Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OK, the Corona Virus Isn't Going Away. Now What?


Recommended Posts

RE: Re-infections

 

I'm a little skeptical about re-infections, I think what we're seeing reflect more on the accuracy of the testing. The protocol in many places is that you need to be tested several times to be officially cleared of the virus.

 

My cousin was hospitalized for 2 weeks in ICU (around the beginning of March). She was released after the symptoms went away and she tested negative for the virus. BUT - the protocol is that even after being released she needed to test negative on 3 consecutive tests to be officially cleared. The first week out of the hospital, she tested NEGATIVE on 2 tests and POSITIVE on the last. So she had to stay in quarantine 1 more week to finally get cleared with 3 negative tests in a row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Your comment about where minorities work actually bolsters my argument. What you wrote is very true about laborer type jobs where they work right next each other and do not have the best protection. They also tend to have large families crowded into a small living spaces. I've been surprised I haven't read news articles screaming about how this virus is hitting hispanics so much harder than whites. If anything that tells me there is a lot of immunity which would be great. Otherwise given their working and living conditions why do you think there isn't an obvious epidemic in those communities?

There are HUGE epidemics in those communities. Why do you think there is a threat of a meat shortage? They've had to close those plants.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/us/coronavirus-south-dakota-meat-plant-refugees.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/business/coronavirus-meat-slaughterhouses.html

 

And more generally, there ARE big disparities between white and non-white cases.

 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-How-to-close-deadly-COVID-19-racial-15214398.php

 

Every state that has collected racial data shows higher COVID-19 infection and death rates among black residents. In a breakdown of cases from 14 states, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one-third of patients were black even though black residents made up only about 18 percent of the states" populations.

 

In St. Louis, all but three of the 19 people who died of COVID-19 as of last week were black. In Louisiana, African Americans make up 70 percent of deaths but are only 33 percent of the population.

 

In Houston and Harris County, nearly 40 percent of the people who died from COVID-19 were African American. Only 20 percent of Harris County is black.

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure we are all going to get it one way or another. Hopefully I'll get mine in the form of a vaccine.

 

Sooner or later?

 

If I have the choice, I'll choose later when either a vaccine is available, new methods of treatment bring about a better cure rate, or the peak has slowed enough so that the hospitals are not overloaded and a doctor doesn't have to say, "I have one ventilator, and that 24 year old has more potential years ahead than you, so I'm sorry to have to give you a death sentence,"

 

BTW, New Zealand acted immediately instead of minimizing the problem for 6 weeks while those 'in the know' sold their stocks. They quarantined, tracked, closed borders, and today they have zero new cases. Sure it tanked their economy which is largely dependent on tourism, but it saved lives. The NZ government decided that the lives of their citizens was more important than corporate profits.

 

IMO, anyone who is arguing to re-open the US immediately, should get out there instead of tweeting from their safe couches like a few people I am aware of (none on this board).

 

Just as a side thought, I wonder if a contributing factor for the high levels of darker skinned people getting the disease is because their skin reduces Vitamin D creation from sunlight. As we know, colds (another form of corona virus) and flu are typically more severe and contagious in the winter time where the people living in the temperate zones get less sunlight on their skin.

 

Of course Vitamin D is oil soluble and supplements shouldn't be downed in great quantities without blood testing, and for some people, getting out in the sun is dangerous, so there is a balance to be had if, (and that is definitely an IF) vitamin D does have preventative qualities.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure we are all going to get it one way or another. Hopefully I'll get mine in the form of a vaccine.

 

Not that it's anything to hold our collective breath for, but there is another possibility.

 

https://kottke.org/20/05/sars-cov-2-an-emerging-portrait

 

And this is a somewhat hopeful speculation on one of the many possible ways the Covid-19 pandemic could go:

 

'By far the most likely scenario is that the virus will continue to spread and infect most of the world population in a relatively short period of time,' says Stöhr, meaning one to two years. 'Afterwards, the virus will continue to spread in the human population, likely forever.' Like the four generally mild human coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 would then circulate constantly and cause mainly mild upper respiratory tract infections, says Stöhr. For that reason, he adds, vaccines won"t be necessary.

 

"Some previous studies support this argument. One showed that when people were inoculated with the common-cold coronavirus 229E, their antibody levels peaked two weeks later and were only slightly raised after a year. That did not prevent infections a year later, but subsequent infections led to few, if any, symptoms and a shorter period of viral shedding.

 

"The OC43 coronavirus offers a model for where this pandemic might go. That virus also gives humans common colds, but genetic research from the University of Leuven in Belgium suggests that OC43 might have been a killer in the past."

 

But then, from a few paragraphs down:

 

People like to think that 'the other coronaviruses were terrible and became mild', says Perlman. 'That"s an optimistic way to think about what"s going on now, but we don"t have evidence.'

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note about the term herd immunity.

 

I've run into a lot of users of the term that apparently think it implies just letting the disease run it's course until "everyone" has had it and therefore everyone (still living) is immune. The virus can't find hosts and peters out entirely.

 

From reading around (no claims to authority here, just a curious person who reads a lot and tries to read important stuff very closely)

 

1 - herd immunity is defined disease by disease. Something like the mumps, which is a lot more communicable than COVID-19, takes an infection rate of approx. 92% to totally stop the disease in its tracks. The infection rate for COVID19 to reach herd immunity levels is around 70% of the population. (assuming that infected people achieve immunity, which issue I'm not dealing with here.) Almost every mother's son and daughter has had a mumps shot - that's why it's now a rare occurence.

 

2 - Immunization via vaccines, for purposes of reaching herd immunity, is no different than catching the disease and being really sick from it. So instead of immunization being somehow in contrast to "achieving herd immunity", it's by far, far, far, the best way to achieve herd immunity.

 

3 - many diseases have vaccines, but still spread due to economic and behavioral factors. And vaccines are not always 100% effective, either. Herd immunity, if achieved in the absense of vaccines, is by definition a horrific catastrophe that any civilized person should recognize as not an option if we can help it in any way conceivable. The death rate is way too high, and the dislocation of society may kill more than the disease.

 

4 - there's also the possibility of cures being developed. As with malaria, for which for so long there was no vaccine, there are still cures that can be very effective for the majority of cases. (BTW - there is a vaccine for malaria. It's newish, it hasn't been deployed everywhere, but it does exist.) The U.S.A has eradicated malaria within its borders in the total absense of a vaccine. So binary thinking here - i.e. either a) let "everyone" get it to achieve herd immunity, vs. b) a vaccine is the only way to save us and it will save us all - is well, ignorant (sorry.)

 

The story will evolve and evolve and evolve - at each point, the media and the public will do their reductionist thing to set up false binaries and all-or-nothing scenarios, with a host of fatalists moaning from the sidelines, "we terrible humans deserve this, thank you nature for trying to eradicate all of us bad, bad people".

 

I'm still on a GO FIGHT WIN binge. And if we lose the battle, there's no way to go down but fighting. But I don't think we'll lose.

 

nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, Joe gets it. I don't go around looking for news articles about racial disparities. I wish race wasn't brought up at all, but so be it. I live in a racially diverse neighborhood with lots of working class people, not in a exclusive gated community, so I hear about this stuff all the time without having to look for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, Joe gets it. I don't go around looking for news articles about racial disparities. I wish race wasn't brought up at all, but so be it.

 

I think we need to differentiate between social mores and science. If a particular group is getting hit particularly hard, it's probably a good idea to find out why. I'm not sure it has that much to do with race, per se. For example there is now research that implies that perhaps children also get very sick from Covid-19, but the symptoms and the way the virus attacks the body are different. Knowing that it can have different symptoms at different ages may cause a re-examination of the premise that Covid-19 is only a "boomer remover."

 

FWIW I also live in a racially mixed neighborhood with no gated communities, but so far the "hot spot" maps show basically zero coronavirus cases in my part of the county. So anecdotally, I could draw the conclusion that means black people aren't inherently more likely to get hit by the virus, so there must be some other factor at play.

 

The more we know about this thing, the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, Joe gets it. I don't go around looking for news articles about racial disparities. I wish race wasn't brought up at all, but so be it.

 

I think we need to differentiate between social mores and science. If a particular group is getting hit particularly hard, it's probably a good idea to find out why. I'm not sure it has that much to do with race, per se. For example there is now research that implies that perhaps children also get very sick from Covid-19, but the symptoms and the way the virus attacks the body are different. Knowing that it can have different symptoms at different ages may cause a re-examination of the premise that Covid-19 is only a "boomer remover."

 

FWIW I also live in a racially mixed neighborhood with no gated communities, but so far the "hot spot" maps show basically zero coronavirus cases in my part of the county. So anecdotally, I could draw the conclusion that means black people aren't inherently more likely to get hit by the virus, so there must be some other factor at play.

 

The more we know about this thing, the better.

 

I have no problem with any of this, sir. Facts are better than just saying "it's mostly fat people getting sick, and they belong to races X and Y". Perhaps the person who said that meant no harm but it's tricky to bring up race without appropriate attention to how what you say is going to look to others.

 

Regarding herd immunity, I have nothing against hoping and wishing for it to happen. I wish it would happen too! I dream of the day I can go see a live show again, hang out in close quarters with friends at a bar, meet people for dinner at a restaurant!

 

But as others have said, either we need a vaccine or reassurance that people who got sick from it will absolutely, 100% without a doubt, never get sick from it again. Sorry if somebody thinks that is harsh but I don't know how to sugarcoat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Regarding herd immunity, I have nothing against hoping and wishing for it to happen. I wish it would happen too! I dream of the day I can go see a live show again, hang out in close quarters with friends at a bar, meet people for dinner at a restaurant!

 

But as others have said, either we need a vaccine or reassurance that people who got sick from it will absolutely, 100% without a doubt, never get sick from it again. Sorry if somebody thinks that is harsh but I don't know how to sugarcoat it.

 

The situation is not a simple one of two exclusive situations - vaccine versus guaranteed immunity via everyone getting infected.

 

Variations that will likely complicate this simple binary -

 

1. a cure, partial or 100% effective, might be developed.

2. a combination of vaccine(s) and natural infections that reaches herd immunity (70% per one scientific source I read.)

3. some level of permanent behavioral changes that slow down the spread of this particular disease (and all the other cough/sneeze/touch communicable diseases as a bonus!) while a combination of other factors (cures, vaccines, weather, immunity in general on the increase) tamp down the spread and the morbidity of the thing.

 

In other words - it's not a simple this or that situation. And new factors will be coming into play - look for instead a sort of drawn-out war that will have flare-ups and lulls, new fronts and battles won, lost, and drawn, eventually the whole thing petering out through a variety of factors.

 

nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Regarding herd immunity, I have nothing against hoping and wishing for it to happen. I wish it would happen too! I dream of the day I can go see a live show again, hang out in close quarters with friends at a bar, meet people for dinner at a restaurant!

 

But as others have said, either we need a vaccine or reassurance that people who got sick from it will absolutely, 100% without a doubt, never get sick from it again. Sorry if somebody thinks that is harsh but I don't know how to sugarcoat it.

 

The situation is not a simple one of two exclusive situations - vaccine versus guaranteed immunity via everyone getting infected.

 

Variations that will likely complicate this simple binary -

 

1. a cure, partial or 100% effective, might be developed.

2. a combination of vaccine(s) and natural infections that reaches herd immunity (70% per one scientific source I read.)

3. some level of permanent behavioral changes that slow down the spread of this particular disease (and all the other cough/sneeze/touch communicable diseases as a bonus!) while a combination of other factors (cures, vaccines, weather, immunity in general on the increase) tamp down the spread and the morbidity of the thing.

 

In other words - it's not a simple this or that situation. And new factors will be coming into play - look for instead a sort of drawn-out war that will have flare-ups and lulls, new fronts and battles won, lost, and drawn, eventually the whole thing petering out through a variety of factors.

 

nat

 

Thank you for this thoughtful post.

 

I do wish the best for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's back with another YT about the viral video going around. I like the first 14 minute just on fact checking common sense. After the 14 minute point she talks about the video.

 

[video:youtube]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Everything is so nuanced. The attitude of some people is "hey, most deaths are in nursing homes, they're on the way out anyway, so I'm sorry, but the cost of keeping them alive is too high." The hypocrisy of those who proclaim themselves pro-life, or heap praise on "the greatest generation" when it's convenient, is palpable (after all, those people in nursing homes are part of the society that built the interstate highway system, made the US the greatest military power on earth, explored space, helped defeat Hitler, and brought amazing technological changes from which we all benefit).

 

Sorry, but I don't find this characterization of people that have good faith arguments in questioning the shut-down mania (with it's ever-changing rationales), itself to be very nuanced. But maybe you can appreciate the headline of an article in the Atlantic RE the re-opening of Georgia, calling it "An Experiment In Human Sacrifice". The hopes, in some non-MPN quarters, for a spike in deaths in that state- in order to be able to tell the yahoos there "I told you so"- is almost palpable.

 

I know what to do to keep my family member safe, the same as my neighbor knows for his family, and it's not contingent on the whole world being shut down around us. Both of us can make better decisions on on behalf of our families, than the government can make for us. Is it the government's duty to eliminate opportunities for individuals to make poor decisions? If so, where have they been all my life? And why did they let me post again on this thread, and allow you to waste 30 seconds of your life reading it? (Because face it: jawboning on a hobbyist musicians forum accomplishes nothing.)

 

Granted, better decisions don't come from being cocksure, and ignoring new evidence as it filters in. But neither do they come from throwing common sense out the window. Like a certain governor and his expert staff did (lauded though they are for being models of coronavirus leadership). They ordered nursing homes in their state be forced to accept coronavirus patients. As a result, now, 1 in 4 deaths in their state are (previous) nursing home residents. This order was not altered, and the nursing home coronavirus patients were not moved, even when additional facilities became available for housing them. Now they are washing their hands of the matter and claiming that the homes had a choice (but the homes' administrators tell a different story). The same state received a breakdown of it's new coronavirus patients today. 66% of which had stayed at home. Most were not working, and were minorities. That's unequivocally bad news. It remains to be seen whether it will alter their approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Everything is so nuanced. The attitude of some people is "hey, most deaths are in nursing homes, they're on the way out anyway, so I'm sorry, but the cost of keeping them alive is too high." The hypocrisy of those who proclaim themselves pro-life, or heap praise on "the greatest generation" when it's convenient, is palpable (after all, those people in nursing homes are part of the society that built the interstate highway system, made the US the greatest military power on earth, explored space, helped defeat Hitler, and brought amazing technological changes from which we all benefit).

 

Sorry, but I don't find this characterization of people that have good faith arguments in questioning the shut-down mania (with it's ever-changing rationales), itself to be very nuanced.

 

Please note, I specifically said the attitude of some people. Look at opinion pieces on the web, including from high-profile news sources, and you will have no problem finding some people who have expressed that kind of attitude. As to hypocrisy, check out previous editorials from these same people. Nor is this attitude restricted to older politicians by any means, check out the hashtag #boomerremover.

 

What I said is obviously not intended as a broad stroke that characterizes all people who have the same opinion as having the same motivation behind that opinion. Look at one of my previous posts, where I questioned whether ultimately, there would be any difference between locking down or not locking down. However, that opinion was not fueled by considering any group of people disposable, but from the inexorable results of math, and who will be most likely to be a victim of the virus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh, Craig the great wet blanket....

 

The Wet Blanket is back...you mentioned how some of the high-profile companies returned the money they received from the government. Kudos to them, but apparently, there's more to the story. Unfortunately, this just appeared in Reuters, which does actual research so I see no need to question their stats. As much as I want to believe companies have a sense of civic responsibility, it looks like once again, I'm being naive.

 

When American companies recently applied for U.S. government loans meant to help small businesses survive the coronavirus crisis, they had to certify they needed the cash to cover basic needs like salaries and rent. The money, up to $10 million, was meant to tide them over for eight weeks.

 

Some recipients, though, had considerable cash on hand. Forty-one publicly traded companies that got the emergency aid already had enough to cover basic expenses for two months or more when they applied for the funds, a Reuters analysis found -- even if their revenue dropped to zero. Thirty had three months or more of cash. Six had enough to last at least until December, according to the review, which was based on average monthly operating expenses from 2019.

 

All told, these relatively flush 41 companies were able to secure $104 million in government aid, at a time when legions of smaller companies with little in their coffers were being turned down. Seventeen of the 41 recipients had market capitalizations of at least $100 million.

 

'It's disheartening to see relief spending go to companies that don't appear to desperately need a lifeline,' said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a Washington-based non-profit that monitors government spending. 'This shows just how urgently we need more oversight of this program and the rest of the federal government's relief spending.'

 

Reuters examined the latest available financial information for 276 publicly traded companies that applied for the forgivable loans in the first round of the U.S. government"s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) in April. The list includes companies tracked by data provider FactSquared through the end of April.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the LA Times. There's something here for everybody.

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-25/coronavirus-takes-a-larger-toll-on-younger-african-americans-and-latinos-in-california

 

I'm still using LA County as a baseline because I lived there for almost 40 years and it's 10 million population and very diverse. As of today 29,427 confirmed cases and 1,418 deaths. That's a tiny number at this stage of the outbreak with a virus as virulent and infectious as all the studies say. Obviously, either it isn't that bad or there's something else going on. Everybody knows now the actual number of cases is way higher than the confirmed ones so it's the deaths that really matter. Of course there are some unreported deaths but not 500% more. Statewide it's 2,464 as of today. Out of 40 million? It raises the question, out of that large of a population there should be 10,000 deaths by now so as far as I'm concerned the California Mystery is still alive and well. Remember, California had the most Chinese visitors in the entire country with the majority of those in LA, and New York right behind us. Something is keeping those numbers down if not immunity.

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes it is a valid function of the government to enact certain rules to protect the majority of citizens.

 

During the WWII Blitzkrieg they told people to turn their lights off at night. Can you imagine what would have happened if a group of citizens in different neighborhoods said, "Hell no! The government can't tell me what to do. I'm burning my lights at night." Then the neighborhoods where the dissenters burned their lights would be bomb targets and their neighbors would have lost their lives from their actions.

 

As we've seen, when a COVID victim mixed with crowds of the general public, innocent neighbors have lost their lives. Same result, different cause.

 

I see the armed protestors storming government buildings with weapons exposed as a mob of miscreants. It's one thing to form a peaceful protest, but when you expose weapons of instant death in your protest, you have gone from peaceful protest to an life threatening mob. A mob of miscreants.

 

In summary

 

First, understand that it is sometimes a function of government to protect the lives of a large percentage of citizens with rules that would otherwise be unthinkable.

 

Second, if you are going to protest, do it peacefully without weapons capable of inflicting immediate death on others.

 

Actually, I think the US and many other governments didn't do enough and didn't act fast enough. If every government acted like New Zealand and Taiwan, the problem would be for all practical purposes over now.

 

On another note; Welcome to corporationalism.

 

I finally got my one-time stimulus check today. On the other hand, it's the 52nd day after applying for unemployment and I still am "under review". But that's a "tea bag" Florida government priority - only help the richest of the rich. The alpha dogs get fatter while the pack starves. They way I feel right now is this +50 year independent will never vote GOP again. If they can't take care of us, I won't take care of them.

 

Insights, incites and a minor rant by Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the LA Times. There's something here for everybody.

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-25/coronavirus-takes-a-larger-toll-on-younger-african-americans-and-latinos-in-california

 

I'm still using LA County as a baseline because I lived there for almost 40 years and it's 10 million population and very diverse. As of today 29,427 confirmed cases and 1,418 deaths. That's a tiny number at this stage of the outbreak with a virus as virulent and infectious as all the studies say. Obviously, either it isn't that bad or there's something else going on. Everybody knows now the actual number of cases is way higher than the confirmed ones so it's the deaths that really matter. Of course there are some unreported deaths but not 500% more. Statewide it's 2,464 as of today. Out of 40 million? It raises the question, out of that large of a population there should be 10,000 deaths by now so as far as I'm concerned the California Mystery is still alive and well. Remember, California had the most Chinese visitors in the entire country with the majority of those in LA, and New York right behind us. Something is keeping those numbers down if not immunity.

 

Bob

 

A huge chunk of New York's population is concentrated in NYC, while CA's population is more spread out. Humans packed together into confined spaces is what viruses love and there's a lot more of that in NYC than in LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A huge chunk of New York's population is concentrated in NYC, while CA's population is more spread out. Humans packed together into confined spaces is what viruses love and there's a lot more of that in NYC than in LA.

 

That's also probably why it's taking so much longer to get into less-populated areas...but once it finds a meat packing plant or assembly line, look out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A huge chunk of New York's population is concentrated in NYC, while CA's population is more spread out. Humans packed together into confined spaces is what viruses love and there's a lot more of that in NYC than in LA.

 

That's also probably why it's taking so much longer to get into less-populated areas...but once it finds a meat packing plant or assembly line, look out.

 

I forgot to also note that in LA - and Southern California in general - people tend to favor car transportation over public transit, so they're not as exposed to to other humans when they commute. NYC has its legendary subway system which packs a lot of people into a confined space during commute hours, although they did finally cut service down from 24hrs a day to allow more time for nightly cleaning/disinfecting. Even just commuting on foot in NYC exposed you to a lot of other people.

 

Quite different commute experience than commuting in wheeled quarantine chambers (cars).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh, Craig the great wet blanket....

 

 

When American companies recently applied for U.S. government loans meant to help small businesses survive the coronavirus crisis, they had to certify they needed the cash to cover basic needs like salaries and rent. The money, up to $10 million, was meant to tide them over for eight weeks.

 

 

I read over the PPP application and also attended attorney/accountant level webinars on the PPP process when it first was rolled out. I take issue with the quoted article's statement that the applicants "had to certify they needed the cash to cover basic need like salaries and rent." Below my comments I've pasted the entire "Certifications" section of the SBA application form.

 

My point to make here is that the qualification terminology is extremely vague and says nothing at all about actually needing the cash.

 

It does require the applicant to certify that "Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant." And it requires that the funds be used to pay payroll and a few other basic listed business expenses.

 

Well, everyone is feeling pretty uncertain, right? It's not stated as "current actual conditions" but simply "current economic uncertainty". So there's no certification of actual, existing need of the cash. Just "uncertainty" about the future.

 

I was feeling pretty uncertain at the time, myself, 'tho year-to-date I was doing about the same as usual. I didn't apply for the loan, 'tho I could have, and could have probably received the money and probably could get it forgiven, too. Why? Just didn't feel right and fair to the other businesses, like restaurants and other services that truly were already in a realtime crisis. I may regret this decision economically, but not ethically.

 

So what basically happened is that the big companies, with professional accountants and attorneys to stay right on top of all this, applied first with properly filled-out paperwork, zap quick. Hence the great bulk of the first round of PPP funds going to the big boys.

 

To get the forgiveness, there are rules being rolled out in big chunks, still more to come. But it's pretty clear companies will basically turn in their payroll tax returns and some other documentation to prove up that they indeed spent such and so dollars on payroll and the other covered expenses. There's no mention at all of proving up "need". No disclosures of financial results, no P&Ls, no cash flow statements, etc.

 

My opinion is that there will be a ton of litigation on the interpretation of "current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations." It's incredibly vague and in the eyes of most businesses, profitable or not, looked like money lying on the ground. Which, it was.

 

Bedtime reading:

 

purpose of determining my eligibility for programs authorized by the Small Business Act, as amended.

CERTIFICATIONS

 

The authorized representative of the Applicant must certify in good faith to all of the below by initialing next to each one:

 

_____ The Applicant was in operation on February 15, 2020 and had employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll taxes or paid independent

contractors, as reported on Form(s) 1099-MISC.

 

_____ Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.

 

_____ The funds will be used to retain workers and maintain payroll or make mortgage interest payments, lease payments, and utility payments,

as specified under the Paycheck Protection Program Rule; I understand that if the funds are knowingly used for unauthorized purposes,

the federal government may hold me legally liable, such as for charges of fraud.

 

_____ The Applicant will provide to the Lender documentation verifying the number of full-time equivalent employees on the Applicant"s

payroll as well as the dollar amounts of payroll costs, covered mortgage interest payments, covered rent payments, and covered utilities

for the eight-week period following this loan.

 

_____ I understand that loan forgiveness will be provided for the sum of documented payroll costs, covered mortgage interest payments,

covered rent payments, and covered utilities, and not more than 25% of the forgiven amount may be for non-payroll costs.

 

_____ During the period beginning on February 15, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020, the Applicant has not and will not receive another

loan under the Paycheck Protection Program.

 

_____ I further certify that the information provided in this application and the information provided in all supporting documents and

forms is true and accurate in all material respects. I understand that knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan

from SBA is punishable under the law, including under 18 USC 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a

fine of up to $250,000; under 15 USC 645 by imprisonment of not more than two years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000; and, if

submitted to a federally insured institution, under 18 USC 1014 by imprisonment of not more than thirty years and/or a fine of not

more than $1,000,000.

 

_____ I acknowledge that the lender will confirm the eligible loan amount using required documents submitted. I understand,

acknowledge and agree that the Lender can share any tax information that I have provided with SBA's authorized representatives,

including authorized representatives of the SBA Office of Inspector General, for the purpose of compliance with SBA Loan

Program Requirements and all SBA reviews.

_________________________________________________________ ________________________

Signature of Authorized Representative of Applicant Date

Print Name Title

Paycheck Protection Program

Borrower Application Form

3

SBA Form 2483 (04/20)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I read over the PPP application and also attended attorney/accountant level webinars on the PPP process when it first was rolled out. I take issue with the quoted article's statement that the applicants "had to certify they needed the cash to cover basic need like salaries and rent." Below my comments I've pasted the entire "Certifications" section of the SBA application form.

 

That is wonderful, thanks. Always best to get it from the source!!!

 

My point to make here is that the qualification terminology is extremely vague and says nothing at all about actually needing the cash.

 

It does require the applicant to certify that "Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant." And it requires that the funds be used to pay payroll and a few other basic listed business expenses.

 

I agree that this could be more specific, but legally speaking, "necessary to support the ongoing operations of the applicant" is not the same as "would be nice to supplement the cash on hand that could support the ongoing operations of the applicant for several months." Necessary means required, essential, needed. If a company has enough to cover payroll and other basic listed expenses for a substantial period of time, they don't need or require my tax dollars, when the mom and pop shop down the street doesn't have enough to cover payroll and other basic listed expenses beyond Tuesday.

 

[Full disclosure: I've lost thousands of dollars because of what's happening (on top of my wife dying last February, which cost additional thousands of dollars). But I haven't applied for, or received, anything other than a $255 social security death "benefit," which I would have received regardless of the current economic conditions. I have enough food to eat, and my computer still function, so I can still work...but many small businesses don't even have that. I feel my money should be going to them, not corporations with a $100 million market cap. That's not a political statement, that's about how to keep the economy alive - which is in everyone's interest.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It does require the applicant to certify that "Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant." And it requires that the funds be used to pay payroll and a few other basic listed business expenses.

 

I agree that this could be more specific, but legally speaking, "necessary to support the ongoing operations of the applicant" is not the same as "would be nice to supplement the cash on hand that could support the ongoing operations of the applicant for several months." Necessary means required, essential, needed. If a company has enough to cover payroll and other basic listed expenses for a substantial period of time, they don't need or require my tax dollars, when the mom and pop shop down the street doesn't have enough to cover payroll and other basic listed expenses beyond Tuesday.

 

I'm sure some people going after companies who had no real need for the cash at the time would take that position regarding the wording.

 

Yes, "necessary" is the strongest word in the phrase. But note, "necessary" for what? To keep operations ongoing? That's not what it says. To be able to make payroll? To keep the doors open? No, it's "to SUPPORT the ongoing operations". Not "enable". Not "insure". Merely "support". What an incredibly vague term! And what if "ongoing operations" have been insanely profitable, resulting in mega-bonuses for mega-millionaires? Remodeling the board room and expanding the executive kitchen and work-out room? These types of items are routinely deductible under the Tax Code, meeting the ages-old standard of "ordinary and necessary", even if they don't seem so "necessary" to common sense - they pass muster as "necessary" in the legal language of the Tax Code.

 

I don't think it would take a very savvy attorney to be able to include just about anything deductible under the Tax Code under "necessary to support ongoing operations." Again I'll stress that there's no definition of any kind of line between a "need" and a simple "cost". No measurement of liquidity, no mention of threats to the survival of the business, no comparison of prior year revenues with "coronavirus" revenues. You just have to keep paying payroll, rent, mortgage interest, etc., as usual and you're good to go.

 

But interpretations will vary, to be sure. The ambiguity of the thing is miles wide. Lawsuits, perhaps audits, and a lot of scathing press to come.

 

nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely there will be. What gets me with the tone of some of the posts in this thread is the idea that big business is bad, the little guy is good. A question:

 

How many here who gig regularly do it for poor people? Obviously very few. Notes is very proud of the fact he's been independent musician for years working for yacht clubs, country clubs, retirement communities in S. Florida. Most of them are rich gigs, not poor gigs in a dive bar out on the highway somewhere. I do the same thing but on the West Coast around LA. The LA Country Club, Palos Verdes Country Club. San Clemente Yacht Club, the Catalina Yacht club. Check this out:

 

https://catalinaislandyachtclub.com/

 

The dark windows right over the water is where the band plays, they will open the windows and tell us to play loud so people can hear us out on their boats. I've done 4th of July and several Christmas parties there for the last 10 years. Does this look like poor people? Membership costs about as much as the median income in LA. Who are the individual members? Wealthy business owners, professionals, athletes or retired executives of Fortune 500 corporations. Those are the people who hire us and everybody else in this country and some of you are unfairly trashing them. Too much painting with broad strokes here and it's very hypocritical. You take their money but you hate them. Great.

 

When a company gets the stimulus money the fact they may have enough cash on hand to last to the end of the year means nothing by itself. Maybe they're in the middle of acquiring new factory space for 20 mil and some of that that capital is allocated to cover that cost over the next year and a half the same way you would pay a contractor to remodel your house. Do you pay him all up front? Of course not. Without having their books in front of you to see what their future liabilities are nobody here has any clue at all what the situation is. The money is for payroll to stop people from being laid off. If it's used for that purpose fine, the loan is forgiven and that's what the money is for. If it's not then it's a loan that has to be paid back.

 

We have been talking about how nobody knows what the future holds. We've gone back and forth with possible scenarios and most say it's stupid to go too soon but then there is the threat of a major recession or even depression. What do you think these owners and CEO's think? Exactly the same thing, they have no clue either so it's only prudent to take what the government is offering. Of course the law is not that simple or clean. It was rushed through Congress in a week. Just like Obamacare and TARP was in 2008. Try to write over 2,000 pages of detailed legislation in a week, there will be holes in it the size of the Queen Mary. Sure some bigger companies got it over smaller ones and I'm sure some of those should have not gotten it at all and some voluntarily paid it back as I said earlier. I've already read that Treasury is gearing up to go after those they think got the money improperly. That should make for some fun reading because I've read some interviews with a few CEO's of the big banks who said if they hadn't given that money to the big companies first they could have been sued or run afoul of bank regulators based on whats in the legislation.

 

Like I've written many times already, we have to get the country back to work asap or this crap is just going to pile up deeper and deeper until we're in another depression. That means living with the risks of the virus vaccine or no vaccine, simple as that. How many times has it been pointed out right here it can take a minimum of 18 months for that and it could be 4 years. We're going to keep doing what we're doing for 4 years? No way.

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has a problem with big business per se. I don't. The reality is that there is a finite amount of stimulus money to go around, so decisions have to made about prioritizing it. It seems intuitively that if a company is well funded, has a huge market cap, and has banked hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, they can survive. I totally understand those profits are essential to fund expansion, do R&D, open new facilities, etc. I just don't think that now is the time to do that, any more than I thought the bank bailouts in 2008 were intended for banks to buy up smaller, local banks instead of helping those who were underwater on mortgages.

 

It works both ways. We need large companies to make products, but they need people to be able to consume their products. Local businesses are efficient in terms of contributing to a local economy, and creating a base of consumers who can keep big companies alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I've written many times already, we have to get the country back to work asap or this crap is just going to pile up deeper and deeper until we're in another depression. That means living with the risks of the virus vaccine or no vaccine, simple as that. How many times has it been pointed out right here it can take a minimum of 18 months for that and it could be 4 years. We're going to keep doing what we're doing for 4 years? No way.

 

I kind of think we're screwed either way. If the virus roars back after all restrictions are lifted, a world where thousands of people die every day means many people are not going to go to concerts, go on cruises, fly places, etc., which will put the brakes on the economy even if everything is "opened up." Note that many hospitals are going bankrupt, which if that reaches its logical conclusion, means even more dead people piling up in morgues.

 

The other reality is that most people have given up on the hope there will ever be enough testing to open up under favorable conditions. AFAIC at the moment there are only two options - have a screwed up economy because things are locked down, or have a screwed up economy because an open economy doesn't magically restore things to the way they were before the virus hit. An open economy will open up to a very different world. Both of the options are bad. The debate is about which one is least bad, and the only way to know for sure is to be able to predict the future.

 

Ultimately technology/science/medicine will come up with an answer, but we don't know how much wreckage will have occurred before that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with big biz, but I have a problem with them getting preferential treatment and a lower tax percentage than I pay. I pay 15% self-employment right off the bat PLUS my income tax. Do you think Trump pays over 15% of his income? Bezos? Gates? Buffet? Any hedge fund manager?

 

When the rich pay the same tax rate as me, I'll have no problem with them. I don't have a problem with them being rich, I have a problem with them giving tacit bribes to the politicians so they don't have to pay taxes at the same rate as the proletariat does.

 

My sisters are CPAs and they won't give me names, but they have clients with yachts and airplanes paying less money than me per year - legally.

 

And no, I didn't get the stimulus check i reported last post, it was a scam in a gov't looking envelope.

 

So while the Lakers, Ruth Chris, Trump Hotels, and other big corporations got money (some were embarrassed into giving it back) on day 53 of forced unemployment I have yet to receive either the promised Stimulus check or any Unemployment money. Zero, nada, zilch -- not one red cent.

 

Florida tea bag Republican former Rick Scott's system is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, deny people unemployment. We made International news, the conservative BBC and the liberal Guardian as having the worst unemployment in the industrialized world. Actual numbers of less than 20% get approved.

 

Of course that means I won't get the federal unemployment money either.

 

And yes I play for poor people. Along with the yacht clubs, country clubs, retirement communities I also play mobile home parks where barely 'making it' retirees live (and I give them a cut rate), One guy who is supposed to be retired but works for the mobile home park and books us tells me his former boss ran away with the employees' pension fund and all he has left is social security, a sick wife, and a "Medicare advantage" plan that minimizes what she can get. Looking around the park, the other people are not in any better shape. Tired mobile homes, old cars, no bling. I play a dozen or more of these and give them all a break because it's a 'do unto others' thing. The Casino I gig at pays 4 times as much as I charge these people.

 

We also volunteer to play for free at the wheelchair division of the VA hospital every year even though we give up a nights pay we could make somewhere else and drive over 50 miles each way to do it. It just seems like the right thing to do for those who gave up part of themselves for our country.

 

We do Moose, Elks, and other "animal clubs" where the people go for cheap food and drinks because they are suffering from runaway inflation (thanks to Nixon and his GOP cronies taking us off the gold standard) and a fixed income.

 

So please don't tell me we don't play for poor people.

 

And as long as I'm getting zero help from the government, there is nothing you can do to justify in my eyes the richest of the rich getting benefits.

 

For the rest of the folks on this thread, please forgive the semi-politics, but I felt I needed to respond to a falsehood.

 

Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...