Coronavirus

[Susan]

Can you two just be nice to each other?

[TheStig]

On the topic of taxes and corporations. I understand the cruise industry is struggling but this bailout is absolutely ridiculous. They're all incorporated in foreign countries, use that to hire international workers for peanuts with no benefits and then pay next to nothing in taxes. Why the hell are we bailing them out? They might be traded on the NYSE but they're not contributing to our country.

It's an absolute shame they will be taking billions of dollars from American tax payers in need to give to a parasite industry.

The least they could do with their empty ships is donate them for use as floating hospitals.

[SimonFish]

YouTube has been accused of political censorship by a group of leading Hong Kong content creators who claim the streaming giant has been barring their politically charged video clips — including coronavirus-related content — from reaching advertisers.

========================

Videos with the restricted status are generally deemed unsuitable for ads, meaning income is either constrained or barred completely. Such videos are marked with a yellow dollar sign visible only to channel operators.

A discernible trend emerged following the escalation of the coronavirus outbreak in Asia in February, when videos began to link the pandemic with China’s political situation. Some creators estimate that income generated from their videos in February was down 50%-70% compared with previous months.

========================

Since January, a number of Hong Kong YouTube personalities have alleged China’s authoritarian politics were the cause of the initial cover-up around the emergence of novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as well as the delay in virus containment. They have also alleged that the Hong Kong government’s refusal to seal borders to mainland China prioritized politics over people’s safety.

Wong, whose February videos have all been given “limited or no ad” status, says he and others were told in the meeting that certain content was being demonetized as a result of an automated review system alongside stringent measures to control the spread of “fake news” and false information related to the coronavirus outbreak, rather than politics. Yet, none of the videos in question was taken down.

“It is an indirect form of censorship,” says Wong, who also suggests that some Chinese advertisers may have looked to silence commentators unwelcome in the eyes of Beijing.

More at link:
https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/hong-kong-creators-youtube-coronavirus-1203537882/amp/

[SimonFish]

Taiwan Has Been Shut Out of Global Health Discussions. Its Participation Could Have Saved Lives
BY ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN MARCH 18, 2020
Anders Fogh Rasmussen was the Prime Minister of Denmark from 2001 to 2009.

Learning from the experiences of SARS in 2003, Taiwan was ready when the outbreak in Wuhan occurred. After the first notifications at the end of 2019, Taipei swiftly deployed a combination of measures to identify and contain the virus, including the use of big data to help contain potential cases.

The global health community could have learned from Taiwan’s experience. But in recent years its world-class health specialists have been shut out in the cold by Beijing’s geopolitical obsessions.

This includes the UN World Health Organization. Until 2016, Taiwan was allowed to participate in its annual assembly as a non-state actor. This is no longer the case, and for the past three years, its request for an invitation has been denied. If it wishes to participate in WHO technical working bodies made up of health experts looking at specific challenges, it must apply each time and its participation is regularly blocked. One example of this was last year when Taiwan was blocked from discussions on influenza vaccines.

Taiwan made clear that its wish to be part of these bodies was due to its practical know-how. It has been satisfied to be included as an observer. It has something to offer the global health community. Yet China muddied the waters of geopolitics and global health – and today we see the consequences.

More at link:
https://time.com/5805629/coronavirus-taiwan/

[SimonFish]

[SimonFish]

For those who believe in China's numbers:

Executive director and chairman Yang Jie said the epidemic has affected the company's overall business, with the total number of mobile customers decreasing by 7.25 million last month while 4G users fell by 12 million.

Source:
https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/2/217424/China-Mobile-profit-dips-9pc-to-106b-yuan

Note: China Mobile is the largest mobile phone service operator in China.

For comparison, China Mobile has recorded an increase in customers each month until the coronavirus outbreak (sorry the image is in Chinese, but Y axis stands for the monthly increase / decrease of customers in '000):



Coincidence? I think not.

[coldfish]

For those who believe in China's numbers:

Executive director and chairman Yang Jie said the epidemic has affected the company's overall business, with the total number of mobile customers decreasing by 7.25 million last month while 4G users fell by 12 million.

Source:
https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/2/217424/China-Mobile-profit-dips-9pc-to-106b-yuan

Note: China Mobile is the largest mobile phone service operator in China.

For comparison, China Mobile has recorded an increase in customers each month until the coronavirus outbreak (sorry the image is in Chinese, but Y axis stands for the monthly increase / decrease of customers in '000):



Coincidence? I think not.

China's numbers are irrational. Either they are otherworldly incredible at dealing with viruses or they have countless other victims that they are just labelling as flu, which wouldn't be hard for them to do. Given how fast this spread in Europe and the US, them getting 0.0057% of their population infected is . . . . I can't even find the words.

[League Circles]

Not sure the details or extent of it but if I understand correctly the chinese are having tremendous success with IV-vitamin C. Take this with a huge grain of salt cause it's from a friend who is sometimes a little conspiracy theoryish.

[chitowndish]

My friend's sister started showing symptoms and has a few complicating risk factors so they went in and got tested Wednesday, no word yet (I don't want to bug him about it) but one good thing is it seems like they were able to get the test approved through their doctor and go to a drive up facility to get tested so he didn't have to bring her into a hospital to either get other people sick or have her pick up something else in the hospital (a lot of doctors are doing tele-health too so you could provably get this approved remotely as I doubt doctors want people to come in to tell them the symptoms). It also keeps the people testing safe so it seems like that process is working well.

You still have to have a good reason to need a test like pre-existing conditions or be in the healthcare field but I'm glad for that, those are the people that need it. They should extend it to grocers and delivery drivers too, I think it's just as important for them to know if they are carrying it and we are depending on them an extreme amount as well so hopefully we can start providing them with testing if they start showing symptoms because they can infect a lot of people too (probably more). I guess I'm just happy there is some anecdotal evidence that the testing process is starting to work and the idea of drive up testing is really brilliant and keeps everyone a lot safer.

[dougthonus]

Coincidence? I think not.

They've shut down the country more or less haven't they? I'm not sure what that has to do with corona case numbers. I'd imagine in the US sales of everything that aren't critical household goods are down radically too.

Not to make a statement about their case numbers one way or the other, because I think it seems likely that almost everyone's numbers are radically understated, but I don't see what you're driving at with this information.

[SimonFish]

Coincidence? I think not.

They've shut down the country more or less haven't they? I'm not sure what that has to do with corona case numbers. I'd imagine in the US sales of everything that aren't critical household goods are down radically too.

Not to make a statement about their case numbers one way or the other, because I think it seems likely that almost everyone's numbers are radically understated, but I don't see what you're driving at with this information.

Well technically they only shut down Wuhan plus a few other severely infected cities. But regardless, even if things have shut down, people still need to use their mobile phones nowadays. It just does not make sense that the company has 7 million less customers (when the norm is that they record an increase of roughly 2 million customers per month).

I am just afraid that the death tolls are severely understated.

Sent from my [device_name] using [url]RealGM mobile app[/url]

[dougthonus]

Well technically they only shut down Wuhan plus a few other severely infected cities. But regardless, even if things have shut down, people still need to use their mobile phones nowadays. It just does not make sense that the company has 7 million less customers (when the norm is that they record an increase of roughly 2 million customers per month).

I am just afraid that the death tolls are severely understated.

So you think 7 million people died?

Seems more likely that people lost jobs and stopped paying for phones. Again, not saying their death count is accurately reported, just saying that these numbers don't seem to correlate in any meaningful way to me.

[SimonFish]

Well technically they only shut down Wuhan plus a few other severely infected cities. But regardless, even if things have shut down, people still need to use their mobile phones nowadays. It just does not make sense that the company has 7 million less customers (when the norm is that they record an increase of roughly 2 million customers per month).

I am just afraid that the death tolls are severely understated.

So you think 7 million people died?

Seems more likely that people lost jobs and stopped paying for phones. Again, not saying their death count is accurately reported, just saying that these numbers don't seem to correlate in any meaningful way to me.

People nowadays still need to use their phones even after losing their jobs. I admit that there is no convincing proof that there is 7 million of death tolls. But it is not like they had never covered up millions of death tolls before (e.g., the Great Famine according to official data resulted in 15 millions death, but historians like Frank Dikötter deduced that the actual death toll was actually 45 millions).

Taking into account that the lowered numbers of infected cases was most likely due to the Chinese government changing the definition of "confirmed cases" (https://amp.ft.com/content/d3d41c7c-56db-11ea-a528-dd0f971febbc), we should just take the Chinese official data as a grain of salt.

Sent from my [device_name] using [url]RealGM mobile app[/url]

[dougthonus]

Well technically they only shut down Wuhan plus a few other severely infected cities. But regardless, even if things have shut down, people still need to use their mobile phones nowadays. It just does not make sense that the company has 7 million less customers (when the norm is that they record an increase of roughly 2 million customers per month).

I am just afraid that the death tolls are severely understated.

Again, "everyone is dead" just doesn't seem to be the first thing I'd think of there as the reason why 7 million people dropped cell phones.

That doesn't seem to be backed up by any other data in the rest of the world either where you would have more faith on death counts.

If you think the death toll is really say 100,000 or something, then the cell phone data here is still irrelevant as it means almost all of it is related to some other reason.

[moorhosj]

I'm not sure there even is real data on individuals' assets in this country. I mean IIRC there usually isn't a tax need to disclose all assets, so what I'm claiming isn't really provable. It's just common sense and relatively common knowledge. I didn't know it was a controversial notion at all.

When you are making the argument that data doesn't exist to back your claim and everyone should just accept your "facts"; it is a sign you have no argument. In some ways you are even arguing against yourself. Someone with large assets and low income has no need to live in a low-tax state because they don't have high income for the state to tax in the first place. They would likely still pay property taxes, which are very high in Texas (a place you claim the rich are flocking to for tax reasons).

The point is that you are trying to boil a very complex issue into a simple pre-defined narrative. Nobody called your claim "controversial" (that's another strawman you created). You have made a stand on an opinion you cannot back up with any data or research. If you want to make the claim, bring the receipts (or sources).

[SimonFish]

Well technically they only shut down Wuhan plus a few other severely infected cities. But regardless, even if things have shut down, people still need to use their mobile phones nowadays. It just does not make sense that the company has 7 million less customers (when the norm is that they record an increase of roughly 2 million customers per month).

I am just afraid that the death tolls are severely understated.

Again, "everyone is dead" just doesn't seem to be the first thing I'd think of there as the reason why 7 million people dropped cell phones.

That doesn't seem to be backed up by any other data in the rest of the world either where you would have more faith on death counts.

If you think the death toll is really say 100,000 or something, then the cell phone data here is still irrelevant as it means almost all of it is related to some other reason.

You are not replying to my latest comment. I have (i) admitted that there is no convincing proof, as of this moment, that 7 million people died; and (ii) pointed out that China had covered up millions of death before. These two points by themselves are not contradictory.

I am just wearing a pair of skeptical glasaes to view the Chinese official data, and reminding my fellow posters to do the same.

Sent from my [device_name] using [url]RealGM mobile app[/url]

[dougthonus]

You are not replying to my latest comment. I have (i) admitted that there is no convincing proof, as of this moment, that 7 million people died; and (ii) pointed out that China had covered up millions of death before. These two points by themselves are not contradictory.

I am just wearing a pair of skeptical glasaes to view the Chinese official data, and reminding my fellow posters to do the same.

This is irrelevant to my point, not that it matters. Since I largely agree with your over arching point.

I do think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw that we should be skeptical of what news is coming out of china including total confirmed cases and death rate, but that is due to reasons not related to this cell phone data and more due to china's history.

The cell phone data seems to in no way be indicative of anything related to deaths at all. It's not a reasonable conclusion to draw from that report. When you bring up something that doesn't really seem to be relevantly linked, it makes you look like a conspiracy theorist and actually weakens your point.

[Fl_Flash]

I'm not sure there even is real data on individuals' assets in this country. I mean IIRC there usually isn't a tax need to disclose all assets, so what I'm claiming isn't really provable. It's just common sense and relatively common knowledge. I didn't know it was a controversial notion at all.

When you are making the argument that data doesn't exist to back your claim and everyone should just accept your "facts"; it is a sign you have no argument. In some ways you are even arguing against yourself. Someone with large assets and low income has no need to live in a low-tax state because they don't have high income for the state to tax in the first place. They would likely still pay property taxes, which are very high in Texas (a place you claim the rich are flocking to for tax reasons).

The point is that you are trying to boil a very complex issue into a simple pre-defined narrative. Nobody called your claim "controversial" (that's another strawman you created). You have made a stand on an opinion you cannot back up with any data or research. If you want to make the claim, bring the receipts (or sources).

I think both of you are missing the point here.

Most of your very wealthy are going to have living trusts. Those trusts are separate legal entities. Pretty much all property, tangible and intangible will be in the trust and not in the name of whomever actually acquired those assets. If they're working stiffs, in all likelyhood, they've incorporated themselves also.

Plus, a great amount of their assets - especially liquid assets - are tied up in non-taxable vehicles such as Treasure Bonds and State and local bonds. The interest rates aren't great, but the benefit is the interest is tax free. If I happen to have 100 mil laying around, I'm putting it state and local bonds at around 5% (or so) interest. That's 5 mil a year, tax free. Might be tough to eke out a living, but I'd try. Real estate, tangible properly like boats and expensive cars, precious metals, stocks - all sorts of places I can put my excess to work for me. All managed from within the Trust.

I will say that the wealthy aren't really concerned with their state income tax rates. That's really low on their list of priorities. They're more concerned with being able to shelter their income\assets from things like estate taxes which are a killer if you don't structure things properly.

[SimonFish]

You are not replying to my latest comment. I have (i) admitted that there is no convincing proof, as of this moment, that 7 million people died; and (ii) pointed out that China had covered up millions of death before. These two points by themselves are not contradictory.

I am just wearing a pair of skeptical glasaes to view the Chinese official data, and reminding my fellow posters to do the same.

This is irrelevant to my point, not that it matters.

The cell phone data seems to in no way be indicative of anything related to deaths at all. It's not a reasonable conclusion to draw from that report.

I do think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw that we should be skeptical of what news is coming out of china including total confirmed cases and death rate, but that is due to reasons not related to this cell phone data and more due to china's history.

I am not disagreeing with you here. There is no conclusive proof that there are millions of death, but I cannot rule out of such possibility, also due to China's history. Of course the burden of proof lies on me and I accept the fact that I have yet to satisfied it.

If anything, the mobile service stats does add another layer of argument (even if minor or negligible) that the Chinese official data shall not be trusted.

Sent from my [device_name] using [url]RealGM mobile app[/url]

[dougthonus]

Plus, a great amount of their assets - especially liquid assets - are tied up in non-taxable vehicles such as Treasure Bonds and State and local bonds. The interest rates aren't great, but the benefit is the interest is tax free. If I happen to have 100 mil laying around, I'm putting it state and local bonds at around 5% (or so) interest. That's 5 mil a year, tax free. Might be tough to eke out a living, but I'd try. Real estate, tangible properly like boats and expensive cars, precious metals, stocks - all sorts of places I can put my excess to work for me. All managed from within the Trust.

I'm not sure where you think you're getting a fully tax exempt bond at 5% interest rate, but that hasn't been available in the last decade that I'm aware of. Also doubt many billionaires are investing that much in tax exempt bonds because you can make so much more money in equity. Bonds are typically used for people arbitraging rates like banks or insurance companies or for people trying to lower portfolio risk as they age.