NinthMusketeer wrote: Which makes sense, because humans are largely the same. If anything, expecting a different response goes against what should be the basic assumption.
The big difference between now and 2,500 years ago is science. But the people have had enough of experts.
I dunno, those greeks were pretty smart when it came to physics and math. Archimedes, Pythagoras, the list goes on.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Which makes sense, because humans are largely the same. If anything, expecting a different response goes against what should be the basic assumption.
The big difference between now and 2,500 years ago is science. But the people have had enough of experts.
I dunno, those greeks were pretty smart when it came to physics and math. Archimedes, Pythagoras, the list goes on.
With maths you don't solve sickness.
And enlightenment basically allowed us to break the chains of censorship atleast in some parts of the world.
Not to say they were stupid or lesser but ultimately we have hindsight and 2000 years + of acumulated knowledge, it is fair to assume that we could've reacted better.
Ok, you're probably wondering how this could possibly be good news. Fair question.
IF scientists find a corona type virus that is closely related to COVID 19 but does not produce the serious symptoms it does, it might be possible to use it to inoculate people with it to produce antibodies effective against covid 19.
In a good case scenario we could find a corona strain that is related to COVID19 in the same way cowpox was related to smallpox. The first successful immunization in recorded history was when a scientist/physician named Edward Jenner deliberately infected children with a relatively harmless disease names coxpox after noting milkmaids who has had cowpox never seemed to get smallpox.https://www.vbivaccines.com/wire/edward-jenner-and-the-first-modern-vaccine/
If a non symptom producing strain of corona can be found it might lead to a leap ahead in vaccinations. (I wish we had an orkmnoticon of an ork crossing his fingers.) Keep watching this space....
I'd see it as poetic justice if this judge ended up in this doctor's ER.
Yes its a terrible situation for the doctor, but after reading the full article I'm actually quite sympathetic to the fathers position(assuming he's not using the virus as an excuse). Also the judge seemed fairly explicit about the temporary nature of this ruling. I have a friend who is in a similar situation with shared custody and an ex who works in the health service. He started self isolating last week, as his ex developed symptoms but didn't tell him until after his daughter had stayed over for a couple of days.
At least it doesn't sound like they'll have an audience.
Been following this. There's gonna be some of their talent who I imagine will refuse. Roman Reigns I hope will refuse as he quite recently recovered from Leukemia so his immune system is going to still be compromised from the treatment. He already dropped out of the pre-taped wrestlemania so I hope he stays at home as it is just not worth the risk. Well, I hope all of them stay at home as it just isn't worth it.
Hell, they've had pushback from ex-WWE wrestlers on this, such as Ryback who tweeted:
Now is the time for ALL wrestling talent to stand together and refuse to perform. Nothing changes without courage and right now the world has your back like never before. Wrestling will become so much better once @vincemcmahon is out completely. So do it for your kids. @wwe Thumbs down
ced1106 wrote: Interesting comment on a Yahoo comments section. Obviously, I'm gonna keep an eye out for more info. But you should already know that a fever is how your body combats viruses, and preventing your body from raising its temperature would be advantageous to the virus. Time for a good long soak in the hot tub, I suppose.
Possible adjunctive therapyrobably more than SARS 1, SARS 2/ COVID 19 seems to supress fevers more than usual. A lot of people have the virus, don't know they have it and have no fever at all. This may be the reason the virus is able to replicate and spread. (calm before the storm) So if we can increase the core body temperature using whatever techniques are available like contrast showers, hydro thermal therapy, hot bath then cold, this might actually help speed up recovery and not spread the virus.
Patients coming in with COVID-19 have elevated liver function tests. Non steroidal medications inhibit the production of prostaglandins, which are directly responsible for antibody production. That is the adaptive immune response but no the innate immune system. The impact of COVID-19 isn't just on lungs. It attacks the entire body including the heart, kidneys, liver, the collagulation system, neuroligical system.
Thermal stress produces heat shock proteins which are immune modulators. They essentially jumstarts the immune response whereas this virus tries to downregulate the innate immune system. This treatment has to be complimented with current medical care. If you are relatively fit the same can be accomplished with exercise to increase core temperature then cooling off with a cold shower.
In terms of anyone who might be immunocompromised, many companies are looking at the natural killer cells to help with immunity in other diseases and repurposed to look at COVID-19. They are taking it and infusing it on people coming in to the hospital. Imagine that you can do this in much less invasive ways much earlier in the process with hydro thermal therapy.
Warning to anyone with asthma as steam hot showers can precipitate an astma attacks. Hot/Cold therapy treatment can potentially boost immunity with coronavirus. He cites 4 studies below indicate affects the part of the SARS COV2 natural cells and monocytes. Keep in mind there is no studies on this with COVID-19 but he is using the next best scenario studies if you follow. Hot and cold temperature regulation affects part of the innate immune system that helps with targeting viral infections. Hyperthermia and then cooling off actually improved surrogates for the immune system monocytes and their stimulation/ response to foreign invaders.
Consider taking contrast showers 4-6 minutes warm/hot water, clean yourself, then rinse with 1-3 minutes cold water. Every day. Takes 1-2 weeks to get used to it, but it's well worth it. Or hot bath/then cold shower. Consult with your doctor first but here is a instructional video on contrast showers https://vimeo.com/165013134/346f3ef87a
I agree that a natural fever is often a beneficial part of the bodies response to infection, and it is becoming increasingly common practice to not treat pyrexias unless they become very high because of this. However, I would be very cautious about interpreting those studies as meaning artificially heating the body externally will help. The studies above are very theoretical- they are measuring biomarkers in a lab setting and not actual infections rates. The exception is the study about saunas, but that has a tiny sample size of 50 people. All of the studies looking at artificially heating the body are therefore not generalisable to the population level. They also don't look at any potential downsides for doing this. Having said that, the results are interesting and provide avenues for further study with more validity for generalisation.
Regarding prescriptions if they run out another doctor, Dr. Nicole Apelian has recently come up with alternative herbal remedies along with natural plants to use. She has some great coronavirus tips but please don't discount her as she has a PHD and is a herbalist because an unexpected diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in 2000 led Nicole to apply her research skills towards her own personal wellness.She was selected on history channel back in 2015 on a survival show called Alone. Her guide is on http://lostremedies.pg-blog.com/
Ok I watched the video in good faith, thinking it may have some interesting options for replacing medicines in a pinch. After all, many herbal remedies have been refined into pharmaceuticals.
But to be frank, that video contains dangerous misinformation. The way it uses HIV as an example is disingenuous, when the agenda of the video is to tell you to stop taking pills. Antiretrovirals for HIV are the only known treatment that allows those infected with HIV to have a normal life-expectancy. In addition, much of the earlier part of the video focuses exclusively on immune-modulated disease, which is largely infectious and autoimmune disease. Most of the medications people take are not immunomodulators, and have nothing to do with the immune system in their therapeutic mechanism of action. The video flat-out states that only your immune system can cure a disease, which is simply false for, say, HIV, or liver cirrhosis, or major trauma.
The video goes on to talk about some specific examples. It states that insulin does not cure the cause of diabetes. This is true. However, if a person's diabetes is insulin dependent, then nothing is going to cure their diabetes because their natural insulin production is destroyed. Insulin is a hormone produced by the body that is vital for life! Telling people to stop taking their insulin will kill people, especially type 1 diabetics, but also a large number of people with type 2 diabetes. There are people with pre-diabetes and early type 2 diabetes who can manage their condition without medication and can even reverse the progression and go into remission, but those people are not the ones who have a damaged pancreas that can't produce insulin. Insulin also isn't a pill... which somewhat stretches the credibility of the video as a whole.
Stating painkillers don't treat the cause of the pain is also unhelpful. Being is pain is detrimental to healing and general wellbeing, and there are also specific examples like morphine improving mortality in heart attacks. That isn't as flat out dangerous as telling people to stop taking their insulin though. I've had entire teaching modules on the correct use of insulin because it is such a vital medication that can be very dangerous if it is underdosed or overdosed.
"We can now pinpoint the substances in nature that act like an antibiotic, an antiviral..." Quote from the video. I don't know why this is revolutionary, when penicillin was derived from a fungus and is literally a substance in nature; cephalosporins- from a fungus; aminoglycosides like streptomycin- from a bacterium; macrolides like erythromycin- from a bacteria. All antibiotic classes derived from nature, hardly an exhaustive list. Nature is still a commonly used source for medicines.
Natural remedies also still suffer from all the same problems with side effects and interactions that prescription medications do. St John's wort is a well-example of a herbal remedy that has actual, scientifically proven pharmaceutical effects in treating depression... but also has a very well documented interaction with warfarin, a common and useful medication. In this case, taking the St John's wort can cause the warfarin to work less effectively and lead to life-threatening blood clots like strokes or pulmonary emboli (depending on the reason for taking the warfarin).
I think natural remedies can have a place, but they have risks. I also think that video is dangerous because it spreads harmful disinformation about medicines.
Azreal13 wrote: I'd also be surprised if an apparently fit and healthy chap who's been fighting the disease for over a week, has been posting videos from the hospital earlier today and has still been staying in relative touch with the cabinet could take such a turn in such a short period of time.
I wouldn't.
It is one of the characteristic features of coronavirus pneumonia- rapid progression in those developing severe disease. People can have a more-or-less normal chest xray one day, and have a white-out the day afterwards.
It is quite unusual- bacterial pneumonias usually only display this in unusually virulent, aggressive infections. COVID-19 typically causes weird xray findings in general to be honest.
Overread wrote: 1K ontop of 9K is a big increase in volume. And if that 9K is for the whole of the USA then consider that the whole of the UK is VASTLY smaller. So suddenly that 1K is a vastly larger percentage of daily deaths on the system.
I mean of all the things in life that can potentially kill you, commuting by car is about the most likely thing to kill most people - being far more dangerous than even some dangerous sports/events/activities.
And this is 1K deaths a day when most of the country has shut down to reduce infection spread. Imagine the numbers if people were moving around normally
And in US about 1.7k dies per day to heart attack. That's the biggest killer. So 1k vs 1.7k of US's(lot bigger country)'s biggest killer.
It's not that insignificant number. And likely lot lower than truth(they don't include those who died to corona outside hospital for example. Died in old people's care house? Don't count)
This depends heavily on the country. The way death certification works in the UK, at least, allows for the cause of death to be registered on the balance of probability- it doesn't have to have been proved by pathology. I was speaking to one of the medical examiners in my hospital a week ago, and he said the current convention is to list the 1a cause of death* as coronavirus (confirmed) or coronavirus (probable) if the patient hadn't tested positive but the characteristics of the patient's illness fitted coronavirus well enough that it was the most likely cause for the pneumonia. The chest xray findings mentioned above are a good example- some patients are displaying very typical coronavirus xray findings but testing negative for whatever reason.
This is especially true when considering the sensitivity issues of the tests.
Because of this, the UK statistics can include patients who are not confirmed to die of coronavirus. I do not know if they are currently publishing those deaths in the statistics, but they are being collected.
*UK deaths are registered using a 1a 1b 1c 2 system, where 1 is the cause of death, and 2 is contributing factors.
AegisGrimm wrote: That would pretty much be a first in medical history. The entire reason viruses are called Novel is because no one is out there with antibodies in their system. The only way people won't produce antibodies for this is if their immune system is compromised.
Even Dr. Fauci says that it's likely people will develop antibodies that probably will last about a year or two. With Coronaviruses, historically the worse the virus the longer the body produces antibodies for, and other than the transmission rates, Covid19 is (relatively) weak compared to things like SARs, or Swine Flu.
A first? We know 'flu changes regularly enough that the population loses immunity between years sufficiently greatly to require a new vaccine to protect the vulnerable. There are also a number of viruses that are cleared just fine in weeks in some people, but become lifelong infections in others for reasons that are not clear in a lot of cases (the HPV family is a major example). Both of these phenomena are caused by the viruses in question evolving to hide themselves from the immune system in some way. Viruses like some HPV subtypes can even lead to cancer due to the way they hide from the immune system.
Viruses can be really tricky customers when it comes to immune responses.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: No, that is the advice /guidance, not the law. The law is a lot less restrictive than what the government would like us to do as laid out in their guidelines, but they are somewhat wary of breaching parts of the ECHR, and rightly so. For example, you can leave your house for whatever reason you like, as many times as you like, despite the police setting up snitch websites for curtain twitchers to grass up their neighbours. This is why we've had problems. Certain parts of the law are unclear, and some police have mistaken some of the guidance for things they can enforce, (despite it really being in their professional remit to ensure they are aware of what can and can not be enforced.)
GoatboyBeta wrote: My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.
Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.
The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.
Aren't you only 'allowed' to go outside to shop for essentials, exercise once, work or care for someone/medical care?
Exactly, organising parties and having people visit is totally non-essential travel.
But not illegal.
I don't see why it needs to be illegal for the police to visit? So long as they weren't nicking anyone or handing out fines, just providing advice on the guidelines and telling people to stop being muppets is fine and part of the remit of the police (I would argue part of the remit of any public servant within their expertise and trianing). For example, a large part of the highway code is only best practice, not law, and the police advise on that.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: What do you mean competitive market? do you mean private healthcare? I think there should be an opt out option for those willing and able to buy private health insurance. I'd happily buy private for my family if it meant a slightly lower tax rate for myself.
What would be the advantage of buying private health insurance in exchange for a lower tax rate? You might get lower taxes, sure, but you'd almost assuredly pay more for your premiums than you would save from reducing your tax rate, let alone your additional out-of-pocket costs..
Quicker service, choice of medical care, better quality care etc.
How? Insurance doesn't determine the speed or quality of care, thats determined purely by the medical staff/healthcare provider and has nothing to do with your insurance carrier. Nobody has ever once in my life said "oh you have Cigna/Kaiser Permanente/Metlife/etc? Here, cut to the front of the line, would you like a single malt and a cigar while we take your blood pressure?" In fact, its repeatedly slowed down my speed of service, particularly in the last year. I ended up having to push back a surgery to correct a deviated septum not once but on 3 separate occasions, from Feb 2019 to September 2019, precisely because my insurance carrier would not approve the surgery even though I got 3 separate ENTs and a cardiologist to all say that I was more or less at extreme risk of dropping dead in my sleep due to a blocked nasal passageway which was somehow triggering a cardiac arrhythmia. Oh, and when that surgery was finally cleared, I was given the excellent "choice" of not getting it at all or paying $3k out of pocket because my insurer didn't consider it medically necessary. While probably a more egregious example of things, I can't tell you how many times I've had to go without prescription meds for several days (in a few cases several weeks) because insurance carriers needed doctors to prove medical necessity or decided that the prescription was too expensive and that it would be more cost effective for them to proscribe an alternative set of meds instead - in some cases to the obvious detriment of my quality of care as instead of taking a single medication as originally proscribed, I was taking 2 or 3 different ones to achieve similar results.
As for choice - I don't know how the NHS works (i.e. are you restricted to using only certain providers or going to certain hospitals, etc?), but as far as the American healthcare system, I have very little choice - my choice is dictated entirely by my insurance carrier, which is in turn dictated by my employer. For the current year my employer decided to switch carriers for cost savings, in turn I can no longer see the family doctor I've been seeing for the past 10+ years, nor can I continue seeing the ENT specialist I've been working with for the past 2 years to get my sleep apnea issue under control unless I want to pay ~$700 out of pocket per visit. How is that "choice"?
As someone who has private health insurance, you seem to not really understand what it is you're asking for.
I think the UK system is different to that in the US, because it is optional rather than required if you want to be able to access treatment. I don't have much experience with it, but those I know who have it say its much better than potentially having long waits with the NHS
This is because the private providers here have to compete with a free-at-the-point-of-use service (the NHS) and so have to maintain a minimum standard that seems worth it in comparison to sticking with the NHS. In addition, private healthcare here doesn't touch emergency/acute medicine- it just isn't profitable. Therefore, they only take the predictable, profitable, elective work, which is much easier to provide a good service for. NHS trusts which operate "cold" elective hospitals often operate services that feel much more akin to private services, because the hospital has fully predicatable workflow that is not disrupted by the vagaries of acute medicine. Well, outside of a global pandemic anyway. A private or cold hospital doesn't have to worry about a routine endoscopy being postponed because a patient just got admitted in A&E with a serious upper gastrointestinal bleed who needs a gastroscopy now to survive, and therefore takes their slot.
It is also one of the disadvantages of private hospitals in the UK- all surgery and procedures carry risks, and if one of those complications does occur, a private hospital has only limited facilities to deal with an emergency because it is not designed to handle acute cases. Being transfered to an acute hospital is usually smooth, but it is less ideal than being in the same building.
Also with what I’ve been hearing about amazon, I’ve cancelled Prime and I’m endeavouring to never buy from them again.
What did Amazon do now?
Amazon fired the guy who led the walkout protest. On the other hand, he was also supposed to be staying at home, with pay, on quarantine for possible exposure to the virus.
That seems pretty reasonable to me. But then, today has been a litany of workers making demands for more money and threatening strikes, which seems shaking moral ground and dangerous employment grounds when there's a glut of newly unemployed people who'll line up to replace them.
Yeah, as long as we can just keep feeding serfs into the grinder who cares right?
Sure, you could take it that way.
Personally, since delivery services are becoming more essential for large segments of the population, I find leveraging the pandemic for a pay raise by threatening to leave people without access to essential food and medicine deliveries to be fairly disgusting. Sorry, Granny Jill, we need more cash money before you get your meds this week. Hopefully you won't die, but honestly, we don't care as long as we get ours, right?
Times are tough all over. Prioritizing selfishness over helping others strikes me as the wrong road.
This is very frustrating for me. I work in healthcare. I, and my collegues in the same role, literally cannot engage in many forms of industrial action (particularly strikes) without at least some service disruption that could harm patients under normal operation (i.e. not a pandemic)
Does that mean I can never fight for my working conditions to be improved? I can only let myself and the value of my work be ground-down by my employer?
No, because I work 10 hour shifts, 4 days a week. So really, I would be holding it for about 12 hours.
I wouldn't say I never poop at work, but it's certainly rare - I imagine in the 5 years at my current job, I've gone twice, when I was really sick. I prefer never ever to poop at my work, and my body is well adapter to not really needing to poop until I get home around midnight.
One of the interesting things about working for home now is that I am free to eat things that could potentially upset my stomach without worrying. I would never eat Popeye's greasy-ass fried chicken on a night before I work, normally. Now, the bathroom is just 15 feet from my "office"!.
I'm going to miss that when I rotate back to in-person next week.
No, because I work 10 hour shifts, 4 days a week. So really, I would be holding it for about 12 hours.
I wouldn't say I never poop at work, but it's certainly rare - I imagine in the 5 years at my current job, I've gone twice, when I was really sick. I prefer never ever to poop at my work, and my body is well adapter to not really needing to poop until I get home around midnight.
One of the interesting things about working for home now is that I am free to eat things that could potentially upset my stomach without worrying. I would never eat Popeye's greasy-ass fried chicken on a night before I work, normally. Now, the bathroom is just 15 feet from my "office"!.
I'm going to miss that when I rotate back to in-person next week.
I mean, pretty much.
But i dont even go every other day, let alone once a day. So this "Pooping at work" thing has me confused. People really poop at work? Like, what if a co worker is there or something?
@Ouze: Fine, but why such a strong reaction (never ever) to taking a dump at work? Do you feel uncomfortable? Vulnerable? Are the facilities dirty/third world? Is it a germ thing (seems more relevant these days)?
I mean, I don’t want to spend a lot of time in a public john, but I don’t think twice about pinching a loaf if I have to. I’m not going to hold it fer crissakes, not with a 45-60 minute commute. I guess I have nice office building bathrooms at my disposal, and an office job I can step away from for a couple minutes if I need to. Still, I’m kinda fascinated by the OH HELL NO reactions.
No, because I work 10 hour shifts, 4 days a week. So really, I would be holding it for about 12 hours.
I wouldn't say I never poop at work, but it's certainly rare - I imagine in the 5 years at my current job, I've gone twice, when I was really sick. I prefer never ever to poop at my work, and my body is well adapter to not really needing to poop until I get home around midnight.
One of the interesting things about working for home now is that I am free to eat things that could potentially upset my stomach without worrying. I would never eat Popeye's greasy-ass fried chicken on a night before I work, normally. Now, the bathroom is just 15 feet from my "office"!.
I'm going to miss that when I rotate back to in-person next week.
I mean, pretty much.
But i dont even go every other day, let alone once a day. So this "Pooping at work" thing has me confused. People really poop at work? Like, what if a co worker is there or something?
Well as the title of the book says everybody poops. I don't really judge since it's something everybody's gotta do at some point.
I think natural remedies can have a place, but they have risks. I also think that video is dangerous because it spreads harmful disinformation about medicines.
Yeah, I reported the post, it's literal disinformation that's going to get somebody killed.
Matt Swain wrote: x. The first successful immunization in recorded history was when a scientist/physician named Edward Jenner deliberately infected children with a relatively harmless disease names coxpox after noting milkmaids who has had cowpox never seemed to get smallpox.https://www.vbivaccines.com/wire/edward-jenner-and-the-first-modern-vaccine/
This is... not particularly accurate, in an 'erasing non-Westerners from history' kind of way.
The roots of inoculation came to Britain by way of the Ottoman Empire, largely because Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (wife of the British Ambassador) came across it and had it done to her children.
Its not particularly clear when the Ottomans adopted it, but limited attempts at inoculation were made in China in the 16th century.
In the Americas, the practice came to people's attention about the same time in the Americas, because several Africans had been innoculated before being enslaved and sent over.
Vulcan wrote: The more I see the phrase 'essential worker' thrown around, the more I'm starting to think what they really mean is 'expendable worker'.
They are only essential so far as they sacrifice to keep everyone else comfortable while many remain the lowest paid sectionnof the populace. So yes, expendable.
Vulcan wrote: The more I see the phrase 'essential worker' thrown around, the more I'm starting to think what they really mean is 'expendable worker'.
They are only essential so far as they sacrifice to keep everyone else comfortable while many remain the lowest paid sectionnof the populace. So yes, expendable.
Yeah I’d agree with that, after a few wks of being in lock down but having to go to work everyday while a major part of the uk stay home I’m now feeling like an expendable asset.
You are expected to go in everyday and bust your ass to get gear out the door while working and mixing with others there by putting yourself at greater risk of picking something up , hell then if you do get the virus you are told to stay at home on live on statutory sick pay of 96 quid a wk.
But hey the uk are clapping and banging pots and pans for NHS workers and the rest of us key workers!! That’s great when I’m literally hanging and collapsing on the sofa each night after coming home from work.
Sorry if this sounds bitter people but yeah I’m feeling expendable and wondering why .
Bran Dawri wrote: I dunno, those greeks were pretty smart when it came to physics and math. Archimedes, Pythagoras, the list goes on.
With maths you don't solve sickness
Those ancient Greek dudes may have had a thing or two to say about society, governing, and ethics as well...
Unless you were a male citizen, little of it was good.
Good to have you back! How's that insignificant virus vs WHO terrorism going?
You should not apply Standards of today to the past though.
I am curious aswell on the later Part.
Ironically, Plato would think you could. Broadly I agree, but appeals to ancient history as relevant to modernity because they contain the germ of ideas that still matter are silly. Hellenistic thought does ground some modern philosophy regarding how we can justify or explain ethical, moral, and political positions, for example, but the ethics, morals, and politics themselves are useful only as bad examples! But we digress.
To drag it back towards coronavirus, aside from Pericles, Johnson's political hero is the mayor in Jaws who insisted on keeping the beaches open to protect the economy during a crisis...
I deleted it because it was petty
On topic, I see Trump has ended US funding to the WHO, or is considering it, depending on the source consulted, both of which seem to be him?
gorgon wrote: @Ouze: Fine, but why such a strong reaction (never ever) to taking a dump at work? Do you feel uncomfortable? Vulnerable? Are the facilities dirty/third world? Is it a germ thing (seems more relevant these days)?
I mean, I don’t want to spend a lot of time in a public john, but I don’t think twice about pinching a loaf if I have to. I’m not going to hold it fer crissakes, not with a 45-60 minute commute. I guess I have nice office building bathrooms at my disposal, and an office job I can step away from for a couple minutes if I need to. Still, I’m kinda fascinated by the OH HELL NO reactions.
It's a little hard to explain, I think it's a few things. For one, I don't like it when I am going and someone goes into the room, I don't feel like I can leave. This actually is not a problem now, I basically have the whole building to myself, but at my old job, it was a high-volume bathroom so it could be tricky leaving when no one else is in there. I have a strong aversion to being caught red-handed at the scene of the crime.
I also take a fairly long time, and I don't really want my coworkers to know how long it takes. There's this one guy that works there that is basically remembered largely for taking 40 minute dumps, and while I'm nowhere near that excess, I fear something like that could be my legacy.
I have to say, this becoming a poop thread is a welcome break in Coronavirus news, which was mostly incessantly dire. Speaking of;
nfe wrote: On topic, I see Trump has ended US funding to the WHO, or is considering it, depending on the source consulted, both of which seem to be him?
I know he was thinking of it for a few days now, but by my reading of the reporting, he did indeed order it cut off.
I mean, even if you agree with the rationale, this might not the the exact best time with the global pandemic and all, but what do I know. I guess we fell back to "terrorists".
The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
Ouze wrote: The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
I mean yeah, but lest we forget who let them gain this much influence in the first place....
Ouze wrote: The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
Funnily enough trump himself was downplaying the whole thing and not doing anything to prepare US while complimenting china and who warning of the danger.
But trump is just looking for external target to shift blame from his own mistakes.
Ouze wrote: The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
I mean yeah, but lest we forget who let them gain this much influence in the first place....
China is the second biggest funder of the WHO (or biggest now). Meanwhile the Trump admin is terrible in paying its UN bills (including the WHO) on time. When you have two bosses, you hardly flip of the one that pays your salary properly to please the one who pays you whenever they might feel like it. What do they expect? Its cynical, but very few of us would work for free.
Ouze wrote: The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
I mean yeah, but lest we forget who let them gain this much influence in the first place....
China is the second biggest funder of the WHO. Meanwhile the Trump admin is terrible in paying its UN bills (including the WHO) on time. When you have two bosses, you hardly flip of the one that pays your salary properly to please the one who pays you whenever they might feel like it.
Aye, that said, the ethics of the WHO helping the Chinese covering up at first is also an issue in and off itself.
Ouze wrote: The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
I mean yeah, but lest we forget who let them gain this much influence in the first place....
China is the second biggest funder of the WHO. Meanwhile the Trump admin is terrible in paying its UN bills (including the WHO) on time. When you have two bosses, you hardly flip of the one that pays your salary properly to please the one who pays you whenever they might feel like it.
Aye, that said, the ethics of the WHO helping the Chinese covering up at first is also an issue in and off itself.
Yep, but deference to the Chinese comes more easily if a good chunk of your employees jobs (and your own) depended on it. Cynical, but understandable, without China they would be unable to do part of their job and access to China, however much it might lie, is still important.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Which makes sense, because humans are largely the same. If anything, expecting a different response goes against what should be the basic assumption.
The big difference between now and 2,500 years ago is science. But the people have had enough of experts.
I feel that point would be valid, IF people were prone to listen to science. They are not. They are prone to disregard it. Thus the assumption that they will act in the same way people did in absence of modern science because, well, that is what they are doing.
Ouze wrote: The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
Funnily enough trump himself was downplaying the whole thing and not doing anything to prepare US while complimenting china and who warning of the danger.
But trump is just looking for external target to shift blame from his own mistakes.
I mean, if you're looking for a defense of how this was handled in the US, I'm certainly not going to provide it. I can only imagine how many lives could have been saved.
Just popped up on Steam - Plague Inc at 60% off. Not sure how I feel about that. Fun game but might not be the best time to highlight the joys of killing off the planet with a virus. On the other hand, in this time of feeling out of control, playing a topical game where you feel in control may be what's needed for some.
Ouze wrote: The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
I mean yeah, but lest we forget who let them gain this much influence in the first place....
China is the second biggest funder of the WHO. Meanwhile the Trump admin is terrible in paying its UN bills (including the WHO) on time. When you have two bosses, you hardly flip of the one that pays your salary properly to please the one who pays you whenever they might feel like it.
Aye, that said, the ethics of the WHO helping the Chinese covering up at first is also an issue in and off itself.
Yep, but deference to the Chinese comes more easily if a good chunk of your employees jobs (and your own) depended on it. Cynical, but understandable, without China they would be unable to do part of their job and access to China, however much it might lie, is still important.
Disagree, heavily, money is not worth blood on your hands.
Especially not if comes from an authoritharian regime.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henry wrote: Just popped up on Steam - Plague Inc at 60% off. Not sure how I feel about that. Fun game but might not be the best time to highlight the joys of killing off the planet with a virus. On the other hand, in this time of feeling out of control, playing a topical game where you feel in control may be what's needed for some.
PLague inc got massive backwind,especially in asia.
IT was at time the most downloaded app in china.
Talk about black humor.
Ouze wrote: The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
I mean yeah, but lest we forget who let them gain this much influence in the first place....
China is the second biggest funder of the WHO. Meanwhile the Trump admin is terrible in paying its UN bills (including the WHO) on time. When you have two bosses, you hardly flip of the one that pays your salary properly to please the one who pays you whenever they might feel like it.
Aye, that said, the ethics of the WHO helping the Chinese covering up at first is also an issue in and off itself.
Yep, but deference to the Chinese comes more easily if a good chunk of your employees jobs (and your own) depended on it. Cynical, but understandable, without China they would be unable to do part of their job and access to China, however much it might lie, is still important.
Disagree, heavily, money is not worth blood on your hands.
Especially not if comes from an authoritharian regime.
The problem is, the UN and as a result the WHO can still do a lot of good with that money, because no one else is going to cough up that funding gap. Its easier for richer countries to say that they don't need the assistance, but poorer countries can really use the help and they will be hit hardest by refusing the money of China in the UN.
Plus a more practical reason, China did reasonably ok sharing information this time around. When SARS hit they didn't and the world was 'lucky' that it wasn't an optimal spreader. Kicking China out means that 1/1.5 month head start might not have been there. Its quite the vindictive country.
Yes accepting money from authoritarian regimes and showing them deference might feel morally wrong, but the practical downsides of not doing so might be far greater in this context for the organisation. As the second economy in the world, its not going to be easy putting China in a corner. The hope is that you can coax it to slowly change through participation in the international community, because you don't have many other tools. Because in reality no one will really hold China accountable given their economic power and no one is going to put up the money to shut China out.
Ouze wrote: The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
I mean yeah, but lest we forget who let them gain this much influence in the first place....
China is the second biggest funder of the WHO. Meanwhile the Trump admin is terrible in paying its UN bills (including the WHO) on time. When you have two bosses, you hardly flip of the one that pays your salary properly to please the one who pays you whenever they might feel like it.
Aye, that said, the ethics of the WHO helping the Chinese covering up at first is also an issue in and off itself.
Yep, but deference to the Chinese comes more easily if a good chunk of your employees jobs (and your own) depended on it. Cynical, but understandable, without China they would be unable to do part of their job and access to China, however much it might lie, is still important.
Disagree, heavily, money is not worth blood on your hands. Especially not if comes from an authoritharian regime.
I'm not sure that China is the 2nd higest contributor, the BBC article states that the UK was the 2nd highest contributing country last year with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation being the actual 2nd highest contributor. The WHO website lists the UK as the top voluntary contributor to WHO projects last year with 57,275,920 USD although I think that excludes the manditory assessment. The most recent figure I can find for China is 2018 in which their voluntary contribution was 10,584,499 USD.
Looking at the mandatory assessment donations for 2020-2021 China's is 57,439,805 USD, the USA (if they pay) is 115,766,922 USD, the UK is 21,851,530 USD, Germany is 29,138,560 USD and France is 21,181,675 USD. Overall I don't see any evidence of China dominating the organisation's funding structure.
Ouze wrote: The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
I mean yeah, but lest we forget who let them gain this much influence in the first place....
China is the second biggest funder of the WHO. Meanwhile the Trump admin is terrible in paying its UN bills (including the WHO) on time. When you have two bosses, you hardly flip of the one that pays your salary properly to please the one who pays you whenever they might feel like it.
Aye, that said, the ethics of the WHO helping the Chinese covering up at first is also an issue in and off itself.
Yep, but deference to the Chinese comes more easily if a good chunk of your employees jobs (and your own) depended on it. Cynical, but understandable, without China they would be unable to do part of their job and access to China, however much it might lie, is still important.
Disagree, heavily, money is not worth blood on your hands.
Especially not if comes from an authoritharian regime.
I'm not sure that China is the 2nd higest contributor, the BBC article states that the UK was the 2nd highest contributing country last year with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation being the actual 2nd highest contributor.
The WHO website lists the UK as the top voluntary contributor to WHO projects last year with 57,275,920 USD although I think that excludes the manditory assessment. The most recent figure I can find for China is 2018 in which their voluntary contribution was 10,584,499 USD.
Looking at the mandatory assessment donations for 2020-2021 China's is 57,439,805 USD, the USA (if they pay) is 115,766,922 USD, the UK is 21,851,530 USD, Germany is 29,138,560 USD and France is 21,181,675 USD.
Overall I don't see any evidence of China dominating the organisation's funding structure.
In 2020 China has paid 28 mil so far versus 11 of the UK. This is what they can rely on in funding year after year. Voluntary is not to be relied on for a balanced budget.
Sure, China doesn't dominate, but it is a big funder in the organization and the UN overall. That can't easily be missed, because that is guaranteed income.
Ouze wrote: The stated rationale is that they are heavily biased to the Chinese government to the point they are complicit in the early coverup.
This isn't my rationale, I don't know enough about the WHO to really have an opinion - but I think the timing is terrible even if you buy into the above.
I mean yeah, but lest we forget who let them gain this much influence in the first place....
China is the second biggest funder of the WHO. Meanwhile the Trump admin is terrible in paying its UN bills (including the WHO) on time. When you have two bosses, you hardly flip of the one that pays your salary properly to please the one who pays you whenever they might feel like it.
Aye, that said, the ethics of the WHO helping the Chinese covering up at first is also an issue in and off itself.
Yep, but deference to the Chinese comes more easily if a good chunk of your employees jobs (and your own) depended on it. Cynical, but understandable, without China they would be unable to do part of their job and access to China, however much it might lie, is still important.
Disagree, heavily, money is not worth blood on your hands. Especially not if comes from an authoritharian regime.
I'm not sure that China is the 2nd higest contributor, the BBC article states that the UK was the 2nd highest contributing country last year with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation being the actual 2nd highest contributor. The WHO website lists the UK as the top voluntary contributor to WHO projects last year with 57,275,920 USD although I think that excludes the manditory assessment. The most recent figure I can find for China is 2018 in which their voluntary contribution was 10,584,499 USD.
Looking at the mandatory assessment donations for 2020-2021 China's is 57,439,805 USD, the USA (if they pay) is 115,766,922 USD, the UK is 21,851,530 USD, Germany is 29,138,560 USD and France is 21,181,675 USD. Overall I don't see any evidence of China dominating the organisation's funding structure.
In 2020 China has paid 28 mil so far versus 11 of the UK. This is what they can rely on in funding year after year. Voluntary is not to be relied on for a balanced budget. Sure, China doesn't dominate, but it is a big funder in the organization and the UN overall. That can't easily be missed, because that is guaranteed income.
Yea agreed that China has a sizeable mandatory assessment and a habit of paying on time. However, just looking at the mandatory assessment is misleading as the madatory assessment revenue is exceeded a few times over by voluntary contributions from nations and large foundations. If you look at the donations all together, China gives about as much as the UK, Japan or Sweden.
Actually if the WHO is dominated by anyone it is the USA who both give a large mandatory and voluntary donations!
Yea agreed that China has a sizeable mandatory assessment and a habit of paying on time. However, just looking at the mandatory assessment is misleading as the madatory assessment revenue is exceeded a few times over by voluntary contributions from nations and large foundations. If you look at the donations all together, China gives about as much as the UK, Japan or Sweden.
Actually if the WHO is dominated by anyone it is the USA who both give a large mandatory and voluntary donations!
But I'm not trying to make an argument of why the WHO is dominated by China, just the reason they show such deference to it in relation to the larger UN organization (like dodging Taiwan questions and the endless compliments), because for a balanced budget on the mandatory payments China is the second after the US while paying on time. Voluntary contributions go to a range of projects but not the basic financing of the organization.
Take that on a larger scale of the UN and China is the biggest dependable funder at this time (the US has a massive outstanding bill from 2019). When missed payments are really problematic for the financing of the organization. Add to that the practical problems of being negative towards China, i.e. no cooperation and its clear why the WHO is being so weird and deferential to China in comparison to the others. China is the narcissist of countries when it comes to negative image, so saying anything less than positive is a good way of getting shut out.
But then again, for all the complaints about the WHO being too deferential to China, how much action has been taken against China by those countries on things like the Uyghurs (when they do its all show)? Other countries do the exact same thing in different forms (adhering to the one China policy and such), but the WHO presents a convenient if flawed scapegoat. No Western country can really take the moral high ground against the WHO. Yes they might complain, but they don't actually do anything either.
But I'm not trying to make an argument of why the WHO is dominated by China
Sorry didn't mean to imply you were, Mr Trump on the other hand... You makes some good points about why China's importance just goes beyond funding numbers though, I can see how having reliable payments is important!
Geopolitics requires some uncomfortable compromises to get disparate nations and governments around the table for constructive discourse to be sure.
Michigan has had 28,059 cases and 1921 deaths so far, and with the effort to bring it under control with lockdown and social distancing, thousands of people drove across the state to gather and protest. This will mean the lockdown is likely to have to go on longer and could make a new epicentre for the virus.
mekkiah wrote: Michigan has had 28,059 cases and 1921 deaths so far, and with the effort to bring it under control with lockdown and social distancing, thousands of people drove across the state to gather and protest. This will mean the lockdown is likely to have to go on longer and could make a new epicentre for the virus.
As there were rather a large amount of people toting ar15s present, I'd completely sympathise with any police officer who decided to let them just get on with it. After all, it is only themselves, their families, acquaintances, work colleagues, neighbours and members of the public in the local Walmart who could possibly be affected over the next few months.
mekkiah wrote: Michigan has had 28,059 cases and 1921 deaths so far, and with the effort to bring it under control with lockdown and social distancing, thousands of people drove across the state to gather and protest. This will mean the lockdown is likely to have to go on longer and could make a new epicentre for the virus.
As there were rather a large amount of people toting ar15s present, I'd completely sympathise with any police officer who decided to let them just get on with it. After all, it is only themselves, their families, acquaintances, work colleagues, neighbours and members of the public in the local Walmart who could possibly be affected over the next few months.
Also the patients at the hospital they blockaded and refused to allow ambulances into.
Anyone or anything blockading a hospital should literally be bulldozed aside so the ambulances can pass.
And only be allowed hospital care after the people whose care they were blocking have been taken care of.
Bran Dawri wrote: Anyone or anything blockading a hospital should literally be bulldozed aside so the ambulances can pass.
And only be allowed hospital care after the people whose care they were blocking have been taken care of.
Yup. It's interesting that these are the same folks who called for protestors blocking roads to be killed, and BLM protestors very pointedly allowed emergency vehicles past during their protests.
Bran Dawri wrote: Anyone or anything blockading a hospital should literally be bulldozed aside so the ambulances can pass.
And only be allowed hospital care after the people whose care they were blocking have been taken care of.
The ambulances should have the bulldozer blades installed for just such occurences.
Hopefully security cameras got good pictures of the ones doing the blocking for the upcoming civil lawsuits.
So the guys with the confederate flags are protesting, whilst supporting a POTUS who claims he has absolute authority over states.
..
what a time to be alive eh.
Looks Like retardation. Scuse me but that is the only comment i have for that.
As someone who actually knows people like this and has to interact with them, I'd agree. Definitely to much lead in their water supply.
well either that or a lack of funding for public schooling and infrastructure aswell as severe shortages of educational prospects and possible future investments of a region.
Could be both tho.
Still, blocking a hospital is for me personally on the , "idc about you anymore "- tier list. Petty but idc. If anything you should've forced them through something giving them actual discipline and purpose, something akin to RS but with survival week every week, until they get an enlightenment.
So the guys with the confederate flags are protesting, whilst supporting a POTUS who claims he has absolute authority over states.
..
what a time to be alive eh.
Looks Like retardation. Scuse me but that is the only comment i have for that.
As someone who actually knows people like this and has to interact with them, I'd agree. Definitely to much lead in their water supply.
well either that or a lack of funding for public schooling and infrastructure aswell as severe shortages of educational prospects and possible future investments of a region.
Could be both tho.
Still, blocking a hospital is for me personally on the , "idc about you anymore "- tier list. Petty but idc. If anything you should've forced them through something giving them actual discipline and purpose, something akin to RS but with survival week every week, until they get an enlightenment.
Well, I was joking about the lead, but you're definitely right about the lack of education and opportunity. The American method of funding education with primarily local property taxes is pretty regressive and causes self perpetuating problems for poor areas, be they rural or urban. Lots of examples of that.
I am convinced more and more that the modern divide in our society is not race, it is not class, it is not education, it is not gender, but it is rural v. urban.
Easy E wrote: I am convinced more and more that the modern divide in our society is not race, it is not class, it is not education, it is not gender, but it is rural v. urban.
TBF, the term "Flyoverstates" perfectly exemplefies that.
And to be frank, the fact that there is nothing of worth inbetween the east and west coast, as the term kinda implies is an issue in how money and development is spent. And that has directly to do with HOW schooling is funded and how infrastructure is built and why these regions lack oppurtunity. You don't go to the midwest when chances are high taht you neither get an good enough workforce nor big enough market / respectively access to one due to lack of infrastructure, you just ignore that.
We had the same issues here, except that the rural parts radicalised themselves into a direct and proportional democratic ideology which challanged the leading elites somewhat (actually the writing was pretty much on the wall in conjunction with a rapidly expanding socialist movement due to industrialisation that it could've turned ugly again) around 1871, which then lead to the rework and implementation of direct democratic institutions 1874.
Also comparatively to the US states, Swiss cantons are immensly more powerfull, beeing the only entity with the right to collect taxes, even federal taxes are collected by Cantons first and foremost. Then there is also the institution off the NFA or Nationaler Finanz Ausgleich or National financial balancing, in which generally richer pay to the poorer Cantons in order to substitute budgets.
This of course leads to a more spread overall liquidity, allowing all Cantons to build up the necessary infrastructure and maintain it. Which overall leads to a lower overall spread of infrastructure quality and quantity.
Then there's the fact that Cantons willingly can and do work together, either 2 or more which form a somewhat seperate entitiy, not all Cantons need an university, but 2-4 smaller ones might aswell finance and build one up together.
So the guys with the confederate flags are protesting, whilst supporting a POTUS who claims he has absolute authority over states.
..
what a time to be alive eh.
Looks Like retardation. Scuse me but that is the only comment i have for that.
As someone who actually knows people like this and has to interact with them, I'd agree. Definitely to much lead in their water supply.
well either that or a lack of funding for public schooling and infrastructure aswell as severe shortages of educational prospects and possible future investments of a region.
Could be both tho.
Still, blocking a hospital is for me personally on the , "idc about you anymore "- tier list. Petty but idc. If anything you should've forced them through something giving them actual discipline and purpose, something akin to RS but with survival week every week, until they get an enlightenment.
Well, I was joking about the lead, but you're definitely right about the lack of education and opportunity. The American method of funding education with primarily local property taxes is pretty regressive and causes self perpetuating problems for poor areas, be they rural or urban. Lots of examples of that.
Education is only one half, even if you propperly educate a rural region, the only thing you have achieved is that people will go away to the better earning regions, you also need infrastructure to connect markets in order to truly improve the general living conditions of these regions. That costs money and time, and due to the rather complex matter of such development projects also is sadly often unpopular.
Bran Dawri wrote: Anyone or anything blockading a hospital should literally be bulldozed aside so the ambulances can pass.
And only be allowed hospital care after the people whose care they were blocking have been taken care of.
The ambulances should have the bulldozer blades installed for just such occurences.
Hopefully security cameras got good pictures of the ones doing the blocking for the upcoming civil lawsuits.
Forget bulldozers. Howabout saws. Let's see do they still want to block ambulances from delivering patients.
Easy E wrote: I am convinced more and more that the modern divide in our society is not race, it is not class, it is not education, it is not gender, but it is rural v. urban.
Easy E wrote: I am convinced more and more that the modern divide in our society is not race, it is not class, it is not education, it is not gender, but it is rural v. urban.
Not Online!!! wrote: Is that only now discussed over yonder?
For us this is old hat. One of the more common themes of regular lines of conflict with Tradition.
Honestly, I am not sure. It's only recently I saw that guy talking about it, so it came to my mind. I think it has been discussed here and there, but maybe less here than in Europe. I don't know that is has been given too much academic attention though, before or even now, though.
Easy E wrote: I am convinced more and more that the modern divide in our society is not race, it is not class, it is not education, it is not gender, but it is rural v. urban.
TBF, the term "Flyoverstates" perfectly exemplefies that.
And to be frank, the fact that there is nothing of worth inbetween the east and west coast, as the term kinda implies is an issue in how money and development is spent. And that has directly to do with HOW schooling is funded and how infrastructure is built and why these regions lack oppurtunity. You don't go to the midwest when chances are high taht you neither get an good enough workforce nor big enough market / respectively access to one due to lack of infrastructure, you just ignore that.
Only if you know nothing about them. Considering the major job markets and highly developed areas in the central and midwestern states, all you're doing is showing off how little you know.
For one thing, schools and infrastructure are funded individually at the state level, and if you think the 'flyover states' are missing large urban areas and infrastructure, your knowledge of American geography is just lacking. Denver, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Austin, Dallas, Saint Louis, this list can go on for quite a while. Billings, Montana obviously isn't going to draw people at the same scale as NYC, but its still a major provide of jobs and resources for its region. The same is true all over.
Rural America starts about 30 miles (sometimes less) from major cities, and stops when it gets close to another one. You can be less than an hour away from Baltimore and DC and be knee deep in 'country.'
Not Online!!! wrote: Is that only now discussed over yonder?
For us this is old hat. One of the more common themes of regular lines of conflict with Tradition.
Honestly, I am not sure. It's only recently I saw that guy talking about it, so it came to my mind. I think it has been discussed here and there, but maybe less here than in Europe. I don't know that is has been given too much academic attention though, before or even now, though.
Don't know about the Rest Of europe but Swiss history or political science is atleast, if the author is Swiss, dominated by mass movement and the traditional (this beeing one) conflict lines.
The other most common reasons for inner swiss shankings are religion and economy historically speaking.
I'd have assumed that other federally organized states would regard this issue also with a lot more keen eyes due to the whole federal shtick but it seems that isn't the case?
Not Online!!! wrote: I'd have assumed that other federally organized states would regard this issue also with a lot more Kern eyes die to the whole federal shtick buft it seems that isn't the case?
Well, I am hardly knowledgeable on this really, but I think the phenomena is pretty known and documented, but like most things here, it is looked at along party lines and treated as a political issue maybe.
Easy E wrote: I am convinced more and more that the modern divide in our society is not race, it is not class, it is not education, it is not gender, but it is rural v. urban.
TBF, the term "Flyoverstates" perfectly exemplefies that.
And to be frank, the fact that there is nothing of worth inbetween the east and west coast, as the term kinda implies is an issue in how money and development is spent. And that has directly to do with HOW schooling is funded and how infrastructure is built and why these regions lack oppurtunity. You don't go to the midwest when chances are high taht you neither get an good enough workforce nor big enough market / respectively access to one due to lack of infrastructure, you just ignore that.
Only if you know nothing about them. Considering the major job markets and highly developed areas in the central and midwestern states, all you're doing is showing off how little you know.
For one thing, schools and infrastructure are funded individually at the state level, and if you think the 'flyover states' are missing large urban areas and infrastructure, your knowledge of American geography is just lacking. Denver, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Austin, Dallas, Saint Louis, this list can go on for quite a while. Billings, Montana obviously isn't going to draw people at the same scale as NYC, but its still a major provide of jobs and resources for its region. The same is true all over.
The fact that the term get's thrown around and it's use as a derogatory descriptor of rural dominated states will have impact because economy has just as much a psychological component as a rational one.
From an Investment standpoint also the list you presented is again dominated by urban regions you provided. Btw a center does not Make or compensate for the area surounding it unless the area gets propperly integrated or connected.
Further i never said they 'd miss urban centers.
Rural America starts about 30 miles (sometimes less) from major cities, and stops when it gets close to another one. You can be less than an hour away from Baltimore and DC and be knee deep in 'country.'
Isn't that the issue though?
As in doesn't that show an overly in Centers focused infrastructure when you are 30 miles out and allready in country?
There is often a pretty steep dropoff for those "country" areas just 30 miles outside of urban areas. Also no mention of the deep south, Mississippi, Alabama, etc, or Appalachia, which is basically a 205,000 square mile ghetto exploited to provide raw materials to power and build those urban areas, leaving only leveled mountains, poisoned waterways, and black lung for the residents.
Not Online!!! wrote: As in doesn't that show an overly in Centers focused infrastructure when you are 30 miles out and allready in country?
It's a problem with our hypercapitalist model. There's actually a lot of programs that go towards improving infrastructure in rural counties, especially telecom infrastructure. Predictably, it's paid out to telecom companies in advance and they've done almost zero work, with no requirement to pay back the grants if they fail to actually make progress.
Not Online!!! wrote: As in doesn't that show an overly in Centers focused infrastructure when you are 30 miles out and allready in country?
It's a problem with our hypercapitalist model. There's actually a lot of programs that go towards improving infrastructure in rural counties, especially telecom infrastructure. Predictably, it's paid out to telecom companies in advance and they've done almost zero work, with no requirement to pay back the grants if they fail to actually make progress.
Why?
IN other news, federal council is starting to reopen up, slowly.
In a as off now 3 step plan.
The economics discussion seems to be drifting a bit off topic mates...
Anyways, business as usual around where I am in San Diego. There are still people around, but few in number and doing a pretty good job of distancing. Most everyone has masks now if they are going into stores, and drive-thrus are definitely doing good business. The lockdown is significant, but people are managing. Certainly not at horrid as it is made out to be in the media (is it ever?) at least locally.
In the Uk we're gonna have at least another 3 weeks of lockdown. That'll be extended if people in London continue to display the complete lack of common sense that saw people gather and ignore the social distancing for the clap for carers on westminster bridge last night.
mekkiah wrote: In the Uk we're gonna have at least another 3 weeks of lockdown. That'll be extended if people in London continue to display the complete lack of common sense that saw people gather and ignore the social distancing for the clap for carers on westminster bridge last night.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Oh my god, they're all going to drop dead! Oh wait, no they're not. They're outside, the chances of any virus spreading is minimal.
The risk is that the longer lockdown is maintained, those who have no infection or immediate family/friends with infection are more and more likely to start shrugging off the lockdown measures. Today its a clapping party on the bridge; tomorrow its a BBQ; then its a playdate for the kids then before you know it lockdown and isolation are forgotten. The issue is that lockdown isn't something we prepared, trained nor are used too. It goes against basically how we have all grown up. So its very easy to let the standards slip - at which point the lockdown starts to fall apart and the infection runs rampant through the population again. Which results in another big spike and a prolonging of the lockdown before there's any unlock.
It's why its important not just to maintain lockdown and social isolation; but also the presentation of it. So having a load of police and public clapping in a social gathering on the bridge is dangerous. It sends the message that its ok and if that is then other social gathersing might be "ok" too.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Oh my god, they're all going to drop dead! Oh wait, no they're not. They're outside, the chances of any virus spreading is minimal.
No it really isn't and saying otherwise is both misinformed and dangerous. Coincidentally (despite being wrong) it also fits with your views about governments interfering with our freedoms that you've expressed more than once in this thread. How convenient for you. The chance of being infected is in fact directly related to your proximity to an infected person. 2m distancing doesn't guarantee you won't get it, just like being right next to someone who is infected doesn't guarantee you will get it. The social distancing guidelines are in place to try to do as much as possible to reduce transmission of the disease, not some Orwellian plot to curtail our freedoms. The hypocrisy shown by a bunch of people claiming to support the NHS while doing the one thing they've been asked not to do in order to help that same organisation is staggering in its stupidity.
I'm sorry you've been inconvenienced by a worldwide pandemic of a deadly disease, I really am, it must be terrible for you. Normally, if people want to espouse their own absurd ideas about any subject under the sun I'd shrug and let them get on with it but in this case wilful ignorance and a misplaced appeal to "mah freedoms" can have a direct impact on the health and life-expectancy of others.
Yeah, in all seriousness, the way certain people are acting towards this virus really makes me question who they are. If you act like a man-baby that this life-destroying pandemic is an affront against you getting to play with dolls at the local game store, or you’re crying because you can’t get hobby supplies while people are dying from it, you aren’t worth listening to and you should seem professional help for the healthy dose of narcissism you’ve got going. I’ve seen people complain they can’t get GW stuff. I’ve seen people cry that the public bought safety masks and they can’t airbrush. What are you guys, 5? Holy hell, people are savage, spoiled brats.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Oh my god, they're all going to drop dead! Oh wait, no they're not. They're outside, the chances of any virus spreading is minimal.
Tell that to Italy. where the mess started to spread like hell because of football match. Which in case you aren't aware is in stadium. Outside air.
Cram people into same space and infections rise.
But then again not surprising from you. Anything that's aimed at reducing infections is bad for you. Goverment shouöld do absolutely nothing to constrain spread of virus. 22,170 in Italy disagrees with you. Funny what happens even in outside air.
Let’s say I’ve got the virus, yeah? Right now, I’ve no symptoms. So far as I’m aware, I’m alright.
I go to Sainsbury’s to get some food and beer in during my lunch hour. Which I need to do, as I’m running low.
If people are properly observing social distancing? If I sneeze or cough unexpectedly, I might directly infect one or two people. Tops. They themselves won’t become infectious straight off the bat. So that damage, and the virus’s spread, is inherently limited.
If people aren’t? Perhaps crowding round me at certain shelves? How much further might it be spread?
And here’s the other risk. A human would be host to lord knows how many examples of that virus, and how many generations.
The more generations, the higher the chance of another random mutation - potentially into a version even more infectious, or even more deadly. Possibly both.
By taking these drastic measures, we reduce those risks as much as we possibly can. The hope is we can contain the spread, and therefore potential new iterations, until we can develop a vaccine and give it a proper, proper kicking. If we’re really lucky? We can knack it in a small enough period of vaccination it doesn’t really get a chance to adapt and mutate into a resistant strain,
The other, best reason? The more infections, the more overwhelmed any health service becomes. Reach that tipping point, and deaths will sky rocket, as we’ll run out of treatment resources.
mekkiah wrote: In the Uk we're gonna have at least another 3 weeks of lockdown. That'll be extended if people in London continue to display the complete lack of common sense that saw people gather and ignore the social distancing for the clap for carers on westminster bridge last night.
If they're incapable of standing 2m away from you, how are they going to manage wearing a clinical mask properly?
Most people without a beard can put a mask on correctly.
The issue is to remember that the mask is not protecting them its protection others from them. A mask only protects the wearer if its the right kind of mask; fitted right and removed and disposed of/cleaned correctly. All the latter parts are beyond most peoples awareness whilst supplies mean that its impractical to make top end highly protective masks for the whole population mandatory - since our health systems already have trouble getting a good supply of them.
So most of the mask wearing is cutting down on particles leaving their mouth/nose whilst they are infected, but unaware of their own infection (and this not self isolating).
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Oh my god, they're all going to drop dead! Oh wait, no they're not. They're outside, the chances of any virus spreading is minimal.
Others have said why that is untrue.
Further the lack of discipline will further prolong the restrictions off your and all our freedom.
By essence they shot your freedom down for another 14 days after the incident atleast.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Oh my god, they're all going to drop dead! Oh wait, no they're not. They're outside, the chances of any virus spreading is minimal.
No it really isn't and saying otherwise is both misinformed and dangerous. Coincidentally (despite being wrong) it also fits with your views about governments interfering with our freedoms that you've expressed more than once in this thread. How convenient for you. The chance of being infected is in fact directly related to your proximity to an infected person. 2m distancing doesn't guarantee you won't get it, just like being right next to someone who is infected doesn't guarantee you will get it. The social distancing guidelines are in place to try to do as much as possible to reduce transmission of the disease, not some Orwellian plot to curtail our freedoms. The hypocrisy shown by a bunch of people claiming to support the NHS while doing the one thing they've been asked not to do in order to help that same organisation is staggering in its stupidity.
I'm sorry you've been inconvenienced by a worldwide pandemic of a deadly disease, I really am, it must be terrible for you. Normally, if people want to espouse their own absurd ideas about any subject under the sun I'd shrug and let them get on with it but in this case wilful ignorance and a misplaced appeal to "mah freedoms" can have a direct impact on the health and life-expectancy of others.
And I'm sorry that as a functioning adult I'm able to be concerned about more than one thing at a time... Its not a zero sum game. Going outside isn't 'killing people' despite the twitter cesspit dwellers shouting so every chance they get, and sorry that I'm able to think outside of what the media feed me.
Plenty of cops there, who obviously weren't concerned with the distance people were keeping. Probably doesn't help that most people don't know measurements and seem to think that 2 metres is actually 10 metres...
Hospitals in the UK aren't even near capacity, the nightingale has a handful of patients, and they're building a new one anyway.
Oh and nice ad hominem you managed to slip in there, I'll point that out so you don't do it again next time...
Independent thought is meaningless without proper methodology. You complain about people blindly following the media while espousing a view of free-thinking that clearly shows you haven't understood why and in what context it is valuable. In other words, you are doing exactly what you are complaining about.
Hospitals in the UK aren't even near capacity, the nightingale has a handful of patients, and they're building a new one anyway.
It varies greatly region to region - some are not getting much; others are overwhelmed. Many are suffering shortage of key resources like proper protective equipment; ventilators and other essential drugs and supplies to deal with corona patients. In addition this is the pressure they are under now with social isolation and lockdown - imagine if the disease was running rampant WITHOUT those measures. You'd have a vast spike in cases far beyond what we are seeing now; which would tip things into the NHS being completely unable to cope.
It's like the supermarkets and food. When everyone buys casually and in a calm measured manner there's ample food and excess for everyone. When everyone panics and rushes all in one week the food stocks get so heavily crippled that even a month later we are still seeing shortages of several products in the countryside- whilst urban areas are still limiting shoppers heavily and having even more shortfalls in stock.
Lockdown and social isolation measures are the same. They are measures to cut down the rate of infection spread dramatically so that the the infection speed through the population is at a level where the NHS is not overwhelmed beyond any control. And yet even now its clear that the aged and care home system is beyond overwhelmed by this situation.
I thought this was rather an awesome quote, especially after the wave of religious fervor surrounding Easter. You can be a celebrated champion of your faith while following medical advice.
Spoiler:
Obviously he was wrong about the vector of Black Plague, and we're undoubtedly wrong about many aspects of NCOVID 19, but Martin Luther was doing the best they knew how.
Easy E wrote: I am convinced more and more that the modern divide in our society is not race, it is not class, it is not education, it is not gender, but it is rural v. urban.
Will WIlkerson was also on Sean Carroll's Mindscape Podcast talking about it as well.
While it is hard to say that the rest of the things you mention matter "less" the population density thing is yet another pretty big factor.
Is that only now discussed over yonder?
For us this is old hat. One of the more common themes of regular lines of conflict with Tradition.
It was a thing during the "Progressive Era" in this country around the turn of the 20th Century and then during the new Deal. However, the Depression and Two World Wars, and then the Cold War put an end to much of it. People have been able too focused externally to really start being radicalizing about it. What is interesting is the last two time the Urban/Rural divide explode it was facing "leftward" and this time it is more "Rightward" facing. Interesting..... I guess.
Edit: [rant]As a snarky aside, I am loving the (insert appropriate German word I can not spell) as an Introvert watching all these Extroverts lose their minds after a month or so of living in an Introvert world! Welcome MFers, I have had to live in your GD Introvert world my whole life, so buck up and handle yourself for a few weeks for the good of your fellow citizens and older generation. Instead, I hear you whining about "liberty", the "economy" and your "civil rights". No one cared about Introvert preferences before so now we don't have to care about extrovert preferences now! [/rant]
Of course, as the politically active majority, the Extroverts will get what they want and the self-distancing and lock downs will end very soon.
That Hospitals aren’t overwhelmed, and some barely whelmed? Is an endorsement of how the current plan is working nicely.
Infections are down, deaths are flattening. We keep this up for a few more weeks, and we’ll be better for it.
Release it now?
You’ve seen Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, yeah? The bit with the squashy spiky room? If we lift lockdown now, it’s about three seconds before Willy’s pert bum sets it all off again.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the hospitals are not overwhelmed does not necessarily have to be because of any measures taken.
Erm......
When we compare spread and mortality rates between countries that dithered (UK) and those that didn’t, it’s frankly remarkable.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the hospitals are not overwhelmed does not necessarily have to be because of any measures taken.
Except multiple cases overseas show that the lockdown measures DO help reduce infection spread. There's ample scientific and imperial data to support the viewpoint that lockdowns to have a viable impact. Otherwise countries would not be locking down. Right now the most likely and logical conclusion is that reduced public movement and interaction is resulting in a reduction in infection rate thus reducing pressure on the medial system.
Furthermore even if you do question the data we already have, its a huge risk to reactivate and test it out on the off chance. Especially when there's no data to suggest that no lockdown would result in improved health and all the evidence we do have suggests the opposite.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am worried by the growing idea that maybe we should all wear masks.
So many people still do not get social distancing.
If they're incapable of standing 2m away from you, how are they going to manage wearing a clinical mask properly?
People in my section of Michigan don't wear masks. I see maybe two or three other people wearing masks on the average shopping trip. I'm not sick at all, but it keeps me from touching my face. Of course, with Covid19, I could be sick for a week all the while saying "I'm not sick at all". A bit of overkill by wearing a mask is not going to harm anyone, but the opposite might.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the hospitals are not overwhelmed does not necessarily have to be because of any measures taken.
Indeed, post hoc ergo Procter hoc, and the beautiful part of this for those who are deciding these policies, is that afterwards they can say, well it was because of these lockdown measures, despite there being no way to prove or disprove because the actions had already been implemented. The only thing you could do is compare with Sweden, which hasn't introduced such stringent measures.
Social distancing clearly does have an impact, that has been documented here and in previous cases, I just think it's a shame that it has to be imposed on the population with such measures.
Regarding masks, I think they make you touch your face more. Adjusting them, scratching your nose and ears etc. Wearing something on your face is annoying. I don't think the benefits are enough to warrant wearing them personally.
In Germany, the reproduction factor R0 has been downed to 0.7 which means linear growth and no more exponential. But I haven't found a statistics listing R0 for all countries out there.
Hospitals in the UK aren't even near capacity, the nightingale has a handful of patients, and they're building a new one anyway.
We've had two formal critical incidents and I wonder if the emptiness of the Nightingales is at all connected to the referring hospital being obliged to send a nurse and equipment with each patient?
You try to be thorough in your critiques of government statements and data that challenge your assumptions. Why so uncritical of the evidence that agrees with you?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the hospitals are not overwhelmed does not necessarily have to be because of any measures taken.
Except multiple cases overseas show that the lockdown measures DO help reduce infection spread. There's ample scientific and imperial data to support the viewpoint that lockdowns to have a viable impact. Otherwise countries would not be locking down. Right now the most likely and logical conclusion is that reduced public movement and interaction is resulting in a reduction in infection rate thus reducing pressure on the medial system.
Furthermore even if you do question the data we already have, its a huge risk to reactivate and test it out on the off chance. Especially when there's no data to suggest that no lockdown would result in improved health and all the evidence we do have suggests the opposite.
Oh I agree completely, but that is not how it was put when I responded. I'm not saying lockdowns can't be having an effect, I'm saying there's other factors that also contribute when combating the virus and that attributing the reduction in deaths to lockdowns is too simplistic at this point in time.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am worried by the growing idea that maybe we should all wear masks.
So many people still do not get social distancing.
If they're incapable of standing 2m away from you, how are they going to manage wearing a clinical mask properly?
People in my section of Michigan don't wear masks. I see maybe two or three other people wearing masks on the average shopping trip. I'm not sick at all, but it keeps me from touching my face. Of course, with Covid19, I could be sick for a week all the while saying "I'm not sick at all". A bit of overkill by wearing a mask is not going to harm anyone, but the opposite might.
The harm comes from three posible directions:
1. A common surgical mask doesn't stop the virue microparticles emitted during the asymptomatic and infectious phase of the disease.
2. People who feel safer typically behave in a more risky fashion. People who think other people are safer often behave towards them in a more risky fashion.
3. The money spent on masks has to be diverted from other priorities.
Easy E wrote: I am convinced more and more that the modern divide in our society is not race, it is not class, it is not education, it is not gender, but it is rural v. urban.
Will WIlkerson was also on Sean Carroll's Mindscape Podcast talking about it as well.
While it is hard to say that the rest of the things you mention matter "less" the population density thing is yet another pretty big factor.
Is that only now discussed over yonder?
For us this is old hat. One of the more common themes of regular lines of conflict with Tradition.
It was a thing during the "Progressive Era" in this country around the turn of the 20th Century and then during the new Deal. However, the Depression and Two World Wars, and then the Cold War put an end to much of it. People have been able too focused externally to really start being radicalizing about it. What is interesting is the last two time the Urban/Rural divide explode it was facing "leftward" and this time it is more "Rightward" facing. Interesting..... I guess.
Funnily enough it was from the start a more right leaning faction that won that voter mass here. But that has to do with our conservatives beeing coorperatists due to most of them beeing tied with the catholic church.
Edit: [rant]As a snarky aside, I am loving the (insert appropriate German word I can not spell) as an Introvert watching all these Extroverts lose their minds after a month or so of living in an Introvert world! Welcome MFers, I have had to live in your GD Introvert world my whole life, so buck up and handle yourself for a few weeks for the good of your fellow citizens and older generation. Instead, I hear you whining about "liberty", the "economy" and your "civil rights". No one cared about Introvert preferences before so now we don't have to care about extrovert preferences now! [/rant]
Of course, as the politically active majority, the Extroverts will get what they want and the self-distancing and lock downs will end very soon.
You mean Schadenfreude. Which my grandmother used to state that it is the most beautiful Happines..
Did i mention that she was quite the sass thrower.
Hospitals in the UK aren't even near capacity, the nightingale has a handful of patients, and they're building a new one anyway.
We've had two formal critical incidents and I wonder if the emptiness of the Nightingales is at all connected to the referring hospital being obliged to send a nurse and equipment with each patient?
You try to be thorough in your critiques of government statements and data that challenge your assumptions. Why so uncritical of the evidence that agrees with you?
I don't know much about it, but all I know is that the media plastered the new temporary hospital all over it for about a week, then it dropped off and since then I've heard that one person has been admitted. My point was about capacity. It still stands does it not?
Edit: [rant]As a snarky aside, I am loving the (insert appropriate German word I can not spell) as an Introvert watching all these Extroverts lose their minds after a month or so of living in an Introvert world! Welcome MFers, I have had to live in your GD Introvert world my whole life, so buck up and handle yourself for a few weeks for the good of your fellow citizens and older generation. Instead, I hear you whining about "liberty", the "economy" and your "civil rights". No one cared about Introvert preferences before so now we don't have to care about extrovert preferences now! [/rant]
Of course, as the politically active majority, the Extroverts will get what they want and the self-distancing and lock downs will end very soon.
Whining about liberty? You mean the foundational principle that our Western civilisations are based upon? Civil rights? Those which have been fought for and gained over hundreds of years? Which still cause conflict today? Yeah I guess they don't matter because there's a virus going around. You, and no one else here so far, has provided a valid reason for the occasions of unjust actions of some governments and authorities, except the twitter soundbites of 'its an emergency' or 'you don't care about people's lives' neither of which either provide a valid point against mine, or excuse those who are undertaking those actions. It's just shouting down to try and shut down debate.
I don't need to justify the fact that I am taking the virus seriously. I socially distance when I'm out, and I'm not going to places unnecessarily, but some parts of the new laws, and the certain police enforcing them are in the wrong. It's that simple.
The detriment to it is a near inevitable recession, albeit one we’re poised to rebound relatively quickly from.
The evidence is clear - the intent of the lockdown is paying off. And we need to maintain this discipline for just a few more weeks to properly get a lid on it.
Considering These people have increased the risk and necessity for further meassures or prolongings of the lockdown and therefore restrictions as Of what you deem the most important "Western" values one would assume that'd you not would encourage or play apologist for such behaviour.
I don't need to justify the fact that I am taking the virus seriously. I socially distance when I'm out, and I'm not going to places unnecessarily, but some parts of the new laws, and the certain police enforcing them are in the wrong. It's that simple.
But surely you realise that not everyone is doing as they are told? That they require a level of enforcement to take even basic measures like social distancing and not travelling for unnecessary purposes? We didn't go out this year on mothers day but that was the first weekend right after the Friday government told everyone to basically lockdown in all but law and I know many many places were open and heaving with customers come the Sunday. It was the Monday right after that advice became law.
Furthermore these measures are short term - just like blackouts and rationing during WWII. Only we aren't protecting ourselves from food shortage and bombs, but a virus. We suffered those invasions to our freedom when we were at war specifically in part to protect those freedoms we had.
The evidence is clear - the intent of the lockdown is paying off. And we need to maintain this discipline for just a few more weeks to properly get a lid on it.
Accepting that even after those weeks we will likely get a surge of cases once the lockdown is over; however if we've got several major new hospital units and hundreds to thousands more ventilators and staff trained and drugs perhaps beyond just testing and in use - then the lockdown has indeed done exactly what we needed it to do. Suspended the country to buy time to prepare and carry forward with a significantly reduced risk of harm to the health of the population.
I don't need to justify the fact that I am taking the virus seriously. I socially distance when I'm out, and I'm not going to places unnecessarily, but some parts of the new laws, and the certain police enforcing them are in the wrong. It's that simple.
But surely you realise that not everyone is doing as they are told? That they require a level of enforcement to take even basic measures like social distancing and not travelling for unnecessary purposes? We didn't go out this year on mothers day but that was the first weekend right after the Friday government told everyone to basically lockdown in all but law and I know many many places were open and heaving with customers come the Sunday. It was the Monday right after that advice became law.
Furthermore these measures are short term - just like blackouts and rationing during WWII. Only we aren't protecting ourselves from food shortage and bombs, but a virus. We suffered those invasions to our freedom when we were at war specifically in part to protect those freedoms we had.
This discussion is just circular. He doesn't think the rules are necessary, despite evidence to the contrary, because he's convinced he is the best judge of what he can do and where he can go. Just like everyone else.
No, some aren't, but I'm not concerned with those, I'm concerned with breastfeeding mothers being told to 'tell your baby to hurry up and finish' or parents being told to remove their children from front lawns, cyclists being fined for 'not being sweaty enough', a solo surfer on an empty beach being told he wasn't exercising, police commissioners threatening to search people's shopping, and then some police actually doing that, police barking orders at people through drones, setting up snitch hotlines and websites. The list goes on and on. There are government briefings on police overreach and misuse of the new powers, and its only been 3 weeks. And I'm concerned that people are just accepting it, because they're so desperate for any notion of safety they think the government can provide.
Gonna need actual, verified citations for those I’m afraid.
Don’t get me wrong. I’ve not interest in falling out with you over this. I’m just finding your response, well, a bit odd?
Even if some of the powers that be are a bit, shall we say, keen? Well....that doesn’t mean the national approach is therefore wrong? Just that ‘bum hole is gonna bum hole’?
The government issued generalist statements and powers leaving police to interpret them as best they could. This is normal; governments make general policies and laws and then specific stake holders make the best policies and structure specific to their area of work. The difference here is that instead of a long consultation and slow adoption; its basically police having to work out best policy overnight. Government has honestly been pretty fast at reining in some of the more creative or excessive interpretations of the legislation.
That said all new legislation goes through a period of adaption; the only reason its being an issue now is, as I noted, because its been enacted very fast. Furthermore its rolled out nationally so there's a huge body of variations over the whole nation to contend with.
Yeah, and I'll concur with that, but it really is professionally imperitive that the police get the distinction between guidance and law right. And the laws themselves are ambiguous, have not been scrutinised, and independent lawyers have expressed concern that human rights could potentially be violated. Usually section 7 of the ECHR which pertains to being charged or held for a crime not committed. This goes against everything that the foundations of English civil law and soceity in general is based on. All the usual safeguards either failed or just gave in due to pressure, in my opinion from the public, which themselves had been panicked by the media, and the advice of a non peer reviewed, and also disputed model based on predictions.
Don’t get me wrong. I’ve not interest in falling out with you over this. I’m just finding your response, well, a bit odd?
Even if some of the powers that be are a bit, shall we say, keen? Well....that doesn’t mean the national approach is therefore wrong? Just that ‘bum hole is gonna bum hole’?
Of course, I always want civil debate. No. And I never said it was, I think the whole social distancing thing is a good policy, and I never said the police shouldn't have powers. I support the powers that allow them to quarantine and remove infected or suspected infected for testing, and also their powers to break up gatherings.
What I don't support is their powers to act as subjective judge and jury over the actions in public of law abiding citizens, going about their day. Provided they are alone or with family, and are not going near people, it shouldn't matter why they are out or what they are doing. There is too much nuance in the lives of the general public, for these to be applied with any consistency, as witnessed in the last 2 weeks.
The coronavirus bill even stipulated this in its original draft 'there are no powers in the bill which would allow directions to be issued requiring individuals to have prior permission of have good reason to leave their homes' which they U turned on within about 2 days!
The citizenry are required to hold their government, and in turn their institutions to account, and this is not being done. That is my issue. To shout me down with 'you don't care about the deaths' or 'just follow the rules' is just a straw man meant to end any discussion on the issue.
As for sources, I screenshot everything I think is relevant, newspaper articles, government papers, legislations etc, but I haven't posted any because I didn't want to clog the thread with images. Most of the things I mentioned above come from news articles, from all sides of the political spectrum, with a few from accounts on twitter. It's all anecdotal of course, but there really is no other way of showing this sort of thing without using anecdote.
Hospitals in the UK aren't even near capacity, the nightingale has a handful of patients, and they're building a new one anyway.
We've had two formal critical incidents and I wonder if the emptiness of the Nightingales is at all connected to the referring hospital being obliged to send a nurse and equipment with each patient?
You try to be thorough in your critiques of government statements and data that challenge your assumptions. Why so uncritical of the evidence that agrees with you?
I don't know much about it, but all I know is that the media plastered the new temporary hospital all over it for about a week, then it dropped off and since then I've heard that one person has been admitted. My point was about capacity. It still stands does it not?
It stands if you remove all context. The Nightingales are not busy. But why? Is it because there aren't enough seriously I'll people to fill them, which was your implication? Or is it that they can't be staffed and equipped and that many thousands of people who should be in them are dying at home or in care facilities?
That's fair enough. I'll admit that I don't know the context. But hospitals are definitely not at full capacity. Which is good, of course. I'm glad that's the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post: MDG, Just reading the latest government paper on the measures.
If you scroll down you can see some of the examples that I mentioned in there.
It mentions the huge discrepancies between different constabularies in the number of fines or actions taken, something that I have noticed. There seems to be repeat offenders in the news, Cambs, Northants, North Yorkshire (letting the team down boys) South Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Surrey, but here in Oxfordshire I've had no problems. Not even so much as seen a rozzer since it all started.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am worried by the growing idea that maybe we should all wear masks.
So many people still do not get social distancing.
If they're incapable of standing 2m away from you, how are they going to manage wearing a clinical mask properly?
People in my section of Michigan don't wear masks. I see maybe two or three other people wearing masks on the average shopping trip. I'm not sick at all, but it keeps me from touching my face. Of course, with Covid19, I could be sick for a week all the while saying "I'm not sick at all". A bit of overkill by wearing a mask is not going to harm anyone, but the opposite might.
The harm comes from three posible directions:
1. A common surgical mask doesn't stop the virue microparticles emitted during the asymptomatic and infectious phase of the disease.
2. People who feel safer typically behave in a more risky fashion. People who think other people are safer often behave towards them in a more risky fashion.
3. The money spent on masks has to be diverted from other priorities.
The virus can be carried on larger particles as well. Plus small particles can be caught by chance, it is not like they just pass through as if nothing was there. Plus it provides a barrier from people touching their face, which I imagine almost everyone does without thinking from time to time.
And the biggest one; the experts are telling people to do it.
So one of my peeves about the virus was that the media and people were only looking at deaths and recovery rates, implying that anyone who recovered was as healthy as they were before infection, or that this virus would not be an issue for young "healthy" people. With the virus only being around for four months, we have no long term data and we're too busy to save lives than to measure quality of life. But I don't remember "lungs on fire" as a symptom of recovery from the seasonal flu.
"Many other coronavirus victims, such as US actress Brianna Cohen, 32, and Shaun Khubchandani, 30, have reported that their lungs feel like they’re “on fire” long after they were declared recovered. Lung specialist Mina Rafik Makaryus said: “One of the biggest questions . . . is [whether] these patients will recover fully, or if there will be chronic lung damage from this virus.”
NinthMusketeer wrote: The economics discussion seems to be drifting a bit off topic mates...
Anyways, business as usual around where I am in San Diego. There are still people around, but few in number and doing a pretty good job of distancing. Most everyone has masks now if they are going into stores, and drive-thrus are definitely doing good business. The lockdown is significant, but people are managing. Certainly not at horrid as it is made out to be in the media (is it ever?) at least locally.
In looking at the numbers in California, it looks like they're the exception to the rule of other high density cities/regions. It's quite amazing.
Also, the agencies got a great start in ramping up additional testing bandwidth and the numbers show that.
Here in St. Louis area, we're plateauing and the numbers seems to be on the down swing.
Other than folks observing social distancing and face masks. Things are almost calm enough to start reopening things around here.
One of the big problems with masks is if you are infected they'll trap a load of virus, so if you touch them (even on the outside) your hands are now covered in really high levels of virus
and untrained people will keep touching their masks, pulling them down to eat, drink, talk or just to get a breath of air (just watch the people in masks captured on film by the news cameras
The nightingale has no staff , appropriately trained staff from Manchester being offered £400 a shift to work there .
Far as I can gather we have enough staff in total but not enough specialists , Oldham icu for example has 1 icu nurse overseeing a team of 4+ untrained nurses with a patient each( icu wards would normally have 1 icu nurse per patient + 1 or more floating icu nurses depending on size or ward)
Kilkrazy wrote: I am worried by the growing idea that maybe we should all wear masks.
So many people still do not get social distancing.
If they're incapable of standing 2m away from you, how are they going to manage wearing a clinical mask properly?
People in my section of Michigan don't wear masks. I see maybe two or three other people wearing masks on the average shopping trip. I'm not sick at all, but it keeps me from touching my face. Of course, with Covid19, I could be sick for a week all the while saying "I'm not sick at all". A bit of overkill by wearing a mask is not going to harm anyone, but the opposite might.
The harm comes from three posible directions:
1. A common surgical mask doesn't stop the virue microparticles emitted during the asymptomatic and infectious phase of the disease.
2. People who feel safer typically behave in a more risky fashion. People who think other people are safer often behave towards them in a more risky fashion.
3. The money spent on masks has to be diverted from other priorities.
The virus can be carried on larger particles as well. Plus small particles can be caught by chance, it is not like they just pass through as if nothing was there. Plus it provides a barrier from people touching their face, which I imagine almost everyone does without thinking from time to time.
And the biggest one; the experts are telling people to do it.
Also, masks are because people can't even cover their coughs correctly, at least a mask will do that. And for virus trapped on the mask, yeah. You are not supposed to touch your mask after putting it on, unless to take it off. In your car, or at home.
Bran Dawri wrote: Anyone or anything blockading a hospital should literally be bulldozed aside so the ambulances can pass.
And only be allowed hospital care after the people whose care they were blocking have been taken care of.
The ambulances should have the bulldozer blades installed for just such occurences.
Hopefully security cameras got good pictures of the ones doing the blocking for the upcoming civil lawsuits.
Forget bulldozers. Howabout saws. Let's see do they still want to block ambulances from delivering patients.
That would require extensively disinfecting the ambulance afterwards because of the bloodspray and possibility of blood-borne illnesses. Bulldozer blades you just hose off, the ambulance itself should remain clean enough.
And let's face it, an ambulance at thirty MPH with a bulldozer blade should be plenty intimidating enough. If it's not and they get in the way anyway.... well, that just improves the gene pool for the next generation.
Because our politicians are well-paid to keep it that way. For no other reason does America allow so much corporate money to go into 'campaign contributions' that are little more than legalized bribes.
That's also part of why our COVID response has been so... lackluster. Big business feels those profits falling by the day, and is screaming at their political representatives to get things moving again NOW!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I am worried by the growing idea that maybe we should all wear masks.
So many people still do not get social distancing.
If they're incapable of standing 2m away from you, how are they going to manage wearing a clinical mask properly?
They don't.
I've seen people with their masks down below their noses, people raise masks to scratch underneath them, even saw one person take their mask off and leave it dangling in their hand while they wandered around the store. And lord knows how many instances of couples with one person masked (almost always the woman) and the other not, completely negating the point of the mask once they get home.
And these are the ones who are at least trying, so many are without masks...and clumping up to shoot the breeze in the middle of the aisle. Even now.
Yeah the whole vitamin d thing seems promising ( how are Ireland doing? They have told people to take vit d supplements iirc )
Iooking at Southern Hemisphere countries they seem to be less effected ,I doubt it’s due to some superior method of lockdown as the media seems keen to report, but largely due to on the summer weather.
dalezzz wrote: Yeah the whole vitamin d thing seems promising ( how are Ireland doing? They have told people to take vit d supplements iirc )
Iooking at Southern Hemisphere countries they seem to be less effected ,I doubt it’s due to some superior method of lockdown as the media seems keen to report, but largely due to on the summer weather.
Brazil expects breakdown of the healthsystem before the peak.
Bolsonaro has sacked the health minister because he got uncomfortable for him politically.
We also don't really know what ist going on in Venezuela.
Future War Cultist wrote: Captain Thomas Moore deserves a knighthood. This is what modern knighthood should be about.
No question he's a champ, but the diversionary attention lavished upon him is a real problem. It'sa tough one, because he's obviously deserving of acclaim, but it also leans in to a very problematic narrative. Fundamentally, Heroic veteran raises money for NHS isn't the story. Health service sufficiently underfunded that 99-year-old man feels compelled to do laps for money is the story.
The portrayal of the healthcare as a charity populated by big society enthusiasts rather than essential infrastructure paid for by taxes employing experts is extremely dangerous. We don't want to end up like the US, treating one-legged boy takes job in sweatshop to pay for mother's insulin as a feel good story.
I think that's a politically driven narrative boosted by certain factions nfe. The guy wanted to raise 1000 for NHS charities. He's not raising money for NHS funding.
Future War Cultist wrote: Captain Thomas Moore deserves a knighthood. This is what modern knighthood should be about.
No question he's a champ, but the diversionary attention lavished upon him is a real problem. It'sa tough one, because he's obviously deserving of acclaim, but it also leans in to a very problematic narrative. Fundamentally, Heroic veteran raises money for NHS isn't the story. Health service sufficiently underfunded that 99-year-old man feels compelled to do laps for money is the story.
The portrayal of the healthcare as a charity populated by big society enthusiasts rather than essential infrastructure paid for by taxes employing experts is extremely dangerous. We don't want to end up like the US, treating one-legged boy takes job in sweatshop to pay for mother's insulin as a feel good story.
You’re absolutely right. I assume you know the quote about charity from Clement Attlee?
There’s that guy, I forget their name, who donated 25 million to the NHS and got all the praise. But he managed to avoid paying 36 million in taxes, from a 9 billion pound fortune. So he’s donated about 0.25% of his wealth. Or to put it another way, it’s like me voluntarily chucking the NHS a fiver, once, and then being declared a hero...after avoiding paying 7 quid in taxes. And when I say it out loud you realise how grubby and stingy it is.
I hope, maybe naively, that this shows just how important the NHS is, and how underfunded and under appreciated it is. I said earlier that I consider the NHS as an important line of defence as the Armed Forces or Security Services and I stand by that.
As for the Captain, yes it shouldn’t have to fall to charity to fund services, but he’s done an amazing thing out of the goodness of his heart (having already risked everything in WW2) and I just think he deserves official recognition for that.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I think that's a politically driven narrative boosted by certain factions nfe. The guy wanted to raise 1000 for NHS charities. He's not raising money for NHS funding.
As I understood it (from the interview with him and two of his nurses on BBC breakfast), he did it for Charities Together because they provide recuperation facilities and other support for the underpaid nurses who helped him after his hip replacement.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Exactly. So using it as a way to score political points about NHS funding is a little out of order in my opinion.
I'm not sure that's what I'm doing. To believe out to be so, you'd have to hold that nurses' wages are entirely unrelated to NHS funding and the coopting of a charitable effort by persons responsible for NHS funding to frame the NHS as a charity is similarly unconnected to that funding.
Politicians are telling people to wear masks, not experts.
What you're saying about catching droplets and so on is true, but no-one has actually scientifically investigated mass mask usage by the untrained general public in social situations.
There are downsides which have to weighed against the possible benefits.
Masks are just another part of the illusion of safety, which is why I'm not buying into it. Yeah they might stop you touching your face, but then they might make you touch it more. It's a moot point really.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Exactly. So using it as a way to score political points about NHS funding is a little out of order in my opinion.
I'm not sure that's what I'm doing. To believe out to be so, you'd have to hold that nurses' wages are entirely unrelated to NHS funding and the coopting of a charitable effort by persons responsible for NHS funding to frame the NHS as a charity is similarly unconnected to that funding.
No I wasn't accusing you of doing that. But some political figures, especially on twitter are using it as a point scoring tactic.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Exactly. So using it as a way to score political points about NHS funding is a little out of order in my opinion.
I entirely disagree.
The Tories and their lickspittle media cronies are doing exactly that. Boris’ health is the health of the nation. Don’t we have a marvellous fighting spirit, etc etc.
When the truth is, a decade of needless Tory cuts have left the NHS vulnerable. Government dithering over a lockdown is costing lives - but the only concern is “the economy”.
We’re sorry if you feel there have been failures etc.
Any government needs to be held to account at the best of times. This one all the more so.
Quite astonishing, isn't it? The way to make sure the stay at home is useless is to have it enforced in one state, and not in the next- you know workers are going to be carrying the virus over there where they can work. We're going to have ripples all across the US until we get a vaccine developed.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Exactly. So using it as a way to score political points about NHS funding is a little out of order in my opinion.
I entirely disagree.
The Tories and their lickspittle media cronies are doing exactly that. Boris’ health is the health of the nation. Don’t we have a marvellous fighting spirit, etc etc.
When the truth is, a decade of needless Tory cuts have left the NHS vulnerable. Government dithering over a lockdown is costing lives - but the only concern is “the economy”.
We’re sorry if you feel there have been failures etc.
Any government needs to be held to account at the best of times. This one all the more so.
There have been cuts everywhere though. military, police, public services. Of course it isnt good, but what were we supposed to do after the crash? And we may be on track for something similar, or possibly worse.
Vulcan wrote: That's also part of why our COVID response has been so... lackluster. Big business feels those profits falling by the day, and is screaming at their political representatives to get things moving again NOW!
And yet many dastardly CEOs willingly shut down their evil, thieving businesses before the federal and state governments had taken action.
The real world isn't a Power Rangers episode, fer crissakes.
Kilkrazy wrote: Politicians are telling people to wear masks, not experts.
What you're saying about catching droplets and so on is true, but no-one has actually scientifically investigated mass mask usage by the untrained general public in social situations.
There are downsides which have to weighed against the possible benefits.
Vulcan wrote: That's also part of why our COVID response has been so... lackluster. Big business feels those profits falling by the day, and is screaming at their political representatives to get things moving again NOW!
And yet many dastardly CEOs willingly shut down their evil, thieving businesses before the federal and state governments had taken action.
The real world isn't a Power Rangers episode, fer crissakes.
Except all the companies that refused to close when orders came down, like Hobby Lobby, Barnes and Noble, Game Stop... I could keep going but you get the point.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Exactly. So using it as a way to score political points about NHS funding is a little out of order in my opinion.
I entirely disagree.
The Tories and their lickspittle media cronies are doing exactly that. Boris’ health is the health of the nation. Don’t we have a marvellous fighting spirit, etc etc.
When the truth is, a decade of needless Tory cuts have left the NHS vulnerable. Government dithering over a lockdown is costing lives - but the only concern is “the economy”.
We’re sorry if you feel there have been failures etc.
Any government needs to be held to account at the best of times. This one all the more so.
There have been cuts everywhere though. military, police, public services. Of course it isnt good, but what were we supposed to do after the crash? And we may be on track for something similar, or possibly worse.
Answering this in any detail obviously throws us thoroughly past the No Politics blockade, but the answer lies in the countries that recovered most speedily and strongly from the crash and acknowledging that treating macroeconomics like household budgeting doesn't (and hasn't) work(ed).
That a PM, whose chancellor, and his predecessor, had failed every single test of recovery set by themselves for a decade, stated flatly and without qualification that austerity was over having achieved all that was needed kinda tells us all we need to know re: their having no option, as does their ability to turn immediately to borrowing to provide stimulus packages now that a crises important enough has arrived.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Exactly. So using it as a way to score political points about NHS funding is a little out of order in my opinion.
I entirely disagree.
The Tories and their lickspittle media cronies are doing exactly that. Boris’ health is the health of the nation. Don’t we have a marvellous fighting spirit, etc etc.
When the truth is, a decade of needless Tory cuts have left the NHS vulnerable. Government dithering over a lockdown is costing lives - but the only concern is “the economy”.
We’re sorry if you feel there have been failures etc.
Any government needs to be held to account at the best of times. This one all the more so.
There have been cuts everywhere though. military, police, public services. Of course it isnt good, but what were we supposed to do after the crash? And we may be on track for something similar, or possibly worse.
Answering this in any detail obviously throws us thoroughly past the No Politics blockade, but the answer lies in the countries that recovered most speedily and strongly from the crash and acknowledging that treating macroeconomics like household budgeting doesn't (and hasn't) work(ed).
That a PM, whose chancellor, and his predecessor, had failed every single test of recovery set by themselves for a decade, stated flatly and without qualification that austerity was over having achieved all that was needed kinda tells us all we need to know re: their having no option, as does their ability to turn immediately to borrowing to provide stimulus packages now that a crises important enough has arrived.
Germany follows the black zero approach, switzerland has what is called a Schuldenbremse and basically therefore 0 debt and just threw as a stop gap the profit from last year at the problem. 40'000'000'000 CHF btw, just as stopgap.
Both have, especially in the case of germany, flattened not only the curve but also massive ammounts of financial playground preciscly because they treated it like a household budget. Further germany has more then enough capacity and is helping out other european nations, just as we did.
If that isn't the baseline proof that a black 0 in a normal budget is actually an workable approach then i don't know what else.
Meanwhile in italy there are lawsuits incoming, the government seems to have failed and the market isn't even really anymore considering lending them money for a stimulus packet, hence the whole Eurobonds discusssion 2.0.
Because our politicians are well-paid to keep it that way. For no other reason does America allow so much corporate money to go into 'campaign contributions' that are little more than legalized bribes.
That's also part of why our COVID response has been so... lackluster. Big business feels those profits falling by the day, and is screaming at their political representatives to get things moving again NOW!
You see, i can understand the whole financing of parties or politicians, but normally if a politican then grants the money, one would expect that he also expects the goods to change hands.
Btw: "laughing Man" corruption, because that is what it is, is not capitalistic. Capitalistic would be if they would've gone to companies and ordered a competition for the work.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Exactly. So using it as a way to score political points about NHS funding is a little out of order in my opinion.
I entirely disagree.
The Tories and their lickspittle media cronies are doing exactly that. Boris’ health is the health of the nation. Don’t we have a marvellous fighting spirit, etc etc.
When the truth is, a decade of needless Tory cuts have left the NHS vulnerable. Government dithering over a lockdown is costing lives - but the only concern is “the economy”.
We’re sorry if you feel there have been failures etc.
Any government needs to be held to account at the best of times. This one all the more so.
There have been cuts everywhere though. military, police, public services. Of course it isnt good, but what were we supposed to do after the crash? And we may be on track for something similar, or possibly worse.
Answering this in any detail obviously throws us thoroughly past the No Politics blockade, but the answer lies in the countries that recovered most speedily and strongly from the crash and acknowledging that treating macroeconomics like household budgeting doesn't (and hasn't) work(ed).
That a PM, whose chancellor, and his predecessor, had failed every single test of recovery set by themselves for a decade, stated flatly and without qualification that austerity was over having achieved all that was needed kinda tells us all we need to know re: their having no option, as does their ability to turn immediately to borrowing to provide stimulus packages now that a crises important enough has arrived.
Germany follows the black zero approach, switzerland has what is called a Schuldenbremse and basically therefore 0 debt and just threw as a stop gap the profit from last year at the problem. 40'000'000'000 CHF btw, just as stopgap.
Both have, especially in the case of germany, flattened not only the curve but also massive ammounts of financial playground preciscly because they treated it like a household budget. Further germany has more then enough capacity and is helping out other european nations, just as we did.
If that isn't the baseline proof that a black 0 in a normal budget is actually an workable approach then i don't know what else.
A cursory google gives Germany's debt at over 60% of GDP and Switzerlands at above 40%. Both have been decreasing their debt shaply, but this has occurred since spending increased. Germany responded to the crash witha significant increase in government spending in 2009-10 whilst Switcherland's spending has significantly leaped from 2012 onwards. Am I missing something in these numbers?
No, i (or the gak autocorrect) switched debt with deficit, my mistake.what got thrown at the issue is the Profit of the federal government, ignoring cantonal spending on it aswell ( some cantonal have Fonds others not).
Ok fair enough. That fits what I've said then. The most efficient deficit reduction in response to the 2008 crash has been in countries that invested heavily, increasing the deficit in the short term but leading to significant improvement afterwards - Germany, it transpires, is a good examples! Germany going from 0.1% of GDP before the crash to 3.2 in 2009 and 4.4 in 2010 whilst they spent heavily, then dropping back to 0.9 in 2011, since which its remained below 2%. Switzerland is less variable, but it's only been zero in 2013-14. Below 2% since 2008, though.
In related news we did our feed run yesterday. Prior to that we received an email from the feed store saying they now do curb side deliveries. The marked off an online deliveries parking not too far from the store and posted the number to call from there.
We were extremely impressed as how efficient they were.
To me it's really cool because we're such a rural county. It's just not something we would have expected where we live.
I also signed up to shop the liquor store online who also do curb side deliveries now... Just in case.
I've been ordering booze deliveries too. A couple local independent off licenses have started doing them. They're quite expensive craft specialists, but I'm happy to help them stay afloat.
Talk of easing of lockdown in the UK. Schools, non essential warehouses, shops and businesses to gradually reopen, followed by hospitality industry like pubs, restaurants etc, potentially beginning in May. While this is promising, they say there are 5 criteria which must be met, and the last one is along the lines of no risk of a second spike, which I can see no minister really be willing to risk signing off on, as pretty much all models predict multiple peaks, so I guess we'll have to see.
For one thing, schools and infrastructure are funded individually at the state level, and if you think the 'flyover states' are missing large urban areas and infrastructure, your knowledge of American geography is just lacking.
You seem to have forgotten that the federal government provides ~$80 billion in primary and secondary education to the states annually through the DoE, and the Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services contribute like another $30 billion. It might only come out to 10% of the funding totals, but its there, and it makes a big difference. Likewise the federal government funds about 20% of total infrastructure investment in the US in a similar manner. Theres a reason why a number of states receive more federal funding than there are federal taxes collected in those states (and it might surprise you to find out that those states are generally rural and conservative ones).
Also I wouldn't really classify any of the "large urban areas" you listed as really being "large" (unless you are measuring them in turns of area covered, in which case you would be right, but in terms of population and population density they are mostly small).
Rural America starts about 30 miles (sometimes less) from major cities, and stops when it gets close to another one. You can be less than an hour away from Baltimore and DC and be knee deep in 'country.'
I live in one of these "country" areas - most of the local economy is propped up by a very large number of people who commute to the urban areas for work daily.
See the 2m thing?
Lets be real here, 2m is only really sufficient to stop transmission if the infected isn't coughing or sneezing. Past studies have shown that a cough or sneeze can propel germs (influenza included) up to 20-30 feet within seconds. The 2m criteria is tied to a % reduction in probability, iirc it was tied to something like a 50-80% reduction in transmission - specifically of tuberculosis, from what I understand there hasn't been a lot of further study on the biomechanics of transmission of other viral agents. And that doesn't account for transmission over time - theres an ever-widening cloud of aerosolized viral droplets within the vicinity of where someone coughs or sneezes, iirc the CDC puts it at 2-3 hours of airborne activity before it fully settles but this is subject to airflow and traffic considerations - in short just because theres no one within 2m of you or even 20 meters of you doesn't mean you aren't walking through a cloud of viral droplets. All of this is to say - yes you are absolutely at risk while outdoors contrary to queen anne revenge's beliefs.
and sorry that I'm able to think outside of what the media feed me
most of us have gone well beyond what the media is "feeding" us to inform ourselves about the reality of this, going as far as researching academic studies and sourcing information from subject matter experts. Thus far the only thing I've seen you post are the regurgitated talking points of right wing and conservative politicians that I've seen on twitter and the usual "alternative" media sources (read - you are far from being the paragon of independent thought that you seem to think you are, just because you are holding a minority viewpoint does not mean that you are thinking independently - plenty of sociological and psychological study actually indicates otherwise and suggests there is a high degree of gullibility involved with adopting minority opinions, especially when they are not tied to evidence-based analysis and counterfactual opinion). Upvotes, shares, and retweets might be a good barometer of peoples agreement and belief in a given thought or opinion, but its a really bad measure of factual accuracy. Theres plenty of "independent thinkers" and "functioning adults" out there suggesting that drinking bleach is an effective means of preventing illness (not just coronavirus, but all sorts of nasty things) despite the media (and "twitter cesspit dwellers") stating otherwise, I dont think I need to explain to you why this is a terrible idea, and likewise why thinking yourself a functioning adult or capable of independent thought is not a good measure of your ability to judge a situation.
The only thing you could do is compare with Sweden, which hasn't introduced such stringent measures.
Or you could look at Singapore, which was initially quite successful at combating the virus and stopping the spread through the imposition of social distancing measures, only to see a large spike in cases and deaths once they eased back the same policies. Now, of course its easy to say "correlation doesn't equal causation" but theres a high degree of correlation from nation to nation that is implying a high degree of causation.
You could also maybe dig past the headlines and popularized talking points on Sweden and learn that Sweden has imposed a number of measures, which while not necessarily strict, are definitely contributing to a reduction in spread, and likewise has the advantage of not having politicians pushing agendas or proselytizing on television and radio, but rather allowing SME's and professionals within their public health and healthcare sectors speak directly to the people via the media and encourage them to make intelligent decisions about how to conduct themselves based on factual data and information (i.e. not telling them "its just the cold" and "we think the mortality rate is really lower than its being reported", etc.). The Swedish population has responded accordingly by making reasonable adjustments to their way of life in response to the crisis, unlike Americans who have repeatedly engaged in counterproductive activity like packing onto beaches and into clubs, Swedes are managing themselves with a number of unwritten rules and customs that the majority of the population has seemingly adopted overnight, maintaining effective and reasonable levels of separation just about at all times (and often well beyond 2m). Lets not make any mistake, the measures that many of us are having forced on us by governments are a response (either directly or indirectly) to the stupidity of the lowest common denominator of our fellow citizens - theres a reason why for the most part the policies in western nations have become progressively more (seemingly) draconian over time - its because the early policies were ineffective, not because the guidance was bad, but because people just didn't follow them. In large part, this is because Sweden does not have an egotistical and anti-intellectual society that disregards expertise, and has a high degree of public trust in government, institutions, public agencies, and leadership - basically the exact opposite of societies like the US, UK, and Italy (and - on a personal level - you yourself) exhibit. Societally, the Swedes highly value interpersonal space already, even moreso than you would find in (pseudo-)libertarian leaning societies like the US, with 40% of Swedish households being single-person without children, and with very few househoulds being inter-generational (i.e. no grandparents or adult children living in them).You will not find comparable numbers in the US or UK. In large part - this is all something that has been enabled by the encouragement and implementation of socio-economic policies championed by the left and decried by the right in nations like the US and the UK. This doesn't even begin to account for differences in population density. If you compare the numbers between Sweden, and New Jersey - for example, you will find that New Jersey (84k cases, 4k deaths) has been hit much harder than Sweden (14k cases, 1.5k deaths) has, despite New Jersey having 1 million fewer residents, some of that is due to relative population densities (65 per sq km in sweden vs 1200 per sq km in NJ), and part of it has to do with cultural differences.
Even still, Sweden is not yet out of the woods. It has not yet seen any sort of flattening of the curve unlike its neighbors in Norway, Finland, and Denmark, and has a fatality rate roughly double that of those other nations, and its currently seeing a progressive growth in cases and hospitalizations that are indicative of the early stages of an exponential spike. Swedens chief state epedemiologist (who has become a household presence in Sweden, appearing almost nightly in the media to answer questions from viewers and the public at large) has been clear that as the numbers rise the likelihood of stricter measures being implemented increases, and has stated clearly that they currently view themselves being in the mitigation phase, but will need to eventually enter into a containment phase with stricter measures. Only time will tell if Sweden has made the right decision, I think the reality is that everyone currently saying "but Sweden" will soon find themselves quietly Homer Simpsoning themselves back into the bushes as Sweden either encounters massive numbers of deaths or institute the same tight policies that have been seen everywhere else.
I was taught how to think
Being taught how to think and learning how to think are two different things. You may have been taught, but I have not yet seen strong evidence that you actually learned. The stark disparity in the depth and breadth of arguments being presented against your viewpoint, as well as the sources and data being referenced and cited, and the arguments you are yourself presenting in defense of your viewpoint seems to be a pretty clear indicator as to how epistemologically sound your approach to thought actually is (or in this case, isn't). Just because you *are* thinking does not mean that your thoughts are valuable, nor do they mean that they are valid.
That is they've got "no second spike" meaning that the strategy is designed to start taking effect and remain active until such time as a vaccine is released. This might mean that we go back and forward on stages for a while - it may also mean some stages get reviewed.
For example I still can't work out why schools are pushed forward so early. I get that it releases parents to resume work, but at the same time there's hardly more of a melting pot of disease and spread of disease in the modern developed world - than school - save for Universities. All those students meeting and mingling might well have a huge potential for a second spike.
Even if teachers and students practice safe distancing and more hand washing first and last thing in the day. There's still going to be the best part of the day spent indoors in rooms - even with the windows open - with a higher chance of infectious spread.
That said I agree, pretty much everyone expects multiple peaks until either we reach herd immunity and/or a vaccine is developed and ready for distribution. I think the key is aiming for smaller multiple peaks or at least those that fit within the health services ability to cope.
Keeping in mind that, provided resources don't run out; the health services cap on what it can cope with should, in theory, continue to increase.
We're just over 34,000 dead in the US from this, which means Covid has killed as many people in about 4 weeks as the last flu season did over 4 months.
So much for "just the seasonal flu".
Automatically Appended Next Post: ChaosX, you've accidentally misattributed some quotes from QAR to Voss.
For example I still can't work out why schools are pushed forward so early. I get that it releases parents to resume work, but at the same time there's hardly more of a melting pot of disease and spread of disease in the modern developed world - than school - save for Universities. All those students meeting and mingling might well have a huge potential for a second spike.
There was something on the radio a week or so ago that postulated that closing the schools and nurseries actually had very little effect and was basically pointless. I didnt read into it and don't have a link, but I'm sure it could be found.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ChaosX, you've accidentally misattributed some quotes from QAR to Voss.
Im not sure how the reporting works over there, but I know there are some discrepancies as to how the numbers have been reported here. We get told a number on the news, and it sounds bad, but there is no context, eg with or of, or a comparison showing over and above normal daily death rate for example.
In other news some models are predicting that the actual UK infection total is close to 3 million, which could be a good thing? If people are getting it but not being affected I guess?
For example I still can't work out why schools are pushed forward so early. I get that it releases parents to resume work, but at the same time there's hardly more of a melting pot of disease and spread of disease in the modern developed world - than school - save for Universities. All those students meeting and mingling might well have a huge potential for a second spike.
There was something on the radio a week or so ago that postulated that closing the schools and nurseries actually had very little effect and was basically pointless. I didnt read into it and don't have a link, but I'm sure it could be found.
It's hard for me to work out how. Schools are well known for spreading coughs and colds and almost anything else students catch. It passes around the other students and staff like wildfire. Universities are even worse since they have students from an international catchment and thus can have a huge host of potential sources for a disease.
If one person has Corona in a school you can bet the next week the rest of the students will have caught it and taken it home.
At work you've a much reduced population spread in many work areas and greater maturity thus potential to spread people out and reduce potential infection and increase things like handwashing. At least in theory a more mature workplace could stave off the virus spreading through it more effectivly than most schools.
That said I suspect any reactivation will result in a second wave. The only way it couldn't would be if there were no more infected or carriers within the population.
For example I still can't work out why schools are pushed forward so early. I get that it releases parents to resume work, but at the same time there's hardly more of a melting pot of disease and spread of disease in the modern developed world - than school - save for Universities. All those students meeting and mingling might well have a huge potential for a second spike.
There was something on the radio a week or so ago that postulated that closing the schools and nurseries actually had very little effect and was basically pointless. I didnt read into it and don't have a link, but I'm sure it could be found.
It's hard for me to work out how. Schools are well known for spreading coughs and colds and almost anything else students catch. It passes around the other students and staff like wildfire. Universities are even worse since they have students from an international catchment and thus can have a huge host of potential sources for a disease.
If one person has Corona in a school you can bet the next week the rest of the students will have caught it and taken it home.
At work you've a much reduced population spread in many work areas and greater maturity thus potential to spread people out and reduce potential infection and increase things like handwashing. At least in theory a more mature workplace could stave off the virus spreading through it more effectivly than most schools.
That said I suspect any reactivation will result in a second wave. The only way it couldn't would be if there were no more infected or carriers within the population.
Anybody with kids knows this to be true. I've never had so many colds, coughs and sniffles since the kids went to nursery and primary school. Seems to ease off when they get to secondary school and college though.
I believe that Opening up the junior schools again will spread the virus faster than pretty much any other activity.
Vulcan wrote: That's also part of why our COVID response has been so... lackluster. Big business feels those profits falling by the day, and is screaming at their political representatives to get things moving again NOW!
And yet many dastardly CEOs willingly shut down their evil, thieving businesses before the federal and state governments had taken action.
The real world isn't a Power Rangers episode, fer crissakes.
Except all the companies that refused to close when orders came down, like Hobby Lobby, Barnes and Noble, Game Stop... I could keep going but you get the point.
And I can list the companies that did but you get the point.
People on both sides of the political spectrum need to stop politicizing every aspect of this thing.
Oh, and regarding the protests...it's very easy to detect the presence of 'astroturf' there.
Vulcan wrote: That's also part of why our COVID response has been so... lackluster. Big business feels those profits falling by the day, and is screaming at their political representatives to get things moving again NOW!
And yet many dastardly CEOs willingly shut down their evil, thieving businesses before the federal and state governments had taken action.
The real world isn't a Power Rangers episode, fer crissakes.
Yes, SOME businesses did, indeed, shut down voluntarily.
Many others have not, because PROFIT UBER ALLES!!! and had to be shut down by state governments.
Vulcan wrote: That's also part of why our COVID response has been so... lackluster. Big business feels those profits falling by the day, and is screaming at their political representatives to get things moving again NOW!
And yet many dastardly CEOs willingly shut down their evil, thieving businesses before the federal and state governments had taken action.
The real world isn't a Power Rangers episode, fer crissakes.
Yes, SOME businesses did, indeed, shut down voluntarily.
Many others have not, because PROFIT UBER ALLES!!! and had to be shut down by state governments.
And others chug along. The factory I work at hasn't shut down, despite confirmed cases.
Vulcan wrote: That's also part of why our COVID response has been so... lackluster. Big business feels those profits falling by the day, and is screaming at their political representatives to get things moving again NOW!
And yet many dastardly CEOs willingly shut down their evil, thieving businesses before the federal and state governments had taken action.
The real world isn't a Power Rangers episode, fer crissakes.
Yes, SOME businesses did, indeed, shut down voluntarily.
Many others have not, because PROFIT UBER ALLES!!! and had to be shut down by state governments.
And then there are companies who have lobbied to be defined as essential when they are obviously not. Such as the WWE which is classed as essential in Florida. A ruling which just so happened to come about the same day that a super PAC chaired by Linda McMahon, wife of WWE owner Vince McMahon, donated $18.5m to the Florida GOP.
The factories for the company I work for sure as hell are still running. One of them has switched production over to face shields for healthcare workers.
What the produce really is federally essential though.
I mean surprise surprise, a secret cabal of people in power are working hard to put people back to work in the machine
Here is the thing, people wouldnt be begging to go back to work if THE GOVT WOULD JUST PAY US MONEY IN THIS TIME AND LOANS WHERE DEFFERED OR EXTENDED
For example I still can't work out why schools are pushed forward so early. I get that it releases parents to resume work, but at the same time there's hardly more of a melting pot of disease and spread of disease in the modern developed world - than school - save for Universities. All those students meeting and mingling might well have a huge potential for a second spike.
There was something on the radio a week or so ago that postulated that closing the schools and nurseries actually had very little effect and was basically pointless. I didnt read into it and don't have a link, but I'm sure it could be found.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ChaosX, you've accidentally misattributed some quotes from QAR to Voss.
Im not sure how the reporting works over there, but I know there are some discrepancies as to how the numbers have been reported here. We get told a number on the news, and it sounds bad, but there is no context, eg with or of, or a comparison showing over and above normal daily death rate for example.
I posted a few pages back that ONS figures put England and Wales at 60% above the same period 5-year average death rate in the UK. Obviously these numbers have seen little acknowledgement in the daily briefings, but they've been widely reported the last few days in the mainstream UK press.
I don't have the expertise to really scrutinize an epidemiological paper (and I'm in the humanities and our expectations may vary wildly - though I'd have thought my methodological assumptions should be lower), but that they don't explain the screening procedure that led to their including in their review only 16 of over 600 (which they don't include in an appendix so how they break down isn't available) publications beyond
'All articles were triple screened (by SJR, HC, and JP) on title and abstract. We excluded opinion pieces, systematic reviews, studies addressing other viruses, university-specific settings, epidemiological studies not examining intervention effects (eg, of prevalence of infection in schools), and studies in other languages with no English translation'
seems problematic. Given the overwhelming majority of datasets they are examining the effects of derive from the Middle East and East Asia, the last clause seems astonishing.
Well, my little girl is in nursery, and even getting another 6 weeks would be beneficial.. She only had 2 months there and was enjoying it a lot, now she's stuck at home she's climbing the walls. The nursery is on the base, and only used by service personnel who live in the married quarters (so they aren't travelling around the country at weekends like the singlys) so I think it's fairly low risk there anyway.
I wonder if its just a panic to push students back for a week or two to throw masses of exams at them (yay indoor confinement in even bigger groups for an hour or two). Certainly the final year Alevel students and final year GCSE are the most at risk of having this year mess them up considerably with their plans - though I could see Universities also introducing entrance tests if the exam period faulters. Then again we don't know what the University scene will be like come September.
Yeah I'd certainly be worried if I was a student. There was talk of using predicted grades, but that hardly seems fair. I was predicted a D in maths at GCSE, but had extra tutoring and got a B. I needed a C to study psychology at college.
Florida schools are shut down for the remainder of the school year. We're attempting to help the students without resources by continuing to provide meal pickup each week, loaning out school laptops if they need a computer to do e-learning, and a local company has offered free wifi for students. Queen_annes_revenge, unless I'm reading the study wrong, is talking about closing schools without other isolation measures being ineffective , "Yet the only study to examine school closures as a separate intervention warned that the impact was relatively marginal, given the reasonable assumptions that household and community contacts would rise as a consequence.". This I totally agree with, since a large number of students wouldn't have anyone to take care of them during the day, and would go hang out with friends, at malls, movie theaters, etc. Closing schools without any other social distancing measures would not stop the problem.
I would say that if you're trying to implement any sort of social distancing or quarantine though it absolutely should be the first step. I have 120 kids go through my classroom on a normal day, working within feet of each other, on desks that might be cleaned once a week. Each of those kids goes to 7 other classrooms each day under similar circumstances, and a cafeteria. The number of people exposed to a disease like this from an open school is huge. Our school's a 1,000 students large, with students from well over 2 miles distance. Each of those kids goes home to a family. Think it through logically yourself, as you've been advocating. With a disease that can spread for 2 weeks before symptoms, should we open schools and add 1,000 new vectors to each family with kids?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Well, my little girl is in nursery, and even getting another 6 weeks would be beneficial.. She only had 2 months there and was enjoying it a lot, now she's stuck at home she's climbing the walls. The nursery is on the base, and only used by service personnel who live in the married quarters (so they aren't travelling around the country at weekends like the singlys) so I think it's fairly low risk there anyway.
That's a curious case. Are they run by the military or are they private units that just happen to be in the base? I guess there might be special legislation for these kind of anomalies.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Well, my little girl is in nursery, and even getting another 6 weeks would be beneficial.. She only had 2 months there and was enjoying it a lot, now she's stuck at home she's climbing the walls. The nursery is on the base, and only used by service personnel who live in the married quarters (so they aren't travelling around the country at weekends like the singlys) so I think it's fairly low risk there anyway.
The 'child development centers' (our nurseries) on the post I work on are only open to kids of 'mission essential' (ME) folks who are still going in to the office. Numbers of kids attending are WAY down (from 100s to 10s) since in most cases ME either don't have kids or have a spouse at home taking care of them. Any ankle biter over two years old is supposed to be wearing a mask. I bet that is fun to enforce. Glad it isn't my job.
Funny, I heard this secret cabal was pressuring Trump to reopen immediately. It’s almost like these corporations are made up of actual people, and that no one wants to see employees and customers cut down like wheat.
That's what trump tried to set it up for. Backfired spectacularly for him. Can't even get group he sets up to take blame in case reopening backfires to actually agree for immediate reopening
Not that surprising though. CEO's are careful about their PR image. Being linked to mass deaths isn't good for their business. trump ain't getting others to take blame for that for his sake that easily.
I’m sure certain business interests are involved, but I think we all know what this reopening pressure is really about. And the media isn’t going to dig into and report on astroturfing. The media - on all sides - loves a conflict narrative and they’ve glommed onto this one already.
Overread wrote: I wonder if its just a panic to push students back for a week or two to throw masses of exams at them (yay indoor confinement in even bigger groups for an hour or two). Certainly the final year Alevel students and final year GCSE are the most at risk of having this year mess them up considerably with their plans - though I could see Universities also introducing entrance tests if the exam period faulters. Then again we don't know what the University scene will be like come September.
University exams are largely going to be done online this year -- current thinking anyway.
-- and yes there has indeed been the massive amount of " But hang on what if ..." this will all entail.
I wouldn't be too surprised if people who graduate this year wind up being "stigmatised" -- so to speak -- in the future with their qualifications being viewed as perhaps being not quite right --- TBF this could flip t'other way and perhaps courses will be marked more strictly than usual and a lot of people will get lower grades than they were expecting.
Which will of course lead to no end of complaints, appeals and threats of legal action.
Unis are -- currently -- still planning on opening in September as per usual -- even been some talk about sharing out the the years intake across the universities to try and mitigate the dame/share the pain.
That wont last of course, sooner or later one/some of them would/will break ranks and then...
Govt. might of course enforce this to stop this happening .... but given this is only going to be one of 12,345+ plates they're going to have to keep spinning I can't see it being viewed as a priority compared to quite a few other things.
Can only see it being years before the foreign/overseas student numbers recover -- if they ever do.
Wouldn't be too surprised even if we start to see a lot more courses than run entirely online/without a physical presence on campus.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Well, my little girl is in nursery, and even getting another 6 weeks would be beneficial.. She only had 2 months there and was enjoying it a lot, now she's stuck at home she's climbing the walls. The nursery is on the base, and only used by service personnel who live in the married quarters (so they aren't travelling around the country at weekends like the singlys) so I think it's fairly low risk there anyway.
That's a curious case. Are they run by the military or are they private units that just happen to be in the base? I guess there might be special legislation for these kind of anomalies.
I'm not sure who their governing body is, but it's located on camp and serves exclusively the families on the unit (as far as I'm aware)
tneva82 wrote: That's what trump tried to set it up for. Backfired spectacularly for him. Can't even get group he sets up to take blame in case reopening backfires to actually agree for immediate reopening
Not that surprising though. CEO's are careful about their PR image. Being linked to mass deaths isn't good for their business. trump ain't getting others to take blame for that for his sake that easily.
Trump is very clearly trying to set the governors up now, my guess is that he realized he couldn't scapegoat business leaders, and it coincides with his shift from "The President can reopen the country" to "the Governors are responsible".
Kind of a win/win for him now, if a governor reopens and it goes smoothly, he gets to say it was because of the criteria and guidance he issued, if it blows up then he says the governor didnt follow his guidance.
tneva82 wrote: That's what trump tried to set it up for. Backfired spectacularly for him. Can't even get group he sets up to take blame in case reopening backfires to actually agree for immediate reopening
Not that surprising though. CEO's are careful about their PR image. Being linked to mass deaths isn't good for their business. trump ain't getting others to take blame for that for his sake that easily.
Trump is very clearly trying to set the governors up now, my guess is that he realized he couldn't scapegoat business leaders, and it coincides with his shift from "The President can reopen the country" to "the Governors are responsible".
Kind of a win/win for him now, if a governor reopens and it goes smoothly, he gets to say it was because of the criteria and guidance he issued, if it blows up then he says the governor didnt follow his guidance.
Exactly. Also, in the places like my state who are protesting the over-quarantine, if there is a resurgence of infections after opening up the economies, they can simply pivot to protesting how the governors were morons in the way they opened the states back up, and now the once overly-draconian leaders are now responsible for the deaths.
One nice thing is that this is proving that we are absolutely the cause of pollution. Cities are rapidly showing vast improvements in air quality, in just two months, which means that we could make such things permanent over spans of 5-10 years instead with very little change to public life, versus the slamming of a halt to everything in two months.
Without getting into politics, I think you guys are overestimating the competence of those involved. I think governors who are doing a good job will continue to, and I do not think the White House will be able to stop the natural connection people will make. Or put differently, people will blame or praise the governor as the 'closer' figure, which I feel is actually appropriate.
godardc wrote: Very little change ? Like what ? It took the destruction if the entire world economy to take some clouds and fog away
I agree that the “very little change” thing is a bit out of place. It was a massive change in the lifestyle of the world.
That said, It did yield very real and tangible results. It’s more then just “clouds and fog”. We as a race are the cause of a LOT of pollution. I think it’s a bit of a wake up call to see what happens when everything comes to a screeching halt, and what the environment does. It gets better.
I think as we ramp back up to “normal” we need to keep this in mind. How can we have both a global economy AND clean air? We want both.
You guys are only reading half of what I typed. I said a small change could see all the various economies still function while still getting what we have seen over two months to happen, but over a few years. Because obviously what enabled this couple months change is not in any way sustainable.
But it still shows that yes, dropping all the crap we put in the air would actually make a difference, even if it took longer because life would still have to go on.
With express and times daring to crititize tories it's grim indeed.
Indeed, not the papers I'd expect to run with that story. It will be interesting to see if it gathers steam over the coming days, or if it gets buried under the day to day madness that seems to have become the new normal. But the Tories do like to keep there knives sharp, and have recent form for turning on themselves at a time of national crisis so who knows?
AegisGrimm wrote: You guys are only reading half of what I typed. I said a small change could see all the various economies still function while still getting what we have seen over two months to happen, but over a few years. Because obviously what enabled this couple months change is not in any way sustainable.
But it still shows that yes, dropping all the crap we put in the air would actually make a difference, even if it took longer because life would still have to go on.
Im no car expert, so correct me if im wrong, cars burn more fuel and put out more exhaust when going slow and stop and go.
Imagine if all the people that can work from home, start doing so more, as shown with much right now, allowing those people who CANT work from home faster commutes and less pollution.
Granted, none of this will happen, but i can hope.
Heck, imagine if this comes with a massive change in schooling aswell, with school now being done from home more.
All those papers talking about cobra meetings are just playing on people's lack of knowledge. The pm doesn't chair every cobra meeting.. Sometimes they are deputised to others who may have more expertise in whatever is being discussed.
And those talking about the failure to take action, they locked the country down as soon as the imperial college paper came out. How much quicker could they be? If they had done it sooner, someone would've said, is this backed by any science? to which the answer would have been no, and there would have been uproar.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: All those papers talking about cobra meetings are just playing on people's lack of knowledge. The pm doesn't chair every cobra meeting.. Sometimes they are deputised to others who may have more expertise in whatever is being discussed.
Which is fine, except the issue I'm reading isn't that he didn't chair them, it's that he didn't flat-out didn't attend them.
Indeed. The politics should really be kept on the back burner, (in reality aswell as in here) until we are at a more stable state. There are higher priorities, and the government is effectively leaderless at the current time. Attempted point scoring should be avoided, but it inevitably won't.
I will say that this has been an interesting time. A government I generally support has done some questionable things that I don't support, and the opposition has done some things I would agree with (pressing for a lockdown exit strategy).
This whole situation is inherently political, politics are the whole reason we are in this mess.
Are they? I'd put the blame more on the poor sanitation in those wet markets, or the facility that had a leak? (I don't know which is true) in China, higher up the blame list for sure.
Well, politics didn't cause the origin (that is a good reason to talk about wet markets in a separate thread.) I'm actually quite impressed that we have been drifting in and out of the edges of politics in the thread lately, and no one has really started any problems. It's been pretty well thought-out.
Right now it's hard to not mention politics because currently in most of our respective countries, politics are playing a huge part in the steps being taken because of the phases of response we are currently in, because things are settling down from just pure panic.
AegisGrimm wrote: Well, politics didn't cause the origin (that is a good reason to talk about wet markets in a separate thread.) I'm actually quite impressed that we have been drifting in and out of the edges of politics in the thread lately, and no one has really started any problems. It's been pretty well thought-out.
Right now it's hard to not mention politics because currently in most of our respective countries, politics are playing a huge part in the steps being taken because of the phases of response we are currently in, because things are settling down from just pure panic.
Never even heard of wet makets before this.
I cant imagine just hanging hunks of beef is sanitary.
Yeah. Then again, some Americans wear shoes around the house, and probably most of the rest of the world would find that gross. We all live in some kind of glass house.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Without getting into politics, I think you guys are overestimating the competence of those involved. I think governors who are doing a good job will continue to, and I do not think the White House will be able to stop the natural connection people will make. Or put differently, people will blame or praise the governor as the 'closer' figure, which I feel is actually appropriate.
Unfortunately American politics are what they are, and blame will be assessed on partisan lines based on the eye of the beholder, and not on competence or lack thereof.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: Very little change ? Like what ? It took the destruction if the entire world economy to take some clouds and fog away
Several things have been demonstrated.
1) Yes, rush hour is destroying the environment.
2) A LOT of businesses have remained open (for certain definitions of 'open') by having their workers telecommute. This shows that you don't need everyone to come in and work in the office to make the modern business world work.
3) Which means they don't need to RENT or BUILD that large workplace for everyone to work in, saving those businesses lots of money.
which leads us to:
4) That means a sizable percentage of that environment-destroying commute is unnecessary and can be eliminated... and doing so will actually SAVE businesses money instead of COSTING them money.
godardc wrote: Very little change ? Like what ? It took the destruction if the entire world economy to take some clouds and fog away
Several things have been demonstrated.
1) Yes, rush hour is destroying the environment.
2) A LOT of businesses have remained open (for certain definitions of 'open') by having their workers telecommute. This shows that you don't need everyone to come in and work in the office to make the modern business world work.
3) Which means they don't need to RENT or BUILD that large workplace for everyone to work in, saving those businesses lots of money.
which leads us to:
4) That means a sizable percentage of that environment-destroying commute is unnecessary and can be eliminated... and doing so will actually SAVE businesses money instead of COSTING them money.
Win/win right there.
Not so good for businesses that make their money from constructing office buildings, of course...
AegisGrimm wrote: You guys are only reading half of what I typed. I said a small change could see all the various economies still function while still getting what we have seen over two months to happen, but over a few years. Because obviously what enabled this couple months change is not in any way sustainable.
But it still shows that yes, dropping all the crap we put in the air would actually make a difference, even if it took longer because life would still have to go on.
Im no car expert, so correct me if im wrong, cars burn more fuel and put out more exhaust when going slow and stop and go.
Imagine if all the people that can work from home, start doing so more, as shown with much right now, allowing those people who CANT work from home faster commutes and less pollution.
Granted, none of this will happen, but i can hope.
Heck, imagine if this comes with a massive change in schooling aswell, with school now being done from home more.
It's entirely possible that there will be a move in this direction, for office-based workplaces at least. One of Oz's major telecommunications companies has already announced that they are planning on keeping the work-from-home arrangements permanent for their call centre staff.
It's less likely to remain a permanent change for schools, as the social aspect of going to school is an important parts of childrens' development. Although I can see some people choosing to stick with home schooling if they find that their children do better in that environment, as some inevitably will (I suspect that I would have...)
godardc wrote: Very little change ? Like what ? It took the destruction if the entire world economy to take some clouds and fog away
Several things have been demonstrated.
1) Yes, rush hour is destroying the environment.
2) A LOT of businesses have remained open (for certain definitions of 'open') by having their workers telecommute. This shows that you don't need everyone to come in and work in the office to make the modern business world work.
3) Which means they don't need to RENT or BUILD that large workplace for everyone to work in, saving those businesses lots of money.
which leads us to:
4) That means a sizable percentage of that environment-destroying commute is unnecessary and can be eliminated... and doing so will actually SAVE businesses money instead of COSTING them money.
Win/win right there.
Not so good for businesses that make their money from constructing office buildings, of course...
True. But let's face it, a parking lot isn't exactly great for the environment either.
AegisGrimm wrote: Well, politics didn't cause the origin (that is a good reason to talk about wet markets in a separate thread.) I'm actually quite impressed that we have been drifting in and out of the edges of politics in the thread lately, and no one has really started any problems. It's been pretty well thought-out.
Right now it's hard to not mention politics because currently in most of our respective countries, politics are playing a huge part in the steps being taken because of the phases of response we are currently in, because things are settling down from just pure panic.
Never even heard of wet makets before this.
I cant imagine just hanging hunks of beef is sanitary.
Beef? Have you not seen photos of the places? It's more than that. Live and dead animals like dogs, frogs, bats (obviously) snakes, insects, duck fetus eggs.. all just sitting there on streets, blood and fluid everywhere. Look them up on YouTube.. I think some of them aren't that bad, and are slightly more sanitary, being more like street food markets, but some of them are grim. Especially when modern refrigeration is so readily available.
A wet market is simply one selling perishable consumables as opposed to a dry market selling other stuff - clothes or ornaments or whatever. That's it.
Some are unsanitary. Some aren't. Even the ones selling live and slaughtered animals are popular across a lot of the world and can be perfectly sanitary. I buy from them a lot in the Middle East.
No doubt, with a good dose of exoticising fantasy and yellow peril, in the western imagination it will now exclusively refer to side by side rabid dogs and prawns in a TV-Medieval setting populated by babbling characters in cone hats.
Granted, but you can go online and see the grim ones in real life video footage. its nothing to do with some imagined yellow peril. I did clarify in my statement that not all food markets are bad or particularly unhygienic, which is why the bad ones you see are even more unacceptable.
We have wet markets in the US, moreso in ethnic neighborhoods in urban areas from my experience, but they exist in rural red state America as well so that people can pick the cow or pig or what have you that they feed their family and friends at their house party or barbecue cookout, etc.
Difference is that in the US and other parts of the world there are strict health code and animal welfare requirements that make them significantly cleaner and safer environments for both animals and people, and they are much less likely to result in cross-species diseases or zoonosis as a result. It also helps that these markets deal primarily in domesticated animals/livestock that are farm raised and monitored throughout their lifecycles for disease and illness, etc. The markets in China (and elsewhere) often deal with bush-meat and wild-caught animals that do not have the benefit of husbandry and animal welfare requirements, and as such are subject to whatever diseases are rampant in the local wildlife populations, and the markets themselves have very loose sanitation and hygiene codes/policies that exacerbate the problem further.
AegisGrimm wrote: Right now it's hard to not mention politics because currently in most of our respective countries, politics are playing a huge part in the steps being taken because of the phases of response we are currently in, because things are settling down from just pure panic.
Yeah. Unfortunately, it's been very intertwined with politics in a few countries. I've been trying to avoid going there in this thread though. I'm increasingly concerned about what that means for our country's ability to handle this, and I'm not even picking sides when I say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Not so good for businesses that make their money from constructing office buildings, of course...
I've been telling people for years that I'd avoid any long-term bets on commercial office space like the plague. My rationale has been that *at some point* companies are going to figure out just how many functions can be done remotely AS LONG AS you have the right policies, structures, technology, etc. in place. And the ensuring collapse could be quick. This thing could finally be the trigger.
AegisGrimm wrote: Right now it's hard to not mention politics because currently in most of our respective countries, politics are playing a huge part in the steps being taken because of the phases of response we are currently in, because things are settling down from just pure panic.
Yeah. Unfortunately, it's been very intertwined with politics in a few countries. I've been trying to avoid going there in this thread though. I'm increasingly concerned about what that means for our country's ability to handle this, and I'm not even picking sides when I say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Not so good for businesses that make their money from constructing office buildings, of course...
I've been telling people for years that I'd avoid any long-term bets on commercial office space like the plague. My rationale has been that *at some point* companies are going to figure out at some point just how many functions can be done remotely AS LONG AS you have the right policies, structures, technology, etc. in place. And the ensuring collapse could be quick. This thing could finally be the trigger.
Brazil has become virtually impossible to discuss mostly due to the nature of their government.
Also, in italy the mafia seemingly will gain on influence because they are faster at social aid then the regular government.
The number of new cases appears to have levelled off on a daily growth aspect. Though we are still in the whole 5K new cases per day category.
The number of deaths is a curious table as it shows a series of small "humps" in the flow of values. Fingers crossed that the new peaks of these start to go down. We've seen a marked drop today, though that links to a natural dip that we'd expect (the dip is better than previous ones); its still up in the air if the peak of the new rise and fall ends up greater or less than we've seen previously.
Also I would guess we should hopefully start entering a period now where we see the daily recovery values growing without the death rate growing.
Fingers crossed about the stats, but we often have a lag in the numbers over the weekend. Still its kinda mind blowing that 449 hospital deaths is seen as a good day.
I fully expect the number to go up again, the question is if it jumps up to the nearly 1K daily deaths that we've nearly had in the recent past or if we are getting on top of things and will see it lower.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Granted, but you can go online and see the grim ones in real life video footage. its nothing to do with some imagined yellow peril. I did clarify in my statement that not all food markets are bad or particularly unhygienic, which is why the bad ones you see are even more unacceptable.
You can do the same for western factory farms. Some stuff's good and some is bad no matter which country you look at. On top of that some places also have Ag-gag laws so that it's harder to find footage of how bad it can be over here.
the dip in deaths seems to come just after the weekend (I wonder if it fits with shift patterns with the dip being staff coming on who are 'fresh' off their rest days
working in the ICU with all the protective gear is very draining so with the best will in the world by the end of a period of shifts the staff may not be able to function as well as they did at the start
The NHS has had previous form in terms of nights and weekends having more junior and less senior staff at work
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Oil has dropped to its lowest price in history.. Under $0 a barrel.. Not sure how that works. Maybe someone who understands economics can explain it
Similar to negative equity I'd imagine. The oil costs more to make then it sells for on the open market.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: the dip in deaths seems to come just after the weekend (I wonder if it fits with shift patterns with the dip being staff coming on who are 'fresh' off their rest days
working in the ICU with all the protective gear is very draining so with the best will in the world by the end of a period of shifts the staff may not be able to function as well as they did at the start
The NHS has had previous form in terms of nights and weekends having more junior and less senior staff at work
I believe some of the dip is due to a reduction in reporting over the weekend. Ergo a lot of the admin side are not working over the weekend so whilst the number of deaths might go up they aren't processed until a little later. That would make sense if their stats are counting them as they get processed even if the processing happens on a different day rather than back-tracking and changing stats a day later. But I've no idea, I just seem to recall that there was some mention at some stage in one of the daily updates that it was linked to admin/reporting rather than to anything else.
If it was linked to staff fatigue in such a big way you'd think they would be staggering staff far more so to spread them out through the week rather than have clear boom and busts over the weekend. Especially since with schools down and much of society out of action its not as if they need to be slaved to the traditional 7 day week structure.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Oil has dropped to its lowest price in history.. Under $0 a barrel.. Not sure how that works. Maybe someone who understands economics can explain it
Similar to negative equity I'd imagine. The oil costs more to make then it sells for on the open market.
Whilst at the same time likely not being cost-effective to short term shut down production. So they'll keep producing even at a loss. If anything I'd imagine stockpiling should be happening. Governments making stockpiles ready for an economic reboot right after (nice way to keep fuel prices down for a little post-lockdown and encourage more free travel and spending within the country). Meanwhile oil producing nations know this is a short term blip. Whilst airlines might take time to recover, you can bet once this is all over fuel use will resume to high values. So they'll be back into the profits in no time. Plus they've got vast wealth, a short term downturn won't likely harm them.
So my home state has decided to start opening businesses back up starting roughly next week..........I'd rather wish we were the volunteer state of something else
Sure do hope all the people protesting for haircuts and getting in a game of golf enjoy themselves for things go south again
greenskin lynn wrote: So my home state has decided to start opening businesses back up starting roughly next week..........I'd rather wish we were the volunteer state of something else
Sure do hope all the people protesting for haircuts and getting in a game of golf enjoy themselves for things go south again
I've been telling people for years that I'd avoid any long-term bets on commercial office space like the plague. My rationale has been that *at some point* companies are going to figure out just how many functions can be done remotely AS LONG AS you have the right policies, structures, technology, etc. in place. And the ensuring collapse could be quick. This thing could finally be the trigger.
Indeed, I suspect an increasing number of companies will eschew office space entirely, either maintaining just a bare-minimum executive space or going entirely work-from-home and utilising by-the-hour hired meeting spaces when they do need to get people in the same room. This could be a good time for cafes and restaurants to add in a professional-looking, AV- and WiFi-equipped meeting room, if they don't already have one...
I think a bit thing will be how the remote working software providers react once the disaster is mostly over. Right now a lot of them are offering software with big discounts or even free. I can see some businesses getting scared off if those costs go up significantly overnight once lockdowns lift. It goes form "hey this is perhaps cheaper" to "oh darn that's a big cost and I've still got to pay office space because I've not got rid of it - perhaps in another fiscal year....".
I wager if they take the Adobe path - ergo really cheap monthly costs - the providers could likely take less per customer, but pick up a huge amount more regular trade as a result.
Otherwise the whole work from home could die before it gets off the ground. That said I can see a lot of psuh from workers keen to recover 2 hours commuting time and also all that saved fuel/travel money in their weekly budget. Plus talking to others working from home there's far more temptation to work "after hours" when the office is in your own house. Employers could potentially see increased work rates rather than the, I suspect, often feared reduced work rates from people working from home. And this is at a time when many are also looking after kids because they aren't at school.
greenskin lynn wrote: So my home state has decided to start opening businesses back up starting roughly next week..........I'd rather wish we were the volunteer state of something else
Sure do hope all the people protesting for haircuts and getting in a game of golf enjoy themselves for things go south again
How long were you in lockdown for?
i want to say its been 6ish weeks or so for good old Tennessee, maybe. I had other things going on towards the start that resulted in mostly staying in regardless, so the start of everything shutting down kind of slipped by me, at least locally
I'm also in an extremely rural part of the state, so input from places like nashville or memphis would probably be of more use for how much the governor is jumping the gun
In theory 6 weeks might be enough to dull the peak and then re-open provided you've started to see the number of active cases reducing and a reduction in the spread at the same time - esp in key urban areas.
Of course that's only dulling the blow, a rise in infection would be expected after any opening up followed by a likely second lockdown after if the infection rate starts to spike.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Fingers crossed about the stats, but we often have a lag in the numbers over the weekend. Still its kinda mind blowing that 449 hospital deaths is seen as a good day.
Don't be too impressed by figures.
In France, in a normal year, 600k people die. That's 1,600 a day.
Yes, an American civil war evey year (about 700k are born though).
I guess it's very close to the U.K. normal figures
greenskin lynn wrote: So my home state has decided to start opening businesses back up starting roughly next week..........I'd rather wish we were the volunteer state of something else
Sure do hope all the people protesting for haircuts and getting in a game of golf enjoy themselves for things go south again
How long were you in lockdown for?
i want to say its been 6ish weeks or so for good old Tennessee, maybe. I had other things going on towards the start that resulted in mostly staying in regardless, so the start of everything shutting down kind of slipped by me, at least locally
I'm also in an extremely rural part of the state, so input from places like nashville or memphis would probably be of more use for how much the governor is jumping the gun
Tennessee's official stay in place went into effect April 2nd. So 18 days. It's been interesting to watch how states and the populace handle things. I paid attention to TN because we were there visiting family the first week of march when it was really just starting.
greenskin lynn wrote: So my home state has decided to start opening businesses back up starting roughly next week..........I'd rather wish we were the volunteer state of something else
Sure do hope all the people protesting for haircuts and getting in a game of golf enjoy themselves for things go south again
How long were you in lockdown for?
i want to say its been 6ish weeks or so for good old Tennessee, maybe. I had other things going on towards the start that resulted in mostly staying in regardless, so the start of everything shutting down kind of slipped by me, at least locally
I'm also in an extremely rural part of the state, so input from places like nashville or memphis would probably be of more use for how much the governor is jumping the gun
Tennessee's official stay in place went into effect April 2nd. So 18 days. It's been interesting to watch how states and the populace handle things. I paid attention to TN because we were there visiting family the first week of march when it was really just starting.
Wait, TN didnt even make it 3 weeks?
Here in cali we have been like.....nearly 7 weeks.
Pansies
not even 3 weeks.....feth, i guess my idea of 6 weeks was when some local places started keeping people out or something. time has been strange in recent days
AegisGrimm wrote: Right now it's hard to not mention politics because currently in most of our respective countries, politics are playing a huge part in the steps being taken because of the phases of response we are currently in, because things are settling down from just pure panic.
Yeah. Unfortunately, it's been very intertwined with politics in a few countries. I've been trying to avoid going there in this thread though. I'm increasingly concerned about what that means for our country's ability to handle this, and I'm not even picking sides when I say that.
It's different in different countries though. In the US politics is so intertwined in daily life (and divided), it's impssible to avoid. In the Netherlands, OTOH, both the people and opposition parties have basically realised the gravity of the situation and that at times like this we cannot afford to have more than one captain on the ship and everybody seems willing to go along with the current government until this is over. And to be honest, while I disagree with him and his party vehemently on the political side of things, credit where it's due, he's handling this very well.
I am also seriously considering starting to buy stocks in (some of the larger) oil companies. WIth the current crash of oil prices, their stocks will drop massively, but I'm betting they'll rise again when this is over. Beer-/beverage stocks also seem a good investment now. With bars and restaurants closed they're not selling as much, so stocks are down as well. I expect they'll pick up much quicker when this is over than fuel companies though.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Fingers crossed about the stats, but we often have a lag in the numbers over the weekend. Still its kinda mind blowing that 449 hospital deaths is seen as a good day.
Don't be too impressed by figures.
In France, in a normal year, 600k people die. That's 1,600 a day.
Yes, an American civil war evey year (about 700k are born though).
I guess it's very close to the U.K. normal figures
That's obviously not comparing like with like. You're saying the Covid-19 numbers aren't that high if you compare them with how many people usually die of everything, but other fatal illnesses don't take some time off and let CV have its turn.
England and Wale's late march 5-year average is about 10,000 deaths a week. It was 16,000 this year. The jump is significant.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Fingers crossed about the stats, but we often have a lag in the numbers over the weekend. Still its kinda mind blowing that 449 hospital deaths is seen as a good day.
Don't be too impressed by figures.
In France, in a normal year, 600k people die. That's 1,600 a day.
Yes, an American civil war evey year (about 700k are born though).
I guess it's very close to the U.K. normal figures
That's obviously not comparing like with like. You're saying the Covid-19 numbers aren't that high if you compare them with how many people usually die of everything, but other fatal illnesses don't take some time off and let CV have its turn.
England and Wale's late march 5-year average is about 10,000 deaths a week. It was 16,000 this year. The jump is significant.
Wasn't there some pages back a link showing that covid 19 allready outpaced the flue by about 2 months?
Indeed, but its likely that some of those deaths are due to some people not receiving medical attention for other things like cancer etc. I'm not saying this is fact, but it has been mentioned in articles I've read on the issue
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Indeed, but its likely that some of those deaths are due to some people not receiving medical attention for other things like cancer etc. I'm not saying this is fact, but it has been mentioned in articles I've read on the issue
It certainly does complicate the situation, but we also have heard about potential longstanding issue like with burning lungs etc.
(the later of which can however ocure with some ventilators depending upon type).
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Indeed, but its likely that some of those deaths are due to some people not receiving medical attention for other things like cancer etc. I'm not saying this is fact, but it has been mentioned in articles I've read on the issue
There are definitely some cases of this, though it will also be offset by the reduction in other deaths as a byproduct of lockdown - far fewer road accidents etc. There have also been sharp decreases in the number of registrations of, for instance, coronary ailments on death certificates.
ONS stats run a fair way behind so detailed analysis of this will see a fair delay, but a 60% increase in deaths, and upwards of 15,000 deaths in a few weeks, not including any in the community or care homes, is a big number.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, we now have ONS figures for week to April 10th (18,500 deaths). 80% up on 5 year average, and that week included Good Friday this year, when no registrars are open, so we can expect it to be a couple thousand higher.
That's the highest figure since the first week of January 2000 (a week in which you get a spike due to both the winter and the closure of registrars over Christmas and New Year).
Also note, ONS figures thus far average at 40% higher for Covid-19 deaths than those announced at the same time at the briefings. So if that continues, and it is likely to increase over time, then we're likely to be over 23,000 deaths, at least, currently. Importantly, flu and pneumonia deaths remain consistent with the average.
1. Oil supplies cost money to store, and the world's oil storage infastructure is pretty full right now because of months of slack demand and a recent price war with several suppliers. People looking to take delivery of oil are going to have to build facilities to put it in, or rent them in a panic market, so the price of storage is temporarily higher than the value of the extra barrels of oil. That causes a temporary price inversion until demand rises, supply drops off, or storage gets built. Consider the storage built is usually paid for across multiple economic cycles, but people forced to buy it this week are putting its cost up against the price of the oil it can hold .. this week.
2. We don't have solid data on Covid yet. Two major strains affect the West and East coast of the USA respectively. The asymptomatic carriers appear to be a more significant issue in the population than previously suspected, especially on the west coast. Data from China is best described as a series of lies. Data from other nations are best treated skeptically at best. Data from NYC now includes as "corona deaths" the deaths that "might be corona related but might not In an annual basis, up to 60k people drop from the flu in the USA , but the Variance year to year of the deaths of flu victims is intense -- 60 to 80k in 2017throuh18, but only about 12k in 2018-19. So when you now look at 19-20, its REAL easy to have covid appear to kill 5 times as many as the flu... if you look at just the year before. A virus thought to be 10 times more destructive than influenza when its believed to have only 250,000 cases is suddenly FAR less ominous if its reall y 2.5 million people infected, or 25 millions, and the known cases merely represent the worst affected.
3. Politics in modern US life is the death of truth. Mark carefully who treats falsely in all this and never let them win again. Note that there are good and evil on any end of the spectrum politically. It is extremely worrisome how we dehumanize the opposite political spectrum.
I can't believe we're doing this again. We've gone over the "it's just the flu" thing about a hundred pages back.
Simple numbers crunching then already disproved it. The sheer number of deaths in just a few weeks (not a year!) since then has conclusively destroyed it. Please stop spouting that horsehockey.
Epidemiologic data is often incredibly sensitive, there were whole decades when the death rates from HIV in africa were considered classified data because it was thought that revealing such to the world would destablilize the affected governments. Especially the photos from orbiting cameras that showed the damage to agrarian areas, the NASA analyists were first asked what they were, and then, to bury the information, when people figured out something was erasing humanity village by village.
Many govermental health agencies shade their data one way or another, to make themselves look good or make their situation look worthy of assistance. Some do so for other reasons. Many people in very different countries have different testing regimes and different criteria for what they do and do not consider to be the infection rate.
Certainly the data from China has been shown to be mistrustable, starting with "where did this virus come from" and ending with "does it infect dogs and can it pass from person to person." Chinese communists are not the only people capable of lie or bias in reporting, though. From what I have heard, Russia/Moscow is in a fairly bad way, but underrporting the instance there. I expect much of the world to be similar. Few people want to be the bearer of bad news in such matters, and it can skew reporting low.
Overreporting is just as likely to occur as people realize that subsidies and aid money come with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Relax friend, I am not saying its just the flu -- I even went and edited my post a bit to clarify that -- I was trying to list out variosu things that are making our models for the virus unreliable. The comparison to flu (and copd deaths) and the potential to confound them is just an easy example to use.
Dukeofstuff wrote: Epidemiologic data is often incredibly sensitive, there were whole decades when the death rates from HIV in africa were considered classified data because it was thought that revealing such to the world would destablilize the affected governments. Especially the photos from orbiting cameras that showed the damage to agrarian areas, the NASA analyists were first asked what they were, and then, to bury the information, when people figured out something was erasing humanity village by village.
Many govermental health agencies shade their data one way or another, to make themselves look good or make their situation look worthy of assistance. Some do so for other reasons. Many people in very different countries have different testing regimes and different criteria for what they do and do not consider to be the infection rate.
Certainly the data from China has been shown to be mistrustable, starting with "where did this virus come from" and ending with "does it infect dogs and can it pass from person to person." Chinese communists are not the only people capable of lie or bias in reporting, though. From what I have heard, Russia/Moscow is in a fairly bad way, but underrporting the instance there. I expect much of the world to be similar. Few people want to be the bearer of bad news in such matters, and it can skew reporting low.
Overreporting is just as likely to occur as people realize that subsidies and aid money come with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Relax friend, I am not saying its just the flu -- I even went and edited my post a bit to clarify that -- I was trying to list out variosu things that are making our models for the virus unreliable. The comparison to flu (and copd deaths) and the potential to confound them is just an easy example to use.
I mean, you bring up the two arch authoritharian countries, relying on success for legitimacy.
And yes grain of salt to these i can understand.
But torwards france or italy, which have been really open about their issues (Elssas hotspot etc) or germany or austria or the dutch seems a bit off overall.
As for subsidies, they generally get handed out not to the cases but torwards the economy, and even though we (swiss) have manged for exemple one fo the fastest possible relief efforts that still requires quite a bit of paperwork delieverd to get access to that relief.
So i highly doubt the supposed overreporting of cases and more torwards overreporting of losses economically. and even that can be mitigated by propper work of government and banking.
insaniak wrote: This could be a good time for cafes and restaurants to add in a professional-looking, AV- and WiFi-equipped meeting room, if they don't already have one...
I'm sure restaurant owners simply cannot wait to spend money right now.
Context matters. I was talking about the post-coronavirus business environment, not suggesting that they should literally be adding extensions onto their buildings this instant.
Data from other nations are best treated skeptically at best
In what way? And more importantly why?
US people think US only as particularly trustworthy. In practice especially for past few years US is rather dubious source if you want actual facts.
While I wouldn't go anywhere near that far, it is certainly a strange assertion to make from the country who's highest ranking individual made it clear he likes to fudge numbers:
"I would rather—because I like the numbers being where they are. I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault."
Data from other nations are best treated skeptically at best
In what way? And more importantly why?
US people think US only as particularly trustworthy. In practice especially for past few years US is rather dubious source if you want actual facts.
While I wouldn't go anywhere near that far, it is certainly a strange assertion to make from the country who's highest ranking individual made it clear he likes to fudge numbers:
"I would rather—because I like the numbers being where they are. I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault."
So Basically the cases count not because not from us ?
That's Like we not counting french or italians we treat for them torwards our ventilator cap because we have as Off yet still some capacity left. These people still exist and are in the Same system.
In some positive news my car insurance is giving me some money back, in what I assume is some sort of weird version of profit share, in that the money that they are usually paying out for claims may be piling up due to less road accidents or something.. Its not much but better than nothing. If you're with admiral, then look for an email.
Data from other nations are best treated skeptically at best
In what way? And more importantly why?
US people think US only as particularly trustworthy. In practice especially for past few years US is rather dubious source if you want actual facts.
This is a longstanding issue that requires some context. Media handling in the USA is very different, with a long tradition of media being a unoffical channel to reveal corruption, scandal and other items that the government wouldn't want revealed. Unlike most other nations, the media in the USA is seen as a political force in its own right on par with major political factions and with a long tradition of the government taking a hands-off approach to its regulation. This is why Americans tend to be skeptical of non-US sources of media, seeing them as too connected to foreign government control or tied to cultures that suppress free media expression. Its a fascinating topic we could spin off a thread for. You really don't get a good idea of just how different the perceptions are until an American sidles up to you and says you can't trust 'them guys in the BBC' or worse, Canadian News. Its also why the idea of facebook suppressing certain news stories is such an new and scandalous development for Americans.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Oil has dropped to its lowest price in history.. Under $0 a barrel.. Not sure how that works. Maybe someone who understands economics can explain it
Similar to negative equity I'd imagine. The oil costs more to make then it sells for on the open market.
Costs more to store. Storage capacity is filling up for WTI related facilities.
In the last month, far more people died in these countries than in previous years, The New York Times found. The totals include deaths from Covid-19 as well as those from other causes, likely including people who could not be treated as hospitals became overwhelmed.
[…]
But the total death numbers offer a more complete portrait of the pandemic, experts say, especially because most countries report only those Covid-19 deaths that occur in hospitals.
[…]
It is unusual for mortality data to be released so quickly, demographers say, but many countries are working to provide more comprehensive and timely information because of the urgency of the coronavirus outbreak. The data is limited and, if anything, excess deaths are underestimated because not all deaths have been reported.
He was the 'mask for airbrushing guy', but in fairness, he quickly mostly repented?
Quite a few states (TN, FL and GA) are opening up on Friday - letting nail and hair salons, massage parlors and body art studios have at it - as long as they somehow also follow social distancing guidelines? And with Monday seeing GA add in restaurants (in-restaurant dining!) and movie theaters...
Wait hair and nail whilst maintaining social distancing? How do you even achieve that?
I guess for nails you can put up a screen and have them put their fingers through a gap; wash them and disinfect them and then work on them; but I'm baffled how you can do hair without coming into contact with a person.
A fair few places can adapt - eg food outlets could close indoor seating and only allow out door; then also distribute food through a pickup and collect at the window etc... There's ways to work things provided outdoor seating is well spaced.
Alpharius wrote: He was the 'mask for airbrushing guy', but in fairness, he quickly mostly repented?
Quite a few states (TN, FL and GA) are opening up on Friday - letting nail and hair salons, massage parlors and body art studios have at it - as long as they somehow also follow social distancing guidelines? And with Monday seeing GA add in restaurants (in-restaurant dining!) and movie theaters...
I cant honestly imagine getting a tattoo right now. I can understand opening restaurants with limited seating and hours But why open these first? These are things people can go months without and most people never even consider. With them also being the businesses that have the most contact between customers/provider. Also, to people who need haircuts......did no one in their family learn remedial hair cutting? I was taught that growing up as was most of my family.
It started coming up fairly early on, so there has been time to do proper controlled studies on it (rather than giving it to patients who are likely to die anyway, and hoping the drug is what tilts the odds)
Even in the non-clinical trials, there weren't enough reports of consistent positive results for it to be likely.
I hadn't realized it actually raised the death rate though. One more reason to muzzle people who want to declare success and make recommendations before actual research is done.
That said, there is still more work to be done with this, so it is good there are other trials ongoing. The higher death rate may be influenced by the very nature of VA hospitals, with a higher average of older patients with heart conditions, for example. [Sure, there could be a higher proportion of 'Desert Wars' vets, but typically when I think of VA hospitals, I think a higher number of Vietnam era vets.
Voss wrote: I hadn't realized it actually raised the death rate though. One more reason to muzzle people who want to declare success and make recommendations before actual research is done.
That said, there is still more work to be done with this, so it is good there are other trials ongoing. The higher death rate may be influenced by the very nature of VA hospitals, with a higher average of older patients with heart conditions, for example. [Sure, there could be a higher proportion of 'Desert Wars' vets, but typically when I think of VA hospitals, I think a higher number of Vietnam era vets.
I mean, the drug's an immunosuppressant with severe cardiological and vision related side effects, and they're administering it at at least twice the normal dosage used to treat Lupus. Yeah, it's gonna kill a lot of people.
Quite a few states (TN, FL and GA) are opening up on Friday - letting nail and hair salons, massage parlors and body art studios have at it - as long as they somehow also follow social distancing guidelines? And with Monday seeing GA add in restaurants (in-restaurant dining!) and movie theaters...
WOULD THE USA KINDLY TAKE SOCIAL DISTANCING SERIOUSLY SO NORTH AMERICA CAN OPEN UP SOMETIME IN THE NEXT YEAR?
Laughing Man wrote: I mean, the drug's an immunosuppressant with severe cardiological and vision related side effects, and they're administering it at at least twice the normal dosage used to treat Lupus. Yeah, it's gonna kill a lot of people.
I wonder how many people literally died from that specific out-of-the-blue line of bs.
Data from other nations are best treated skeptically at best
In what way? And more importantly why?
US people think US only as particularly trustworthy. In practice especially for past few years US is rather dubious source if you want actual facts.
Almost.
Americans think only sources THEY AGREE WITH are trustworthy, and there's almost always an element of political bias and partisan identity in it.
To be fair, that's not just an American trait.
With the way our media works in the UK, especially TV news which is required by law to be impartial and non-partisan (unlike our print media) we quite often get the comical situation of both sides of a political divide claiming the BBC, for example, is biased against them at the same time. Mostly, though, the UK approach to TV news seems to work quite well. At least when I was studying journalism the BBC was seen as among the most reliable and balanced news sources. That was almost 20 years ago now so attitudes within the industry may have changed but I haven't detected anything like that from friends within the news media industry.
Data from other nations are best treated skeptically at best
In what way? And more importantly why?
US people think US only as particularly trustworthy. In practice especially for past few years US is rather dubious source if you want actual facts.
This is a longstanding issue that requires some context. Media handling in the USA is very different, with a long tradition of media being a unoffical channel to reveal corruption, scandal and other items that the government wouldn't want revealed. Unlike most other nations, the media in the USA is seen as a political force in its own right on par with major political factions and with a long tradition of the government taking a hands-off approach to its regulation. This is why Americans tend to be skeptical of non-US sources of media, seeing them as too connected to foreign government control or tied to cultures that suppress free media expression. Its a fascinating topic we could spin off a thread for. You really don't get a good idea of just how different the perceptions are until an American sidles up to you and says you can't trust 'them guys in the BBC' or worse, Canadian News. Its also why the idea of facebook suppressing certain news stories is such an new and scandalous development for Americans.
The media as "fourth power" or "innoffical anti corruption channel" is hardly unique.
Also Free media expression, most of the western world has freedom of press. The exemptions beeing Russia, Hungary, and Turkey aswell as belarus.
I am however interested as to why that attitude in regards to foreign media showed up.
With the way our media works in the UK, especially TV news which is required by law to be impartial and non-partisan (unlike our print media) we quite often get the comical situation of both sides of a political divide claiming the BBC, for example, is biased against them at the same time. Mostly, though, the UK approach to TV news seems to work quite well. At least when I was studying journalism the BBC was seen as among the most reliable and balanced news sources. That was almost 20 years ago now so attitudes within the industry may have changed but I haven't detected anything like that from friends within the news media industry.
I only ever really heard good things about the BBC, and in general i do like their documentaries.
However they are not above pitfalls.... Considering their craddle of populism exhibit some time ago
I don't criticise the BBC as much as some, but it is clear that recently, some of their personalities personal political opinions definitely coloured some of their reporting on certain events.
however, if you lean to the harder ends of the political spectrum, anyone in the centre generally looks like (or can be painted to look like) someone from the opposite end.
They have had some wacky ideas lately, like the absurd proposal of a broadband levy in lieu of the TV licence possibly being scrapped.
This might prove useful reading from someone who contracted a severe case and survived. She notes that fatigue and muscular pain were more important than a cough.
Quite a few states (TN, FL and GA) are opening up on Friday - letting nail and hair salons, massage parlors and body art studios have at it - as long as they somehow also follow social distancing guidelines? And with Monday seeing GA add in restaurants (in-restaurant dining!) and movie theaters...
Those dates do not even match the President's/Federal guidelines on re-opening? The gates have 14 day intervals and restaurants are in gate 2 IIRC?
Locally to me, there were also protesters to "re-open the economy" at the Wyoming state capital. However, Wyoming didn't even have a statewide lockdown order? The lockdowns were all driven by local communities, counties, cities, school districts, and businesses? So, I am unsure what these people were actually protesting? I guess they didn't even know what the heck they were protesting?
Those protests then gave these "Red state" governors just enough political cover to make these rapid changes. Last I heard, GA was close to ICU bed limits all ready, so its not like they are doing great? Strange decision as far as I can tell. I never realized that something like this would be so political.
Quite a few states (TN, FL and GA) are opening up on Friday - letting nail and hair salons, massage parlors and body art studios have at it - as long as they somehow also follow social distancing guidelines? And with Monday seeing GA add in restaurants (in-restaurant dining!) and movie theaters...
Those dates do not even match the President's/Federal guidelines on re-opening? The gates have 14 day intervals and restaurants are in gate 2 IIRC?
Locally to me, there were also protesters to "re-open the economy" at the Wyoming state capital. However, Wyoming didn't even have a statewide lockdown order? The lockdowns were all driven by local communities, counties, cities, school districts, and businesses? So, I am unsure what these people were actually protesting? I guess they didn't even know what the heck they were protesting?
Those protests then gave these "Red state" governors just enough political cover to make these rapid changes. Last I heard, GA was close to ICU bed limits all ready, so its not like they are doing great? Strange decision as far as I can tell. I never realized that something like this would be so political.
There's a huge internal economic pressure for our state to reopen, if at the national level we're no longer required or encouraged to isolate.
Balancing that is our huge population of retirees- we're a state with a very large vulnerable population. It is going to be very, very messy until we get a vaccine.
There's even talk of Disney running a temperature scanning booth at the entrance, and reopening in the early summer.
Those protests then gave these "Red state" governors just enough political cover to make these rapid changes. Last I heard, GA was close to ICU bed limits all ready, so its not like they are doing great? Strange decision as far as I can tell. I never realized that something like this would be so political.
It would always be political, it just seems that the US is starting early. I think most countries are in the boat that they'll muscle through with what they've got and then the fallout after its all over is when the politicians start infighting over what went wrong/right. I think the USA situation has been created early because of the lack of a united political front not aided by the President himself taking a very different angle. Because of that lack of unity from the top its basically drawn the battle lines and confused people at the bottom end.
Quite a few states (TN, FL and GA) are opening up on Friday - letting nail and hair salons, massage parlors and body art studios have at it - as long as they somehow also follow social distancing guidelines? And with Monday seeing GA add in restaurants (in-restaurant dining!) and movie theaters...
Those dates do not even match the President's/Federal guidelines on re-opening? The gates have 14 day intervals and restaurants are in gate 2 IIRC?
Locally to me, there were also protesters to "re-open the economy" at the Wyoming state capital. However, Wyoming didn't even have a statewide lockdown order? The lockdowns were all driven by local communities, counties, cities, school districts, and businesses? So, I am unsure what these people were actually protesting? I guess they didn't even know what the heck they were protesting?
Those protests then gave these "Red state" governors just enough political cover to make these rapid changes. Last I heard, GA was close to ICU bed limits all ready, so its not like they are doing great? Strange decision as far as I can tell. I never realized that something like this would be so political.
Former FDA head summed it up nicely:
Gyms, nail salons, bowling alleys, hair salons, tattoo parlors — it feels like they collected, you know, a list of the businesses that, you know, were most risky and decided to open those first.
And remember that it appears there's astroturfing going on with these protests. Even if it's pointless in Wyoming, it's still valuable for making news and spreading via social media to push a narrative. And influence our chief executive.
Everything is political now, and our country is going to pay a steep price for it. I feel awful about what's likely to happen in the South. I have family in Georgia and I'm worried for them.
Data from other nations are best treated skeptically at best
In what way? And more importantly why?
US people think US only as particularly trustworthy. In practice especially for past few years US is rather dubious source if you want actual facts.
This is a longstanding issue that requires some context. Media handling in the USA is very different, with a long tradition of media being a unoffical channel to reveal corruption, scandal and other items that the government wouldn't want revealed. Unlike most other nations, the media in the USA is seen as a political force in its own right on par with major political factions and with a long tradition of the government taking a hands-off approach to its regulation. This is why Americans tend to be skeptical of non-US sources of media, seeing them as too connected to foreign government control or tied to cultures that suppress free media expression. Its a fascinating topic we could spin off a thread for. You really don't get a good idea of just how different the perceptions are until an American sidles up to you and says you can't trust 'them guys in the BBC' or worse, Canadian News. Its also why the idea of facebook suppressing certain news stories is such an new and scandalous development for Americans.
Another way to look at it: we have an imperfect system of distributing news.
One of the things most people don't know: there is no standard for reporting how someone dies. Not globally, not regionally, not specific to any healthcare system.
Sure, there's usually a death certificate that lists some cause. But there's no agreement around the role of co-morbidity factors, doctors sometimes report what they are familiar with, some places require autopsies for all deaths while others do not, those autopsies vary wildly in terms of what is actually analyzed, etc.
You'd never figure this out from listening to the news. There are some things that are too big to accurately understand. Death is one of them. Our best measures of morbidity right now are self-reported gauges, not apples-to-apples comparisons.
Most US Media is commercial and gets its revenue from advertising dollars. There's a profit motive involved in every decision about what to report on. This heavily plays into media bias, which is often political. But there's also an efficiency bias, we don't really have investigative reporters they way we once did. People hear numbers and report on them uncritically, knowing that most people just read the headlines and move on. It's really hard to describe how much media is produced in the US every day, publishers generate more information than is contained in the Library of Congress every three days.
So you kind of swim in a sea of information. When something catches your attention, you may do a deep dive, knowing its imperfect. For the big things - death, economy, taxes, etc - you have to look at multiple sources to get the real story. This includes the international press, non-profits, industry reports, etc. And often what leads you to these sources is beacons, things like stock prices, value of currency, political news from overseas that doesn't jive with something you read.
While I wish it were different, it's hard to get at other people's perspectives right now. We just have too many people talking, information has become a barrier to knowledge and insight. It takes a little effort to get past the barriers our commercial media imposes.
This might prove useful reading from someone who contracted a severe case and survived. She notes that fatigue and muscular pain were more important than a cough.
Wow. When a woman with kids says "this hurts more than childbirth" it's pretty serious.
On the subject of reporting deaths its also important to note that outside of a major epidemic the reporting of deaths doesn't typically need to be that fast a process. Nor does the data having t obe pool and collated at the regional and national levels have any great pressure on it to be done instantly. So I suspect there's a lot of moving parts within the system that are overloaded because they aren't designed to operate at high speed.
Gyms, nail salons, bowling alleys, hair salons, tattoo parlors — it feels like they collected, you know, a list of the businesses that, you know, were most risky and decided to open those first.
To call a spade a spade, these are the places privileged, white, suburban middle class people are "jonesing" for the most right now. I have heard my corporate peers moan about it a lot lately.
Meanwhile, I am sheltering in place like crazy as my wife and daughter are high-risk.
Gyms, nail salons, bowling alleys, hair salons, tattoo parlors — it feels like they collected, you know, a list of the businesses that, you know, were most risky and decided to open those first.
To call a spade a spade, these are the places privileged, white, suburban middle class people are "jonesing" for the most right now. I have heard my corporate peers moan about it a lot lately.
Meanwhile, I am sheltering in place like crazy as my wife and daughter are high-risk.
Again i ask, are these people sooo unable to entertain themselves that they couldnt last a few weeks without.......bowling?
and NAil Salons? Talk about Peak Privilege,
Gyms, nail salons, bowling alleys, hair salons, tattoo parlors — it feels like they collected, you know, a list of the businesses that, you know, were most risky and decided to open those first.
To call a spade a spade, these are the places privileged, white, suburban middle class people are "jonesing" for the most right now. I have heard my corporate peers moan about it a lot lately.
Meanwhile, I am sheltering in place like crazy as my wife and daughter are high-risk.
I can't help but notice that the states that are opening up early are also the states that have the most messed up unemployment systems. So this is what you could call a twofer, get some of those service employees off the rolls.
Ouze wrote: I desperately need a haircut, but I have no idea how the barber can do it from 6 feet away.
(snip) You'll live for a few more weeks to months without one, and so will everyone else. I promise.
I know. I'm not one of those - I was responding to someone above me who I should have quoted, who mentioned barbershops could open with "proper social distancing". I'm glad I posted it because the responses were delightful though.
I have no desire to open early. My stepson had brain cancer when he was young and is deeply, deeply immunocompromised. No one will see my hair now anyway, I assure you it wasn't a real complaint.
Facepalm is about right reaction for this. People gathered together, corona cases spiked up. Hardly surprising turn of events.
In biology we call this "natural selection".
Too bad they are draining resources and causing deaths to people who were smart. Maybe there should be change in law where if you take part of that kind of acts you forfeit all your rights for medical health care if you get sick from the thing you are warned against. Not just forfeit but becomes illegal to treat you. You take unneccessary risk, bear the responsibility. Then it's risk/reward for you and damage you cause to others with your stupidity is reduced at least a bit(though you still could cause innocents to die because of your stupidity)
I wonder if the people who organized these demonstrations and acts of defiance can end up in prison later for it? If it's proven their acts lead to more corona cases then why not?
This might prove useful reading from someone who contracted a severe case and survived. She notes that fatigue and muscular pain were more important than a cough.
Wonder if my wife and I had it back in February then. Had the muscle pains and fatigue, but no cough. Got tested gor Flu but came back negative. Took me out of work for a week.
Matt Swain wrote: I wonder if the people who organized these demonstrations and acts of defiance can end up in prison later for it? If it's proven their acts lead to more corona cases then why not?
Question there is under which specific law (reckless endangerment?), and whether it can actually be proven a specific infection stemmed from their attendance.
This might prove useful reading from someone who contracted a severe case and survived. She notes that fatigue and muscular pain were more important than a cough.
Wonder if my wife and I had it back in February then. Had the muscle pains and fatigue, but no cough. Got tested gor Flu but came back negative. Took me out of work for a week.
Possible I guess, but those kinds of symptoms can be caused by anything that would create an interferon response from your body. It's not really the bug itself that causes the fever, aches, chills, etc. It's your body's response.
This might prove useful reading from someone who contracted a severe case and survived. She notes that fatigue and muscular pain were more important than a cough.
Wonder if my wife and I had it back in February then. Had the muscle pains and fatigue, but no cough. Got tested gor Flu but came back negative. Took me out of work for a week.
My mother had something similar to that as well back around Feb/March time. That said its all way before it was even reported being outside of China.
Thing is the symptoms are not totally unique to it and there's a rafter of other things that can show similar outward symptoms. What does stand out is the infection speed and rate. Whatever it was earlier in the year didn't show the rampant spread that Corona is showing right now. Even where there's very few cases entering a country, if it gets into a major urban area for a week then it spreads at a very fast rate.
Another aspect is lung damage which seems to be the hidden long term impact, though how much of that is pure corona and how much is other things like ventilators and pneumonia is still hard to work out at this stage as we don't really have data on long term recovery patients.
Facepalm is about right reaction for this. People gathered together, corona cases spiked up. Hardly surprising turn of events.
In biology we call this "natural selection".
Too bad they are draining resources and causing deaths to people who were smart. Maybe there should be change in law where if you take part of that kind of acts you forfeit all your rights for medical health care if you get sick from the thing you are warned against. Not just forfeit but becomes illegal to treat you. You take unneccessary risk, bear the responsibility. Then it's risk/reward for you and damage you cause to others with your stupidity is reduced at least a bit(though you still could cause innocents to die because of your stupidity)
What is your objection to any form of liberty? I'm not justifying the actions of the people in the article, but you the way you talk is incredibly disturbing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt Swain wrote: I wonder if the people who organized these demonstrations and acts of defiance can end up in prison later for it? If it's proven their acts lead to more corona cases then why not?
Matt Swain wrote: I wonder if the people who organized these demonstrations and acts of defiance can end up in prison later for it? If it's proven their acts lead to more corona cases then why not?
Question there is under which specific law (reckless endangerment?), and whether it can actually be proven a specific infection stemmed from their attendance.
It can't. Unless you had someone who they knew was infected and was legally required to be quarantined.
For me, it’s the same objection to people refusing to vaccinate their kids, drink drive, set fire to the bottom flat in my building etc.
You want to take risks? Absolutely fine with me. Not a problem. Your body, your choice, your legacy.
But, when your actions come with an impact others around you? That’s where some form of line has to be drawn. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many.
That’s the very basis of Law, is it not? And when the Law is broken, there are repercussions for the harming party.
And this is an animal well known for its social distancing. I had an experience at a relatives house where I was there for two weeks and never once saw their cat. My dogs sleep, cuddle, everything within an arms length from me.
(I wish we had an orkmnoticon of an ork crossing his fingers.) Keep watching this space....
robably more than SARS 1, SARS 2/ COVID 19 seems to supress fevers more than usual. A lot of people have the virus, don't know they have it and have no fever at all. This may be the reason the virus is able to replicate and spread. (calm before the storm) So if we can increase the core body temperature using whatever techniques are available like contrast showers, hydro thermal therapy, hot bath then cold, this might actually help speed up recovery and not spread the virus.
I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. 
