that has to do with things getting shut down around Pittsburgh before the spread of the virus here got really out of hand, so the hospitals haven’t been overrun like many other places.

1

gonzone Yesterday

air pollution equals asthma equals weaker lungs equals death.

2

1 2

POTUS_Archivist_Bot 1 day ago

Remember, be friendly! Attack the argument, not the user! Comments violating Rules 1 or 2 will be removed at the moderators' discretion. Please report rule breaking behavior and refrain from downvoting whenever possible.

[POTUSWatch's rules] [Message the Mods]

Article:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional leaders are jolting ahead with another coronavirus  rescue package as President Donald Trump indicated Monday that Americans will need more aid during the stark pandemic and economic shutdown.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said another $1 trillion is needed, beyond the just-passed $2.2 trillion effort. She wants another round of direct payments to Americans and more money for companies to keep making payroll. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said in recent days  that health care should top the list, signaling his intent to get to work on a new bill.

“We’re going to take good care of our people,” Trump said Monday at his daily White House briefing. “It was not their fault.”

It’s a rare sign of emerging consensus as Washington responds to the public health emergency and severe economic fallout  that is ransacking communities nationwide, a crisis on par with a war effort or the Great Depression.

The contours of the package are still being debated and any votes in Congress remain a logistical conundrum. The House and Senate adjourned for most of the month, as part of strict stay-at-home orders from public health officials to prevent the spread of the highly contagious virus.

On an afternoon conference call with House Democrats, Pelosi told lawmakers at least another $1 trillion would be needed, according to a person unauthorized to discuss the call and granted anonymity.

The California Democrat has vowed to put the next package together in time for a House vote this month.

Former Federal Reserve chief Janet Yellen joined the private call and warned Democrats the economic fallout will depend on the public health response to the pandemic, the person said. As businesses shutter to stop the virus’ spread, it has hurled the U.S. economy toward a recession.

Yellen said it was impossible to know how deep and long the recession would be, and added that it would depend on the health response.

The former Fed chair also told them the nation’s unemployment rate is now at least 13% and this week’s jobless report will show higher numbers than last week’s.

Yellen said she expects a 30 percent contraction of GDP this year, but has seen models as high as 50 percent, according to a Democratic aide unauthorized to discuss the call and granted anonymity.

The earlier relief package, approved in late March, included one-time $1,200 direct payments to Americans, along with forgivable small business loans for companies to keep making payroll. It also included a boost of unemployment pay, money for hospitals and a $500 billion fund for bigger corporations and industries.

Pelosi told Democrats said the $1,200 direct payments to Americans and the paycheck protection program for small businesses are not enough and more needs to be done, the person said.

She also said there needs to be more aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps.

Trump has favored direct checks to Americans, and gave a nod to another round in the next package.

“It is absolutely under serious consideration,” he said.

The shifts from the political leaders are stark amid what officials warn could be one of the toughest weeks for the country, as the number of confirmed cases and deaths climbs.

McConnell told The Associated Press on Friday that there will be another package and health care must be at the “top of the list.”

McConnell, R-Ky., said Congress should focus on correcting any shortcomings in the earlier $2.2 trillion aid bill and rely on health care experts for solutions to “wipe out” the virus.

Pelosi, D-Calif., last week also backed off her more sweeping proposals for an infrastructure package to put people back to work, focusing on the more immediate health care and economic needs.

As governors plead for federal intervention to provide hard-hit hospitals in New York and elsewhere with vital medical ventilators, equipment and supplies, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called for a better-coordinated effort to care for the many sick people.

Schumer told reporters on a conference call Monday that he’s urging the White House to appoint a single, well-qualified “czar” to handle both the production and distribution of medical supplies and equipment to fight the pandemic.

Right now, Schumer said, governors and other officials have no choice but to search out materials helter-skelter.

“Ev...

Article was too long for Reddit, read the whole article above

1

2

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2020 Token Daily

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2020 Token Daily

🙌 Login to Token Daily