Coronavirus

[dougthonus]

Today was the first day that I actually saw a run on items a the store. Went to Sams club and no water, toliet paper, or paper towels. All brands out of stock except for the luxury stuff like fiji water.

[dice]

Today was the first day that I actually saw a run on items a the store. Went to Sams club and no water, toliet paper, or paper towels. All brands out of stock except for the luxury stuff like fiji water.

does a lot of that stuff come from china or something? i don't understand the thought process here. there is no reason to believe that we're going to have to hunker down in our homes and not be able to go out for toiletries

[coldfish]

OT, but health related and i didn't want to start a new thread. perhaps we have a health expert or some educated guesses out there

what do you think the ideal breakdown is for time spent exercising? assume a reasonably healthy person, not young, not elderly. also assume the focus is strictly health as opposed to appearance. use the following categories:

-abdominal
-cardio
-stretching/light weights (lots of reps)
-heavy weights/muscle building

i was thinking that if you're strictly focused on health it would be heavy cardio and not much in the way of heavy weights. maybe very little. something like:

58% cardio
24% stretching/light weights
13% abs
5% heavy weights

too imbalanced? is there even a point to including heavy weights as such a small part of the workout?

I’m sure you are aware of it but look up the studies on interval training. It’s really a lot better for you than cardio. Also, weightlifting is more important than you give it credence for. Lastly, stretching might be outright bad for you unless you are working on a specific problem.

There are a bunch of great articles out on this. I have been following a lot of the advice and it definitely makes me feel better than the old “cardio forever” get in shape routine.

[dougthonus]

which research is this (genuinely curiouse)? The latest I read was weight lifting can help with weight loss due to increased calorie burn during stand by but afaik choosing between the two, cardio is the way to go for long term health.

I'd encourage you to do your own research and decide. There's so many sources of information out there that deciding what to believe is probably a personal decision.

Weights help with:
Building / maintaining muscle and strength
Bone density (more)
Metabolism
heart health (some)

Cardio helps with:
Bone density (some)
Fat loss
Heart Health (more)

If you think about which things are problems as you age, the weight lifting group of problems solved is much more useful IMO. Fat loss should be controlled through diet, not exercise if you really want it to be effective, while maintaining muscle mass is a critical issue as you age.

If you could only do one thing for the rest of your life, I would probably recommend ashtanga / vinyasa yoga which is very muscularly challenging, provides stretching and flexibility, and is intense cardiovascularly all at once.

[dougthonus]

does a lot of that stuff come from china or something? i don't understand the thought process here. there is no reason to believe that we're going to have to hunker down in our homes and not be able to go out for toiletries

No idea, maybe people feel they won't want to go to stores so they try and get the necessities?

[dice]

OT, but health related and i didn't want to start a new thread. perhaps we have a health expert or some educated guesses out there

what do you think the ideal breakdown is for time spent exercising? assume a reasonably healthy person, not young, not elderly. also assume the focus is strictly health as opposed to appearance. use the following categories:

-abdominal
-cardio
-stretching/light weights (lots of reps)
-heavy weights/muscle building

i was thinking that if you're strictly focused on health it would be heavy cardio and not much in the way of heavy weights. maybe very little. something like:

58% cardio
24% stretching/light weights
13% abs
5% heavy weights

too imbalanced? is there even a point to including heavy weights as such a small part of the workout?

I’m sure you are aware of it but look up the studies on interval training. It’s really a lot better for you than cardio. Also, weightlifting is more important than you give it credence for. Lastly, stretching might be outright bad for you unless you are working on a specific problem.

There are a bunch of great articles out on this. I have been following a lot of the advice and it definitely makes me feel better than the old “cardio forever” get in shape routine.

thanks

lots of little old ladies motoring around malls. versus not a lot of jacked old men. i figure there's something to that

in my late 30s i tore cartilage in my wrist on one of those kneeling bench twist side-to-side things. didn't even feel any discomfort until i woke up the next morning and it was months before i had it checked out. anyway...the surgery caused another issue which required a 2nd surgery. then i started having shoulder problems due to weight lifting. then i injured my lower back doing leg curls. then threw out my back doing leg press. a few rehabs later i still have issues with all. i continue to do the rehab stuff on my own regularly, which includes a lot of light weight stuff and body weight bearing. and i do a fair amount of cardio mainly for the brain chemistry benefits. i've pretty much been forced to take it down a notch on the heavy weights, due to both time constraints and physical limitations

[dougthonus]

lots of little old ladies motoring around malls. versus not a lot of jacked old men. i figure there's something to that

in my late 30s i tore cartilage in my wrist on one of those kneeling bench twist side-to-side things. didn't even feel any discomfort until i woke up the next morning and it was months before i had it checked out. anyway...the surgery caused another issue which required a 2nd surgery. then i started having shoulder problems due to weight lifting. then i injured my lower back doing leg curls. then threw out my back doing leg press. a few rehabs later i still have issues with all. i continue to do the rehab stuff regularly, which includes a lot of light weight stuff and body weight bearing. and i do a fair amount of cardio mainly for the brain chemistry benefits. i've pretty much been forced to take it down a notch on the heavy weights, due to both time constraints and physical limitations

If you can, try adding more isometric poses like ashtanga/vinyasa yoga. This will help build functional strength if heavy weights are problematic. Also is very well balanced for your body and improves flexibility as well.

[dice]

does a lot of that stuff come from china or something? i don't understand the thought process here. there is no reason to believe that we're going to have to hunker down in our homes and not be able to go out for toiletries

No idea, maybe people feel they won't want to go to stores so they try and get the necessities?

you're probably right, but it's pretty nonsensical to go to work and then avoid stores, which you can go to at times then there aren't even many people there. all the hoarding does is screws things up for other people

Watch on YouTube

[PaKii94]

which research is this (genuinely curiouse)? The latest I read was weight lifting can help with weight loss due to increased calorie burn during stand by but afaik choosing between the two, cardio is the way to go for long term health.

I'd encourage you to do your own research and decide. There's so many sources of information out there that deciding what to believe is probably a personal decision.

Weights help with:
Building / maintaining muscle and strength
Bone density (more)
Metabolism
heart health (some)

Cardio helps with:
Bone density (some)
Fat loss
Heart Health (more)

If you think about which things are problems as you age, the weight lifting group of problems solved is much more useful IMO. Fat loss should be controlled through diet, not exercise if you really want it to be effective, while maintaining muscle mass is a critical issue as you age.

If you could only do one thing for the rest of your life, I would probably recommend ashtanga / vinyasa yoga which is very muscularly challenging, provides stretching and flexibility, and is intense cardiovascularly all at once.

ah okay. I agree with your breakdown. I think for overall long term health, heart health should be prioritized. Muscle can be built even at later stages in life but having a healthy heart is key.

[dougthonus]

ah okay. I agree with your breakdown. I think for overall long term health, heart health should be prioritized. Muscle can be built even at later stages in life but having a healthy heart is key.

Maybe I should say it this way, doing steady state cardio is not necessary (jogging, cycling, etc...).

You can do strength circuits, power yoga, and other things which will be more than sufficient to gain the heart benefits but will give you a more well rounded body and build your strength at the same time. These things all still have cardio as a component to them which I think is important, but the traditional steady state cardio isn't as useful a part of your workout as most people think it is.

[PaKii94]

ah okay. I agree with your breakdown. I think for overall long term health, heart health should be prioritized. Muscle can be built even at later stages in life but having a healthy heart is key.

Maybe I should say it this way, doing steady state cardio is not necessary (jogging, cycling, etc...).

You can do strength circuits, power yoga, and other things which will be more than sufficient to gain the heart benefits but will give you a more well rounded body and build your strength at the same time. These things all still have cardio as a component to them which I think is important, but the traditional steady state cardio isn't as useful a part of your workout as most people think it is.

True. Traditional cardio has been proven to be not as effective as HIIT and the other methods you mentioned. Just in general, strong heart & weak muscles > strong muscles & weak heart

[transplant]

agree that it's just a matter of time. but there will be a lot more needless suffering in the meantime

as for public support, there IS a slim majority that wants a system where everybody gets their insurance from the government, but republicans oppose it 76% to 20%. so unless the filibuster rule is eliminated in the senate, still need 60+ democrats in office

the senate is an abomination of an institution. very anti-democratic

How can the senate be anti-democratic? Senators are selected by popular vote. On senate votes, majority rules with the VP breaking ties. Do you want the senate eliminated?

the senate should never have been created. the house of representatives is democratic. the senate is what makes us a democratic republic rather than a democracy

-california (population 40 million) is represented by two senators
-the dakotas, idaho, wyoming and montana (total population around 5 mil) are represented by TEN senators

-there are 47 senators caucusing with the democrats. they represent 168 million americans
-there are 53 republican senators. they represent 163 million americans

that's completely upside down and backwards. had the founding fathers known how enormous the differential in state populations would become, it's hard to believe that they would have come up with the compromise that they did. and it WAS a political compromise. there was no deep, over-arching wisdom involved (notice that nowhere else in the world has the american system been replicated over the past 250 years). it was an enticement for smaller states to participate in a federal system

so when you hear someone say that the senate (and the electoral college) were designed to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority", they're full of crap. in reality what we have is a tyranny of the MINORITY. where rural populations have grossly disproportionate power. where land masses are represented rather than human beings

individuals ranked in descending order of popularity nationwide in 2016:

barack obama
hillary clinton
donald trump

in 2016, for the first time in US history, the senate (controlled undemocratically by the republicans) refused to advise and consent on a sitting president's supreme court nominee. they also held up the nominations of scores of federal court appointments. this was a POPULAR sitting president. one elected and re-elected in part to fill court vacancies. the republicans disingenuously said "let's wait nearly a year until the election to see who the american people REALLY want to make these decisions." the american people said "well that's ****ed up, but ok, hillary clinton then." but due to the undemocratic electoral college, donald trump was elected, filled the supreme court slot, filled another supreme court slot, and has packed the federal courts with countless unqualified right wing judges (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unqualified+federal+judge+hearing). the republicans have taken the unprecedented step of virtually shutting down all business in the senate except for the confirmation of judges. meanwhile, the democrat-controlled house of reps is showing up to work and doing their jobs, passing laws and sending them to the senate, where they do not even get a vote. even on previously easy to pass stuff like the violence against women act. because republicans on the senate don't want it on their voting record having voted down such measures. meanwhile, the undemocratically elected president continually refers to his opposition as the "do nothing democrats", trusting that his minions are not paying attention to what is actually going on, relying on his twitter feed for their news even as he fills that feed with lies on a daily basis

Well said. Of course, you're right, the founding fathers didn't intend that we be a pure democracy or even a pure representative democracy. I hate where we're at right now, but I'm not ready to abandon what has worked so well for 200+ years, but I'm keeping my mind open.

[dice]

How can the senate be anti-democratic? Senators are selected by popular vote. On senate votes, majority rules with the VP breaking ties. Do you want the senate eliminated?

the senate should never have been created. the house of representatives is democratic. the senate is what makes us a democratic republic rather than a democracy

-california (population 40 million) is represented by two senators
-the dakotas, idaho, wyoming and montana (total population around 5 mil) are represented by TEN senators

-there are 47 senators caucusing with the democrats. they represent 168 million americans
-there are 53 republican senators. they represent 163 million americans

that's completely upside down and backwards. had the founding fathers known how enormous the differential in state populations would become, it's hard to believe that they would have come up with the compromise that they did. and it WAS a political compromise. there was no deep, over-arching wisdom involved (notice that nowhere else in the world has the american system been replicated over the past 250 years). it was an enticement for smaller states to participate in a federal system

so when you hear someone say that the senate (and the electoral college) were designed to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority", they're full of crap. in reality what we have is a tyranny of the MINORITY. where rural populations have grossly disproportionate power. where land masses are represented rather than human beings

individuals ranked in descending order of popularity nationwide in 2016:

barack obama
hillary clinton
donald trump

in 2016, for the first time in US history, the senate (controlled undemocratically by the republicans) refused to advise and consent on a sitting president's supreme court nominee. they also held up the nominations of scores of federal court appointments. this was a POPULAR sitting president. one elected and re-elected in part to fill court vacancies. the republicans disingenuously said "let's wait nearly a year until the election to see who the american people REALLY want to make these decisions." the american people said "well that's ****ed up, but ok, hillary clinton then." but due to the undemocratic electoral college, donald trump was elected, filled the supreme court slot, filled another supreme court slot, and has packed the federal courts with countless unqualified right wing judges (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unqualified+federal+judge+hearing). the republicans have taken the unprecedented step of virtually shutting down all business in the senate except for the confirmation of judges. meanwhile, the democrat-controlled house of reps is showing up to work and doing their jobs, passing laws and sending them to the senate, where they do not even get a vote. even on previously easy to pass stuff like the violence against women act. because republicans on the senate don't want it on their voting record having voted down such measures. meanwhile, the undemocratically elected president continually refers to his opposition as the "do nothing democrats", trusting that his minions are not paying attention to what is actually going on, relying on his twitter feed for their news even as he fills that feed with lies on a daily basis

Well said. Of course, you're right, the founding fathers didn't intend that we be a pure democracy or even a pure representative democracy. I hate where we're at right now, but I'm not ready to abandon what has worked so well for 200+ years, but I'm keeping my mind open.

don't even get me started on gerrymandering, which has rendered even the house of reps grossly undemocratic

[PaKii94]

How can the senate be anti-democratic? Senators are selected by popular vote. On senate votes, majority rules with the VP breaking ties. Do you want the senate eliminated?

the senate should never have been created. the house of representatives is democratic. the senate is what makes us a democratic republic rather than a democracy

-california (population 40 million) is represented by two senators
-the dakotas, idaho, wyoming and montana (total population around 5 mil) are represented by TEN senators

-there are 47 senators caucusing with the democrats. they represent 168 million americans
-there are 53 republican senators. they represent 163 million americans

that's completely upside down and backwards. had the founding fathers known how enormous the differential in state populations would become, it's hard to believe that they would have come up with the compromise that they did. and it WAS a political compromise. there was no deep, over-arching wisdom involved (notice that nowhere else in the world has the american system been replicated over the past 250 years). it was an enticement for smaller states to participate in a federal system

so when you hear someone say that the senate (and the electoral college) were designed to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority", they're full of crap. in reality what we have is a tyranny of the MINORITY. where rural populations have grossly disproportionate power. where land masses are represented rather than human beings

individuals ranked in descending order of popularity nationwide in 2016:

barack obama
hillary clinton
donald trump

in 2016, for the first time in US history, the senate (controlled undemocratically by the republicans) refused to advise and consent on a sitting president's supreme court nominee. they also held up the nominations of scores of federal court appointments. this was a POPULAR sitting president. one elected and re-elected in part to fill court vacancies. the republicans disingenuously said "let's wait nearly a year until the election to see who the american people REALLY want to make these decisions." the american people said "well that's ****ed up, but ok, hillary clinton then." but due to the undemocratic electoral college, donald trump was elected, filled the supreme court slot, filled another supreme court slot, and has packed the federal courts with countless unqualified right wing judges (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unqualified+federal+judge+hearing). the republicans have taken the unprecedented step of virtually shutting down all business in the senate except for the confirmation of judges. meanwhile, the democrat-controlled house of reps is showing up to work and doing their jobs, passing laws and sending them to the senate, where they do not even get a vote. even on previously easy to pass stuff like the violence against women act. because republicans on the senate don't want it on their voting record having voted down such measures. meanwhile, the undemocratically elected president continually refers to his opposition as the "do nothing democrats", trusting that his minions are not paying attention to what is actually going on, relying on his twitter feed for their news even as he fills that feed with lies on a daily basis

Well said. Of course, you're right, the founding fathers didn't intend that we be a pure democracy or even a pure representative democracy. I hate where we're at right now, but I'm not ready to abandon what has worked so well for 200+ years, but I'm keeping my mind open.

Has it worked well? I don't know if we can attribute USA as a world power due to our government system. Also times have definitely changed with the advances in technology

[moorhosj]

there is no reason to believe that we're going to have to hunker down in our homes and not be able to go out for toiletries

There are plenty of countries with quarantined cities right now. How a quarantine would impact your ability to get toiletries likely differs place-by-place.

[moorhosj]

Fear and chaos drive viewership and clicks. If things become exponentially better because of our collective better hygiene, I wouldn’t expect weeks worth of coverage encouraging everyone to go spend their money on travel. We’ll be covering the next tragedy instead.

And by that point, it may be too late for the global economy.

Easy solution: Don't follow the media, follow the professionals. You are actually doing the thing you accuse the media of, just in the opposite direction. Lots of people's lives are at stake and your biggest concern is impact on the economy. This is why the virus will likely be worse here than places who put public safety over economic gains.

An economy that can't handle a virus doesn't seem very strong to me. We've already cut 0.5% on Fed Funds rate, oil prices are down 50% YTD, bond yields are collapsing and now we just increased Repo purchases again to give banks liquidity. Other major economies have been at negative interests rates long before the Coronavirus became a factor.

[Taikuri]

100 new coronavirus deaths in last 24 hours in Italy alone. This is getting crazy. Not 100 new infections but 100 actual deaths... This is just 1 country, Italy. I know that Italy is one of the worst coronavirus areas right now but still. 100 deaths in 1 day man...

It's like you got a passenger plane with 100 people crashing every day. So a tragedy like that every day and it's only getting worse and worse over there. Gotta feel for Italy and we have to hope it doesn't get out of control like this in many more countries. Italy isn't a 3rd world country so this amount of deaths per day now is pretty worrying.

[dougthonus]

100 new coronavirus deaths in last 24 hours in Italy alone. This is getting crazy. Not 100 new infections but 100 actual deaths... This is just 1 country, Italy. I know that Italy is one of the worst coronavirus areas right now but still. 100 deaths in 1 day man...

It is worth noting that the average age of people whom died from Coronavirus in Italy is 81 and that many had serious pre-existing medical conditions. Still scary, but the disease isn't taking out healthy individuals.

[Payt10]

The level of panic going on right now is embarrassing. People are so dumb.

[Taikuri]

100 new coronavirus deaths in last 24 hours in Italy alone. This is getting crazy. Not 100 new infections but 100 actual deaths... This is just 1 country, Italy. I know that Italy is one of the worst coronavirus areas right now but still. 100 deaths in 1 day man...

It is worth noting that the average age of people whom died from Coronavirus in Italy is 81 and that many had serious pre-existing medical conditions. Still scary, but the disease isn't taking out healthy individuals.

Didn't know it was average age 81. Good to know that. This disease is like a grim reaper for old people. Must be scary for them. Better tell some elderly relatives to be careful and stay away from other people and bring them some food so they don't have to be in contact with many other people.