Fiat Chrysler Posts Big Loss, Eyes Production Restart ASAP

China doesn't have the $4-6 Trillion lost in the US alone. The government is going to print money, inflation will go wild, and the unemployment rate will skyrocket, as many small businesses won't re-open at all. The cost of the shutdowns will only get bigger, since there's no science to back up "social distancing" or mandatory mask use for the general public. Both of those measures, along with governors using staged re-openings, will spread the pain over a longer period. There are several epidemiologists, including one with a Nobel Prize, who have stated the lockdown was unnecessary. Eventually their opinion is going to make many of our public health officers look like the ill-informed desk jockey administrators they are.

This is an outstanding article, which has citations throughout. It demonstrates, again, that we panicked and did this to ourselves. Young and healthy people were NEVER at risk, and could have been allowed to work. People should be ashamed. The continued lockdowns are criminally inexcusable. The data is available to anyone who has a brain and is not terrified. "We were lied to. At the onset of the global panic in early March, the World Health Organization said the virus had a 3.4% fatality rate. Then, the same powers that be scared the world by saying a new version of the virus was killing 10% in parts of Italy. Eventually, they did the same thing with New York City and warned us that the rest of the country would be like NYC. In reality, they ignored the fact that this virus had already spread for several months and infected exponentially more people than the official testing showed, that most people were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, and that therefore, for most people, the fatality rate is a tiny fraction of the panic porn numbers – more in line with 0.1-0.3% or perhaps, as we will see, much less for some. "...even in the New York City metro, which has for some reason been hit worse than any other region (more than half of deaths are from the tri-state region), the fatality rate is still well under 1% because at least 25% of NYC residents got the virus." "A large group of Danish epidemiologists published the results of a serology test from 9,496 blood donors who were tested for the antibodies in order to donate plasma to those sick with the virus, as we have begun to do in America. The result? An infection fatality rate of 82 per 100,000, or 0.082. That is less than 0.1%, and it even includes people in their 60s." "...thus, for those who are of prime working age and also have no serious health conditions, the fatality rate is “several fold” below 0.082%. As such, it’s simply indefensible not to put them back to work and certainly send kids with an even lower risk back to school." Much more at the link: https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-young-healthy-not-dying-covid-19-heres-thats-vitally-important/

@thelaine Your theory is to let healthy younger people work and protect the vulnerable/high risk like those over 60 years of age, those with preexisting conditions and the obese.

@Lou_BC Bingo, Lou. Such a huge percentage of the deaths are old people, and we did a very poor job of protecting them, particularly in NewYork. Known infected people were sent back into nursing homes! A focused approach avoids the economic devastation and builds general immunity. Not my theory though, of course. I think of it as the Swedish model, but other countries and US states did the same. If they build immunity, they have much less to fear from subsequent waves of infection. It is logical, and balanced.

@thelaine I'm all for protecting the old, the weak, the frail, the ill. One needs to look at the math. There are 328.2 million Americans and 151 million workers/jobs. 18% over 60 years old = 59.076 million 24% 18 years or under = 78.768 million 40% obese = 131.28% 40% Chronic diseases = 131.28% If you count obese and chronic conditions together as 40% and minus all of these categories from the total, it will give you the number of low risk healthy adults in the USA. That number is 59.076‬ million. You would be short 60% of the needed workers. Since testing is inadequate, you don't know who is immune or who is a carrier. The sad part of all this is that the majority of Americans out there are unhealthy. The math is not in favour of your theory.

@thelaine Sorry, Lou, but you are a reflexive authoritarian and you have greatly exaggerated. Please read the article I have linked, so you can get the facts. Please see the Swedish response. Old people in nursing homes are the target. Young people are virtually invulnerable. You do not need to force everyone out of the workforce who could possibly die from the virus. If people can work, and are willing, you let them work. I'm not in favor of locking up 80 year olds, either. If they want to go to Costco, let them go. My argument is to match the response to the risk, and the risk is primarily to old people, with other risk categories also acknowledged. Again, all you care about is the wuhandeathcount. The unemployment doesn't matter to you. The poverty doesn't bother you. There is a balance here, which you refuse to take into account. It is because you are terrified, emotional and irrational. When you have read the article, and can actually try to fairly represent the argument, come back. You are just playing a game. I get it. At least try to understand, before you make assumptions. It is all there, in the article. It is a great summary. Just do it. You will be better for it.

@thelaine Excellent job of condescending to Americans, BTW Lou. The Canadian smug is real.

@thelaine Lou, Have you been keeping up with the results of the multiple serology studies done at USC, Florida, Stanford, etc? ALL of them concluded that the wuhanvirus has been here for a long time and has infected far more individuals than the "models" assumed. The CFR is down to .01 to .03% . Like the flu, Lou. Should we destroy ourselves in response to this virus? How long are you willing to hide from from the flu? How much economic destruction is enough? CDC and the serology studies found for the 18 – 45 demographic the odds of dying from COVID 19 to be 11 out of every 100K infected, you know - like the flu, Lou. Do some research on this. Get some knowledge. Don't be a lemming. Turn off the TV. Do the work and learn the truth about this virus. Read the article I linked. Try to at least understand it.

@thelaine It is well known that the three highest risk factors for hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 are obesity, preexisting medical conditions and over 60. 25% of people under 60 end up in hospital due to developing serious COVID-19 disease. The majority of that 25% is obese and/or has a comorbidity i.e. preexisting condition. I'm not arguing the relative risk, that is debatable. I'm pointing out who is at risk. You argue that the young and healthy should be allowed to work. I AGREE. Statistically, the majority of American workforce isn't healthy. That means the majority are at risk.

@thelaine Lou, People forget the lockdown had nothing to do w/ mortality, it was about not overwhelming hospitals and that’s over – in fact most hospitals are far below capacity – causing them to fail financially Delaying opening will actually increase mortality by making economic conditions more dire for more people Herd immunity is the goal – there will be no vaccine – Fauci promised one for SARS in 2003 and it was a complete failure – corona viruses mutate – this SARS virus, the Wuhan virus, has 8-30 mutations depending on which source you read We are committing economic suicide. People should be able to choose to work. You have grossly exaggerated the risk to people who nearly 80 years old or older. Not all "risk" is created equal. You are not doing that.

Automakers make money when a dealer purchases a vehicle from the automaker, not when a consumer purchases a vehicle from the dealer. To be more precise, typically a vehicle is considered "sold" when it is released for shipping to the dealer. These are the sales that automakers report. In that sense, they are neither selling nor producing, at least in North and South America.