While you are right in that we have not yet seen the foreclosure/eviction impact, I think not all of it is 'head in the sand'.
At least in the US, there are more systems in place to help people who are behind. Lenders are more apt to do a modification then risk another market collapse.
And, I would be willing to bet our current administration will be happy to do what they can. A failure to contain the situation will not be good for them -or- their donors.
One thing we are already seeing; the CFPB is putting in safeguards in that will likely delay a number of foreclosures even further [0]. Another change is FHFA loans being eligible for interest rate reductions that wouldn't be possible under the LTV.
How this 'smoothing' plays out remains to be seen.
- Many poles are owned by power companies, or telephone companies. You can absolutely get a JPA (joint pole attach) agreement with most of these companies in theory.
- In practice, your first problem is that most poles are horribly maintained. And if you are a new attachee, you will often find yourself having to share in the cost to make an already non-compliant pole compliant and with enough room for you to attach.
- If you are dealing with, say, Verizon poles and are trying to attach for a competing cell service, your make ready costs are oddly inflated, and they may go as far as expect you to split the cost 50/50 for a pole that is already out of spec.
- In many municipalities, the kickbacks of 'franchise agreements' cause a lot of inertia. This is mostly the case with CATV, the industry of 'how can we be minmax our monopoly'. Essentially, the cable provider pays the city X dollars per subscriber, gives them a couple public access channels, and in return gets exclusivity.
I used to do HFC design for Xfinity Fraudband, as well as fiber design/permitting for other CATV providers and cell carriers. Its a corrupt and abusive industry, the entire contractor/subcontractor system is made to shield the companies both from overall liability as well as prevent unionization.
Also, any of the SV folks speaking up about social injustice would have a heart attack in a week or two. Being in that climate for so long made me numb to a lot of injustice, and it took years to recover.
We see some of this already on the inverse. FAANGs and their ilk frequently hire and keep talented developers with various forms of golden handcuffs. They could be doing much more to innovate, but the risk/reward vs being a code janitor making six figures is far safer.
At least in the USA, most drive failures of early models (the ones that the swap trick worked on) were due to poor quality plastic carriages. Flipping the system upside down would help... for a time.
And, perhaps more importantly, they are using all of the monies to start getting their own foothold in other continents. IOW they are entering their own modern expansionist phase.
My understanding of at least the Pfizer vaccine was that it primarily lowered the risk of developing COVID from a
COV-19 infection. Also if I read it properly that means you could/would wond up in the asymptomatic spreader category.
IF all of that is true (and if i misunderstood, please correct me!) It would make the most sense to give it to higher risk individuals first.
This is another specific scientific communication, of the type that are widely misunderstood. Remember "no evidence that masks reduce transmission" and "no evidence that immunity from COVID will last"? Both were true statements at the time, and widely misunderstood. "No evidence" of X does not mean that X is at all likely to happen, based on our current understanding of disease.
Because of the test design, the test itself only measured people who got COVID. But based on current scientific consensus around disease, that means there is a very high likelihood that it also prevents asymptomatic transmission, as the immune system will generally fight off infection. One test being narrowly worded (as is correct scientific practice) does not overthrow our entire understanding of disease.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest I had heard was that _pre-symptomatic_ spread was the issue rather than asysmptomatic. As in, if you got covid but never developed symptoms, you likely never had enough viral load to transmit the virus. If you later showed symptoms then you likely had a high viral load between contraction and showing symptoms and were likely to transmit the virus. So if this stops the symptoms, it may also stop the viral load from reaching transmitable levels.
Yeah, that's my understanding as well. There's a period of time between when you initially get it and when you start showing symptoms (4-5 days is the number I've heard) where you are contagious but most likely don't know it. That's why Covid is particularly nasty, because it spreads before it shows symptoms.
> While AirBnB has received a lot negative press for facilitating the letting of would-be residential property by large-scale professional landlords, the marketing from AirBnB's side has always favoured the "local guide, personal human experience" angle, an angle CouchSurfing has always tried to cover non-commercially.
Call me cynical, but "Advertise your product for a use that your core moneymaking market doesn't do" would be a good dark pattern to avoid scrutiny/regulation.
At least in the US, there are more systems in place to help people who are behind. Lenders are more apt to do a modification then risk another market collapse.
And, I would be willing to bet our current administration will be happy to do what they can. A failure to contain the situation will not be good for them -or- their donors.
One thing we are already seeing; the CFPB is putting in safeguards in that will likely delay a number of foreclosures even further [0]. Another change is FHFA loans being eligible for interest rate reductions that wouldn't be possible under the LTV.
How this 'smoothing' plays out remains to be seen.
[0] https://www.housingwire.com/articles/cfpbs-roadmap-for-the-f...