Looking to check in on your stimulus payment?
As I write this early Wednesday, for most people (not all) there is not yet any information. However, if you come up empty today check back. There should be information available for you by week’s end.
That’s not quite right - they attempt resuscitation as always. But if their attempt fails in the field, they give up rather than taking the presumably dead patient to the hospital to try again.
What do you base this on?
Comments left earlier today by persons seeking to access their data. A few found something. Most just received the “y’all come back” message. Hope is that by week’s end the IRS will have posted more data. We shall see.
Myself? I came up empty . . . . for now.
That form leaves a lot to be desired in terms of user interface and entry validation. It had data for me, though, once I figured out the right formats.
Stimulus payment direct deposited to my account last night. I haven’t filed for 2019 yet since I wanted my payment based on 2018 income. I unexpectedly got paid for my 17 year old.
1 Like
That’s the EMT approach responding to a call outside, but they’re talking about not bothering for covid patients in hospitals because of the risk to the staff. By the time they put on all the gear, even assuming they have it, it’d be too late most of the time anyway.
Data review suggesting the virus is around 2x as infectious as earlier reports. R0 estimates 4-6 instead of 2-3ish.
I got ours as well this morning. I wasn’t sure how they’d treat a kid who’s turning 17 this year but they gave the $500 credit for her since she was 16 last year.
My remaining unknown is whether she will be better off filing her own taxes next year to retroactively get $1200 ($700) stimulus as individual taxpayer. We’d lose the $500 dependent tax credit but won’t have her (projected $4-5k) income taxed at our 24% marginal rate so we should be better off anyway than claiming her as dependent. But I’m hoping it’ll be a nice bonus next year.
Money is losing its meaning:
Doing “whatever it takes” to save the global economy from the coronavirus pandemic is going to cost a lot of money. The U.S. government alone is spending a few trillion dollars, and the Federal Reserve is creating another few trillion dollars to keep the financial system from collapsing.
These numbers are so large that they no longer have any meaning; they are simply abstractions. It’s been some time since people thought about the concept of money and its purpose. The broad idea is that money has value, but that value is not arbitrary. Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker once said in an interview that “it is a governmental responsibility to maintain the value of the currency they issue. And when they fail to do that, it is something that undermines an essential trust in government.”
What we are witnessing is age old “taxation without representation”. Anybody remember that one?
But for whom is representation lacking? Unrepresented are today’s young children, together with your as yet unborn grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They are the ones who will face the impossible task of paying off the gargantuan debt you are running up in an effort to do the impossible: maintain your pre-existing lifestyle in the face of an unprecedented pandemic. This crisis cannot be escaped gratis. Some people will have to pay. And they will, big time, after you’re in the ground with no worries.
You’re both right. For some reason I was thinking that a depression was just a 10% drop in a single quarter. But it has to be a year. I still think it is feasible that this all could add up to a depression even if we’re in lockdown for just 2-3 months.
Can I have yours?
4 Likes
We got ours too.
That still doesnt make sense. If someone is infected and casually goes about their daily life for days before getting sick (if they ever do get sick), they’re infecting more than 6 people, or this isnt nearly as contagious as it’s been made out to be. I’d think that, if the ease of transmission is accurate, a single subway ride would result in double or triple the number of infections, if not even more.
There seems to be a huge disconnect between the concept of potential exposure, and actually becoming infected. It continually becoming more clear that either far, far more people are infected than the reported numbers, or it’s relatively rare to become infected from any given point of exposure.
Yes
It is relatively rare to be infected from any single point of exposure.
Has someone been saying otherwise?
I agree its “relatively rare”. Problem is nobody knows the actual numbers. I mean I don’t know if a single trip to the grocery store where you are in the vicinity of an infected person is a 1 in 10 chance or 1 in 100 or one in 1,000,000.
And yeah we still dont’ know who’s all asymptotic. We could have a lot more people infected who don’t know.
Theres tons of unknowns and little solid data.
Some of that data is hard to quantify at all. I don’t know if you can find a % chance of infection from exposure instances to the common cold or seasonal flu. It would be hard for them to measure and really give solid statistics / probability for.
THe point isn’t to measure the x.y% chance of an exposure. The point is that any risk of such an exposure risks spread of a disease that kills people.
If I shoot my gun in the air in a city whats the % risk of killing someone?
dunno the risk % … Its “relatively rare”. Lets just not shoot guns in the air in downtown.
Everyone knows a bullet fired towards the sky simply disappears, especially on July 4th.
But in this case, we’re all refusing to leave our houses because of the fear a bullet might fall on you while in open space - with no evidence of how many guns, if any, were even fired into the air. We’re being ordered to stay at home because there are guns in the area, and any of them could potentially be fired in the air.
The risk of infection is always going to be present. But at some point it falls into the category of “sometimes shit happens no matter what you do”. And the data keeps indicating we’re closer to that than “panic, or else we’re all gonna die!”. (and to be clear, yet again, I said closer, in relative terms, not “close” or “at that point”.)
1 Like
And if we do it right then it will look like an over reaction in hindsight because we avoided the thing we were trying to avoid.
1 Like
Yes it would be a lot better to seize the guns. 
No seriously though… we should do lots of testing and track and trace like S Korea. FInd, stop and isolate the danger rather than hide at home.
I’ve accepted from the beginning that we are overreacting, but that overreaction is what’ll make it an overreaction. The overreaction is self-fulfilling.
But the whole “better safe than sorry” party line can only be stretched so far for so long without starting to fray…
1 Like