For thinking people what is the alternative? What is the justification for locking down the low risk? With the virus breaking out all over... You can't even show the virus saves infections... overall. (in the short run yes... but once you open the infections came back) What could the pro lockdown morons... be thinking? Lockdowns of the low risk cause tremendous documented damage... and there is no evidence the did any good... (once you had the hospital capacity)
My data came from here: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=covid+death+rate+sweden Supposedly brought up to date daily. If you cn give me a link to your data I'll take a look at it. I think Buy1 is looking at some favorable sub period. I am looking at the composite data. Would you want to use composite data or say a seven day period to draw your conclusions?
Again jem. It's a very simple test even you can understand. If you own a business you will benefit from the businesses profits in one way or another. Who benefits from the Central Banks profits. It is you jem. The American people are the owners of the central bank. As the fed says, no one owns the fed. You probably skipped over this: "Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations." As a lawyer you will also understand the definition of the word "like". "Like" does not have the same meaning in law as does the word "identical". I hate to keep lecturing you on the law, but you really should have not skipped so many reading comprehension classes for all those tennis lessons. Tennis is great! But so is education. The fed is crystal clear that the fed regional banks, again an artifact of the old pre 1930s fed, have hybrid structures. The have some features characteristic of for profit corporations and some uncharacteristic. The one feature missing that is present in all privately owned for-profit corporations that is not however present in the structure of the regional fed banks is operation without any regard for profit of the regional bank itself and no interest of the operators of the regional banks in any profits that might accrue in the course of regional banks operation. You're going to have to do a real song and dance to convince any 9th grader that the regional banks are privately owned for-profit corporations! But I'd enjoy your performance anyway. Jem, it would seem you're still stuck in a pre-1930s world when it comes to U.S. central banking. I think it would help if you read the banking acts passed during the Roosevelt era (Franklin, not Teddy). The changes were rather dramatic. From 1913 until the 1930s, Private banking interests did play a larger role, but that changed when the fed was re-structured during the depression.
You are remarkably obtuse on this subject. 1. here is a quote from the FEDERAL RESERVE itself. The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, https://www.stlouisfed.org/in-plain-english/who-owns-the-federal-reserve-banks 2. Regarding profits... your arguments is a red herring... and stupid. Corporations exist for many reasons. Including ones not operated at a profit. There are all types of corporations... They do not have to be run for profit. Why are you acting like you are some sort of lawyer. You manifestly don't know anything about corporate structure. https://corporate.findlaw.com/corporate-governance/types-of-corporations.html S and C Corporations ... Other Types of Corporations There are several types of corporations available in South Carolina. These include: Regular Corporation, Statutory Close Corporation, Quasi-closed Corporation, Professional Corporation, and Non-profit Corporation.
Hey, I just looked at this again. A rate must be a ratio. There are two different death rates to be computed, one for deaths relative to the entire population and one for rate among just those infected. The latter death rate per million would be computed by multiplying the the number of Covid deaths divided by the number of infections times one million. In other words its identical to parts per million. That would be the rate we'd be interested in if we wanted to know the death rate among those infected, or how serious an affair it is if you happen to get infected.. And a measure of how good the medical treatment is. These are the rates I quoted. Of course one could also compute these same rates by age decile, or whatever. This rate can not be 718 ppm! That's impossibly small. It implies a percentage death rate of 0.0718% among those infected that's 14 times smaller than Taiwan's rate. Which I believe is the smallest of any country reporting. The only way the 718 ppm rate makes sense is if this is the death rate among the entire population including those not infected. It's the measure we would use if we were interested how hard a particular population was hit by the disease. It would be useful for judging the effectiveness of a countries mitigation effort. It's usefulness on a small scale or for snapshots in time might be internally useful, but I'd be wary of comparing anything but aggregate numbers over the entire epidemic using this per total population number if the intention is to compare mitigation among countries. What's obviously happening here is that two numbers meaning two different things are being compared when they should be. I'm OK with either or both numbers now that I have figured out how they are being computed and what the mean. Do you know if the data you quoted is for the entire pandemic period so far? The article below from the Economist that a posted an excerpt from is interesting.
I post this well-written article Re Sweden approach to Covid for those who are interested in a factual account of the Swedish experiment. This is excerpted from an Economist Article, which see for the complete article. see https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/10/10/the-real-lessons-from-swedens-approach-to-covid-19 " The real lessons from Sweden’s approach to covid-19 Sweden does indeed hold lessons—but they are less about freedom than about using trade-offs to generate lasting social cohesion. The country makes an odd paragon for fans of small government. The last time it pursued individualism red in tooth and claw, social policy was in the hairy hands of men who went to work in longboats. Today Sweden is a progressive beacon, lying seventh in the OECD’s ranking of social spending—ahead even of Germany. Fans of Sweden are right to point out that, in the first phase of the disease, the government had a light touch. Although it banned large groups and issued plenty of health advice, it rejected blanket lockdowns. But that was not a particularly successful approach. Sweden has a fatality rate of around 60 per 100,000, ten times that of Finland and Norway, which did lock themselves down. Swedes’ freedom did not spare the economy, even though many deaths were among elderly people no longer working. Output in the second quarter alone shrank by 8.3%—also worse than the other Nordic countries. A high caseload is bad for the economy. One rejoinder is that, unlike Britain, France and Spain, Sweden has not seen a second wave. However, even if you leave aside the fact that cases in Stockholm County roughly quadrupled in September (in absolute terms, they are still low), Sweden’s new strategy for the second phase converges with Germany’s. Contrary to some claims, this is not dependent on herd immunity—Sweden still has a large population of susceptible people. Rather, it entails rapid large-scale testing and contact-tracing so as to identify and suppress outbreaks early. This is accompanied by a clear, consistent message that is sustainable because it gives people autonomy (see article). Those are the building blocks of successful anti-covid-19 strategies everywhere. The lesson from the new Swedish policy is not that it is libertarian, but that the government weighs up the trade-offs of each restriction. For instance, when someone tests positive, their entire household must go into quarantine, but schoolchildren are exempt—because, the government reckons, the gains from shutting them away are overwhelmed by the lasting harm to their education. Likewise, the quarantine lasts five to seven days, compared with two weeks elsewhere. The risk of spreading covid-19 in that second week is small and shrinking, but the harm to mental health of extended isolation is growing. Sweden is a high-trust society, where people follow the rules. And yet its approach is based on the idea that, as covid-19 is here for a long time, asking too much of people will lower compliance and thus spread the disease. Low-trust societies may need a different balance between coercion and self-policing but they, too, need sustainable rules. And what of masks? Sweden’s fans seize on mask-free crowds in Stockholm as proof of its liberty. But that is not the basis for its policy. Government experts argue that the evidence that masks help is weak, and that their other measures work fine. In this, Sweden is out of step with other countries. If the disease charges back there, that is likely to change. After all, its policy is based on evidence and pragmatism, not blind principle. ■" If anyone wants to call Buy1's (or is it Butt1 ?) attention to this article, please do. I shall, however, not want to trash his world view.
You can get away with this sly strategy here. In a Court of Law, however, the Magistrate would take a dim view of your obvious diversion from the topic at hand, gavel you down summarily, and order you to answer the question. "Mr. jem, your diversion into discussion of the types of Corporations is wearing on the Court, and wasting our time" they would say. And you would be deserving of their admonishment. "Please answer the question, Yes or No. "Are the Regional Federal Reserve Banks private for profit corporations, or Not?"
You article is poorly written and quite slanted. When they had their thousands of deaths... it was no touch or worse. Like New York they were living sick people in the old folks homes. That was not light touch. Like France, Spain, NY, NJ, CT... they had tons of deaths early. Then they locked down the old folks homes... --- Then they locked down the old folks homes and selected their light touch approach. After peak deaths in April... you can see how well their light touched worked. Very low infections... 1 death per day or less. No lockdown of the low risk. No masks. -- And yes... contact tracing outbreaks and locking them down.. is probably the best way to deal with this virus. Far better than locking down the healthy / low risk and causing their antibodies to fade. So if Sweden is doing that now... they are following the advice some of posted back in May. I remember posting an article from lead guy in Germany explaining you should not be testing everyone but you should be testing to avoid outbreaks. The idea is to prevent clusters.
If 750 million are infected worldwide, as estimated by seroprevalence studies, then the IFR is about 0.14. Same as....I won’t even say it. Ah fuck it... It’s just a flu bro. https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/