It's not just likely, I worry you won't even get out of the first wave. With everyone pulling in literally 50 different directions and and no leadership from the top this might just bounce between states like the proverbial hot potato.

I feel bad for you guys watching from the north here.

Just wait until we get closer to the election. Then it's going to get absolutely bonkers.

I was already worried about what might happen with this election, but the pandemic is likely to make things worse.

My wife and I have been discussing logistics to get somewhere safer in the event of different scenarios, but at the end... it's just difficult to predict what might happen and where.

If the U.S. collapses so does the whole world. Many regions in the globe (eg. Israel & the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the East Asian archipelago) are stable because of the threat of U.S. intervention if a large regional power decides they want to dominate the region. Take away that threat and you're going to get some very quick invasions as local powers seek to take advantage of the situation. Plus the U.S. dollar is the global reserve currency, so its collapse would send financial shockwaves through many developed countries.

Better to build local relationships where you are and focus on mutual aid & defense agreements with friendly local communities. The threat model here is a breakup of the U.S, not an invasion. The threat model to an individual is much less if you're in a community where the other individuals have your back, than if you're a minority or outcast in unfriendly territory.

There are just too many "unknown unknowns" for me to really do a good job of contemplating any of it. We might end up like Venezuela, Hungary or Russia, with some of the trappings of a democracy, but not the real thing. If he loses the election and there is violence, who knows how that goes, how much of it there is, and where...

Feels weird to write all this. I'm not much one for "wild" sounding theories, but all this feels like it's coming to a head, and things may change a lot.

I'd recommend reading US political history. Specifically in the 1850 - 1920 period.

The amount of batshit antics that passed for democracy gives a healthy perspective on current events.

The Union endures.

The US has certainly endured worse in the past and came through strongly. Neither the coronavirus nor Trump are anywhere close to an existential threat for this country.

You're probably correct, but past perfomance is no guarantee of future resuls, and, more importantly, while the country may have 'come through' events like the civil war, the death toll was ghastly. All things considered, being anywhere near its path was a really bad idea.

If you're Canadian and you think you have this beat, you're wrong.

https://www.endcoronavirus.org/countries

This is a naive way to interpret the situation -- it doesn't even account for testing rate or death rate.

What's naive is to complacently and condescendingly assume that Canada is handling this any better. It doesn't look that way from my province.

There was no condescending.

I'm out west where we got luckier and maybe also managed it better. But Canada had the advantage of strong leadership at this time and only ten provinces that are mostly on the same page.

I think the second dip is coming (the first being in March). With the flu season and covid19 resurgence and the market is going to realize those unemployment rate means a lot of people aren't going to buy stuff.

This is the alarm that keeps going off for me from getting too optimistic. If it's accurate that 78% of the U.S. was already living paycheck to paycheck [1] and many haven't made a dime in two months, it doesn't matter if there's pent up demand for things. There's just no money to buy them.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that-4-i...

This often mis-repeated paycheck to paycheck statistic needs to die.

Do you even read your sources fully?

> 51 percent of those making less than $50,000 usually or always live paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet

This is from the lowest income bracket in the 2017 survey.

It tells us 0 about how many are in the "usually" category.

It tells us 0 on does this account for investments or not.

What's the alternative statistic?