A fun theory, but they don't have a significant naval force with which to cross the ocean.  They do have a lot of container ships

Since we're wearing our tinfoil hats: "Hey U.S. these 100 container ships are just the backlog of shipping from the pandemic.  Definitely not a million troops hidden in these containers.  Nothing to worry about here."


On 4/10/2020 10:50 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
Tin foil hat on.
The people this is lethal to are the most expensive members of society to maintain. Eliminating that cost and resource drain makes a nation super efficient. Especially if you simply let them die. If a nation like china were preparing for conflict, that would be an ideal prior act. Almost every other global nation of merit will do everything they can to save all those people. Including decimating production, shorting the food supply chain and bankrupting the economy. If I were a rogue nation like china, I'd attack the hobbled US within the year

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 8:06 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    It has occurred to me that allowing things to take shape naturally
    and allowing 1-2 million people with underlying conditions to die
    might be the better course for the country economically.  That
    might include my wife and children who have asthma, so no.


    On 4/10/2020 8:20 AM, justsumname . wrote:
    Pretty safe assumption that 'most people' are not the least bit
    aware of many things.
    And therefore not prepared for much of anything.

    The virus isn't so bad, it's the people reacting to it.

    On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:21 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com
    <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

        My own utility bills won't be different.  Kids are home
        schooled so we
        kept the heat up at 66 all day anyway.  It drops to 60 when
        people
        should be in bed under their blankets.  I've spent more on home
        improvement.  Lowes and Home Depot both deliver by the way,
        and my
        weekends are not taken up by kids birthday parties, soccer
        games, etc.
        So I've been catching up on house projects. Meanwhile I've
        spent next to
        nothing on luxuries, restaurants, or entertainment. My personal
        financials before and after are probably a wash. .....though
        perhaps
        I'm atypical.

        Here's one prediction: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/

        About 2/3 of the way down: ""The economic slowdown and
        stay-at-home
        orders are likely to affect U.S. electricity consumption over
        the next
        few months. EIA expects the largest impact will occur in the
        commercial
        sector where forecast retail sales of electricity fall by
        4.7% in 2020
        due to the closure of many businesses. Similarly, EIA expects
        retail
        sales of electricity to the industrial sector will fall by
        4.2% in 2020
        as many factories cut back production. Forecast U.S. sales of
        electricity to the residential sector fall by 0.8% in 2020,
        as reduced
        power usage resulting from milder winter and summer weather
        is offset by
        increased household electricity consumption as much of the
        population
        stays at home.""

        On 4/9/2020 4:28 PM, Nate Burke wrote:
        > I wonder how many people don't realize that by staying home
        all day,
        > their utility usage is going to be way up.  I'm surprised I
        haven't
        > heard more about that being covered.  Keeping the house
        warmer all
        > day, and the TV on all costs $$$.  It's not free, like the
        Internet.
        >
        > I'm also curious how much total energy usage has changed. 
        They say
        > pollution is down because driving is down.  I think most heavy
        > manufacturing is still up and running.  The office
        buildings can't
        > change their HVAC programs because there are still a couple
        people in
        > the buildings working, especially if they're all remoteing
        into their
        > office desktop machines.  And daytime residential usage
        should be
        > dramatically up.  Or is energy consumption based on the
        person, and is
        > directly tied to where that person is at?
        >

-- AF mailing list
        AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
        http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- AF mailing list
    AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
    http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Reply via email to