In the Bay Area there has been a big uptick in thefts and break-ins. My sources are local people and first-hand knowledge (such as seeing broken glass everywhere on the street). I'm in the Oakland area, but friends in other places have experienced and witnessed some crazy things this year.

It just blows me away that (part of) Congress has stonewalled any attempts to get people money, given the lockdowns. Reportedly there are millions of people going on public assistance soon. This could get really, really ugly after that.

I live in an area elsewhere with essentially zero crime, 24x7 security, cameras, and a well-lit parking garage. Someone stole the catalectic converter off my 2008 Prius last week, a part whose street value is only worth ~$100 and that requires equipment and professional-level skill to steal, likely by someone whose day job generates $70-90/hr.

Gotta be pretty damn desperate to risk a felony for a little over an hour's wages, especially when that theft requires actual work.

It's one cut and two bolts, less than five minutes. Mine was taken at 11am. This video isn't mine but shows the time and skill required; https://video.nest.com/clip/a6f2fb329b1e4cfb9a51f5436c74bfa7...

Source; fellow 08 Prius owner.

I thought it required a hacksaw and a bad drug habit. Impressive they got under a Prius, usually they go for small SUVs for the high clearance.

battery advances have turned the tide. I can get a good 5 minutes of high-torque operation on a battery-powered grinder - plenty of time to cut the exhaust and hanging bolts.

Giving individuals money is a top Democratic political point but they don't have the negotiating power to make the GOP budge. Democrats would absolutely love to give a $1200 check to every individual, as that would help cities greatly.

Socialist is a toxic insult in the GOP party, and it's how they painted the Democrats in Florida, as well as AOC and Bernie.

> they don't have the negotiating power to make the GOP budge.

A reminder that Nancy Pelosi turned down a $1 trillion+ stimulus offer from the White House.

Trump makes $1.8 trillion economic relief offer, but deal with Pelosi remains elusive (Oct 09 2020)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/10/09/trump-ec...

Nancy Pelosi blasts the White House's $1.6 trillion stimulus plan, saying it's not even 'half a loaf' (Oct 01 2020)

https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-blasts-white-ho...

She had to because it was extremely bad, based on an evaluation from the Chairs of the Committees of Jurisdiction. You can read their top-line comments (presented with links to more in-depth analysis) here[1].

[1] https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/101320

Nothing in that link seems to indicate it was “extremely bad”. Just seems like your typical not enough pork/special interest support red team versus blue team nonsense.

OSHA regulations and “census worker relief” need to be tied into this specific funding bill? Really?

My anti-socialist Aunt and Uncle live on social security a pension from his municipal job and complain about their medicare copays when they cost more than $4. They also purposely don't recycle because of "O'Bummer." I tried to explain to them that recycling existed before Obama but it fell on deaf ears. My aunt literally dumped a giant bag of empty bottles into the garbage can and gave a little gleeful laugh saying, "Haha, OBAMA!" as the cans clattered down.

Meanwhile they have grandkids so I don't really understand why they wouldn't support environmental policies. They're basically brainwashed by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's talk radio show.

What would you do if you didn't have money for food and couldn't get food stamps or some form of charity or welfare?

Starve to death?

I've been there, decades ago, and that's not how it went down for me.

It’s the pandemic that is tripping the scale and Congress refusing to do anything.

> Congress refusing to do anything.

Senate. House has passed stimulus packages. IMO further delineation is deserved, but contentious, so I'll leave it at that.

Before the election the roles were reversed; it's not as black and white as you're letting on.

https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-says-she-backs-smaller-stimu...

The House passed the HEROES Act in mid May. The GOP Senate sat on it (and did nothing else either) for the past 7 months.

Oh, except for a hearing pushing hydroxychloroquine in November, months after multiple studies had shown it ineffective, and a hearing promoting an anti-vaxer just last week. And I guess a bunch of hearings a few months ago wherein various GOP senators heaped ignorant abuse on public health officials.

If your favorite small business goes under, if your local hospital collapses, if your town goes bankrupt, etc., the institutional GOP and its donors are to blame.

We can all keep our fingers crossed for Georgia Senate runoffs, and for some real leadership come January.

This is false. The Senate introduced the similarly stupidly named HEALS act. It takes two to tango.

It was politically driven: Democrats were afraid of giving Trump a win. Perhaps it was good politics, since it seems to have worked.

From Newsweek: "Despite a refusal for roughly the past six months to advance a smaller aid package that she deemed 'half a loaf,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now willing to support a bipartisan stimulus bill worth less than half her previous demand thanks to, in part, Joe Biden's victory.

> The Senate introduced the similarly stupidly named HEALS act. It takes two to tango.

It didn't pass it, unlike the House and HEROES. The Senate could have acted on the passed House bill. The House had no bill from the Senate to take up, since the Senate bill died in (Republican-led) committee.

The House is the only one on the dance floor.

And Nancy Pelosi may have opposed the Republican position in negotiations, but Nancy Pelosi has no control on what the Senate passes.

Passing a bill you know is dead on arrival is pointless. It's virtue signaling, which is what the house did.

Suddenly, after the election, Pelosi is fine passing the same amount she opposed before the election as only half what was necessary.

This isn't some right-wing talking point -- Bernie Sanders has sad as much. This was a political game.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-did-berni...

> Passing a bill you know is dead on arrival is pointless.

Actually, its often a significant part of the political process of building popular and, thereby, legislative support for a solution (which will ultimately often be a compromise from the DOA proposal.)

And, in a bicameral legislature, taking up a measure on an issue that is unacceptable in the form the other house passed it in, and amending it to the form that you think is better and sending it back (or to conference to resolve the issues) is a way of moving forward that is generally more effective than sending an alternative bill to die in committee and then ignoring the issue.

I'm curious if you'd say the same about Republicans repealing Obamacare dozens of times, knowing the bills would go nowhere.

To me it looks like a bad-faith effort and a waste of everyone's time.

The GOP clearly did want to repeal the ACA, and ultimately would have (questionably, via budget reconciliation, requiring only a simple majority in the Senate) except for the last-minute trick of John McCain. McConnell expected him to vote for repeal, and so allowed other subserviant “moderate” GOP Senators Collins and Murkowski to take the token ‘no’ votes. McCain put in his vote against after there was no way for McConnell to get around it, and the GOP was furious.

After the successful repeal vote in the House in May 2017, the GOP threw big celebratory parties. You can see pictures of representatives smiling and laughing about the prospect of significant numbers of their own constituents losing coverage. They really relished the idea of taking away millions of people’s healthcare, and were profoundly disappointed when it didn’t work out.

As for the dozens of repeal votes while Obama was still in office: those were a quite effective partisan posturing effort. GOP-aligned media spent years on false propaganda about the effects of the ACA, trying to trick a public who largely didn’t understand the law or the healthcare system more generally. (To the point that e.g. in Kentucky people like “Kynect” while “Obamacare” is extremely unpopular, even though they are two names for the same thing.) GOP politicians were electorally very successful campaigning against the ACA while trying to sabotage it in every way they could. Much easier than even pretending to come up with a plan of their own.

Since the GOP Congress during Obama’s second term had no constructive agenda, essentially all of their time was spent on stuff like ACA repeal and Benghazi hearings. You are right that it was a bad-faith effort.

> I'm curious if you'd say the same about Republicans repealing Obamacare dozens of times, knowing the bills would go nowhere.

I would have said it the first time, at least.

The House didn't pass HEROES dozens of times.

If the GOP had been able to even get their own caucus to agree on a bill, they would have brought it to a vote. But they couldn’t.

Putting even the milquetoast HEALS act up for a vote would have put some of their members in a conflicted spot trying to both appear to care about the crisis while still appeasing hard-liner donors/supporters.

If the Senate had brought the HEROES Act as passed by the House to the floor, it might well have passed. But McConnell & friends didn’t want to see a relief bill passed, so they were satisfied to leave it off the agenda altogether.

If you think HEALS was milquetoast at $1.1T, you must be pretty upset that Pelosi has now agreed to pass a bill at $0.9T... after months of demanding no less than $3.0T.

Gee, I wonder what happened in November for her to change her mind...

I'll stop responding now; it's pretty clear a number of folks on HN think that only one party can play political games and this has gotten trite.

> If you think HEALS was milquetoast at $1.1T, you must be pretty upset that Pelosi has now agreed to pass a bill at $0.9T...

It was milquetoast, but not primarily because of the dollar amount (which is, though, inadequate as anything other than a partial stopgap and bridge), but because of substantive provisions.

> you must be pretty upset that Pelosi has now agreed [...]

Nancy Pelosi is surely also upset that we can’t do something more aggressive, but anything at all would be better than nothing (and we might still be stuck with nothing this year). We’re in an extraordinarily severe crisis, and people, small businesses, and state/local governments have been in urgent need of relief for months.

Even jaded political veterans expected some action from the Senate these past 7 months, under the circumstances. But what we have seen again and again in recent years is that even when we lower the bar down to the floor, they still manage to trip over it.

> But what we have seen again and again in recent years is that even when we lower the bar down to the floor, they still manage to trip over it.

Correction: slither under it. They don't get over it, even by tripping.

The Senate never brought the HEALS Act to a vote. Sending a bill to committee to die is not good enough in the middle of the worst public health crisis in a century.

> takes two to tango

Indeed, without any action from the Senate, the House is stuck. Again, we should all be hoping for good results in the GA runoffs, or Congress will remain unable to address any of our serious challenges ahead.

The 2 years from 2009–2010 were pretty much the only substantially functional Congress in a generation, and would have accomplished a great deal more if they hadn’t also had to deal with a worldwide economic crisis.

Since you seem to follow these things, do you know the difference between "introduced" and "passed" ?

It’s scary that civil unrest might be exactly what the Republican party wants.

This is exactly what worries me. Unrest is used to energize their base and do crazier and crazier things.

What a nonsensical comment.

I’m not sure how you attributed it to GOP. It makes zero sense.

>I’m not sure how you attributed it to GOP. It makes zero sense.

Perhaps because the GOP literally called[0] for that? Just a crazy thought.

[0] https://thehill.com/homenews/news/529195-arizona-gop-asks-if...

They've been pretty direct about that these past couple of weeks.

That's a comforting line of reasoning, albeit a fantastic one. It's much closer to a straw/camel's back situation in my estimation.

Oh I agree with you. This all started in the 1970s with union busting etc... the average American earnings should be 50% higher today than they are.

Nah man that's just how I see it.

How do you see it? Do you think it's impossible to remove the restrictions now?

Let me hear your side.

Well if we open up with no restrictions a lot of people will get very sick very quickly. This will overwhelm hospitals. I mean we are almost at a complete ICU collapse right now already. And a lot of people will die, not just of covid but of other treatable diseases. Not to mention we will run out of PPE and medical supplies. Care will be rationed even more than it is now. More doctors and nurses and respiratory therapists will get sick and die. There will be a lot of death. So basically death, death and more death. This will disproportionally impact the poor and poor essential workers.

And then everything will shutdown anyway because nobody will go out. We might get 1-2 months maybe 3 months.

> Well if we open up with no restrictions a lot of people will get very sick very quickly. This will overwhelm hospitals.

The problem is that the public has been hearing this for almost 9 months now and with the exception of a hospital or two it hasn't happened. You can only cry wolf so many times.

> I mean we are almost at a complete ICU collapse right now already.

Besides a few one off stories could you please provide HN readers with some links?

> And a lot of people will die, not just of covid but of other treatable diseases.

They already are and do you know why? Because hospitals stopped doing "unessential" procedures for months and continue to do so.

> Not to mention we will run out of PPE and medical supplies.

Could you please share an article or three with HN readers where a single hospital has run out of PPE in the USA?

> More doctors and nurses and respiratory therapists will get sick and die.

If Covid is so powerful then why haven't tens of thousands of nurses and doctors died? They are exposed to do multiple times per day.

Look forward to your reply!

If you have friends or family in the medical field then ask them. There are frequent email updates from hospital leadership on the state of the ICU. In our area doctors are being asked to give up their time off and work unlimited hours (as long as the avg is 80 per week each month). We've had 1 hospital provided N-95 since the beginning of the pandemic. It's filthy and probably ineffective at this point. The last update said there were something like 13 beds remaining.

All of the answers you seek are in this article. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4

At this stage… what’s the point? I’m bored of this lazy and dishonest simplism cloaking itself as enlightened rationalism.

You know, because it’s self-evident, that any decision to “end lifestyle restrictions” is a complex one that involves trading off the risk of further COVID deaths versus the economic impact that lockdown causes. This is compounded by the external pressure of funding which constrains the operating parameters of states. None of this is controversial, and is a constant public discussion in every country.

Of course it’s not literally “impossible” for such a decision to be made. If I encounter someone making a good argument that this is the most effective path forward, I’ll listen to it.

Framing it as a rational choice which can just be made, free of consequence, at any point is a bullshit argument, and that’s what you’ve done.

>Let me hear your side.

In the absence of any support from the Federal government. many states and localities have re-opened in the face of growing numbers of cases, hospitalizations and deaths (more than 3,000 people in the US died yesterday from COVID).

Note that states and local governments are forbidden from running deficits, which is why many have reopened and stayed open even though cases/hospitalization/deaths have skyrocketed.

If they want to continue to pay police, fire fighters, EMTs and keep public hospitals open, they need revenue.

Implementing another stimulus as we did last spring, with support for state and local governments would allow us to stabilize the economy while limiting the risk to the populace.

The outside review board for the Pfizer vaccine approved it today. The FDA will likely give emergency approval for it in the next few days.

However, it will take at least six months to vaccinate enough people to limit the carnage.

With a stimulus from the Federal government, we can save lives while we vaccinate as many as will take it.

Not GP, but that's my side.

Edit: Fixed incorrect reference to the Pfizer "virus". That should (and now does) have read Pfizer "vaccine."

I'd love to hear from others who disagree with my take. I think it would be a good discussion. I hope someone who does disagree goes that route rather than other, less expressive ones.

Nobody is starving to death in the US. Food stamps and food bank help with that.

The situation may be bad, but not as dramatic as you paint it.

Starving to death on the street might be extreme, but, being exploited, being raped, being used a slave, I've been there, and it's real and I assume it hasn't gotten any better.

Starving to death on the street sets up opportunities for much of the rest of what you described.

A lot of food banks are closed.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/28/coronavirus-food-banks-are-c...

You have obviously never been in such a situation.

I didn't grow up poor, but did have some time in my life when I was destitute, homeless and without prospects.

I'll tell you a few things about that:

1. It's hard to hold a job when you have no place to shower or keep your belongings;

2. Homeless shelters are frightening, dangerous places and many (myself included) preferred to sleep rough than risk their lives in one of those places;

3. Food banks/Soup kitchens, etc. are few and far between. I shoplifted and ate out of garbage cans when I had to do so;

4. If you have no fixed address or documentation, it's hard to get stuff like food stamps or other assistance.

It's been 35 years since I was in that situation, but it's an experience I will never forget. No one should be put in that situation. Ever.

You have no idea what it is to be penniless and homeless. And for your sake, I hope you never have to learn the hard way.

Unfortunately, because of the callous, calculating disregard of the US Senate, many folks in the US have and many more will learn the lessons I did.

More's the pity.

The problem is food insecurity. People might not be dying, but children are growing up malnourished. That has serious long term effects. Food stamps and charity don't solve the root problem.

And food insecurity could quickly turn into deadly famine if we ever have an interruption in the food supply, especially with our "just in time" supply chain mentality.