Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’
I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: 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.
Yes, but those things are crimes and put people at immediate, provable risk (mostly. Obviously not vaccinating your kids is not a crime, and nor should it be) but this is completely different. You can't accuse people of a 'supposed' crime with no proof, simply for being in a crowd. Spreading the virus is not a crime (and again, nor should it be except maybe in certain malicious circumstances)
You might aswell say that people who do extreme sports shouldn't have their injuries repaired, because, well they chose to do that activity.
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.
It sounds like anger at people for doing really stupid things that endanger them (no objection there) and others (who get no say here), like being bound together by a rope and one person randomly jumping off a cliff because it's their right and not caring how this affects everybody else.
Those people have increasing the infection rate which in turn will most probably strain medical services and cause even more deaths. Just for some messes up posturing about freedom. And on top of that it might lead to this whole corona thing lasting even longer and thus being counterproductive to their actual goals. It's idiocy squared and an example where one's freedom can significantly affect others but those people don't give a feth because it's about their idea of "freedom" and not about actual real issues and consequences.
They act like toddlers who have no idea that their actions have consequences. Maybe they need to learn from this and hey, the USA likes a retributive justice system. It would be only fair. Reap what you sow and all that :/
Future War Cultist wrote: Where does this stop though? When a drink driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’
I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.
Exactly. This insistence on trying to make criminals out of everyone simply because of some preconceived threat that you've projected onto them is a very worrying mindset that seems to be prevalent among lots of people.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: [You might aswell say that people who do extreme sports shouldn't have their injuries repaired, because, well they chose to do that activity.
If their injuries were infectious and would affect others then I'd say yes, give their victims priority.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: 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.
Yes, but those things are crimes and put people at immediate, provable risk (mostly. Obviously not vaccinating your kids is not a crime, and nor should it be) but this is completely different. You can't accuse people of a 'supposed' crime with no proof, simply for being in a crowd. Spreading the virus is not a crime (and again, nor should it be except maybe in certain malicious circumstances)
You might aswell say that people who do extreme sports shouldn't have their injuries repaired, because, well they chose to do that activity.
Oddly enough on the EXTREEEEEEEEEME WOOOOOO RADICAL! Sports? Most travel insurance policies don’t cover them, or injuries relating to them.
On the vaccine thing, I strongly disagree with you, but that’s a whole other thread, and possibly not one for Dakka, so we’ll have to leave that there
Given we know the vectors of the virus, and steps to reduce the risk really aren’t even remotely draconian (social distancing, good basic hygiene, try not to move yourself from a to b unnecessary) these gatherings are wilfully reckless.
That both sides of the political spectrum are going for cheap shots over it is a different problem - and no more justifiable.
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.
It sounds like anger at people for doing really stupid things that endanger them (no objection there) and others (who get no say here), like being bound together by a rope and one person randomly jumping off a cliff because it's their right and not caring how this affects everybody else.
Those people have increasing the infection rate which in turn will most probably strain medical services and cause even more deaths. Just for some messes up posturing about freedom. And on top of that it might lead to this whole corona thing lasting even longer and thus being counterproductive to their actual goals. It's idiocy squared and an example where one's freedom can significantly affect others but those people don't give a feth because it's about their idea of "freedom" and not about actual real issues and consequences.
They act like toddlers who have no idea that their actions have consequences. Maybe they need to learn from this and hey, the USA likes a retributive justice system. It would be only fair. Reap what you sow and all that :/
So freedom isn't a real issue or a consequence?
I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.
There is no way of proving that they are increasing the spread of the virus. It could be that none of them have it.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: [You might aswell say that people who do extreme sports shouldn't have their injuries repaired, because, well they chose to do that activity.
If their injuries were infectious and would affect others then I'd say yes, give their victims priority.
It's a good thing medical practice works on a triage basis and not on your lines then isn't it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oddly enough on the EXTREEEEEEEEEME WOOOOOO RADICAL! Sports? Most travel insurance policies don’t cover them, or injuries relating to them.
I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, it's the exact point - when one person endangers others under the guise of "freedummmm!!!!" it's not their right - as you said.
You can't engage with it because it undermines your position.
The old phrase was "a person's right to swing their fist ends where another person's nose begins", unfortunately we live in a day and age where idiots subscribe to "my freedom to swing my fist is absolute and if you try to stop me I'll shoot you with my AR-15"
Future War Cultist wrote: Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’
I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.
We cart them off to the hospital...then put them on trial and/or suspend their licenses. We don’t pretend that they had the right to endanger lives and suffer no consequences for it.
Honestly, it is one thing to protest it's a whole other doing this recklessly , especially when social distancing guidelines have proven to be effective.
Also the idea behind is Intent, if i go to These Protests with light symptoms knowingly then yes i should be Held acountable.
I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, it's the exact point - when one person endangers others under the guise of "freedummmm!!!!" it's not their right - as you said.
You can't engage with it because it undermines your position.
The old phrase was "a person's right to swing their fist ends where another person's nose begins", unfortunately we live in a day and age where idiots subscribe to "my freedom to swing my fist is absolute and if you try to stop me I'll shoot you with my AR-15"
Tbf we also have the opposite Off people claiming to be for freedom of speech but also supposedly have a right to not be offended.
In General i feel common sense Standards have slipped...
To be honest dude, I think your main, apparent disconnect here is understanding what lockdowns are trying to achieve.
I mean, I don’t like not being able to go to the pub, or the gaming club, or not seeing my colleagues (close knit team, all of whom are ace)
But? This Is The Way. We suck it up collectively in the short term. This reduces overall infections, and can, in theory, keep whole areas virus free.
In turn, that means hospitals (private and NHS) aren’t facing a full strain. That alone saves lives - and not just from those with the Virus. I mean, if the beds are full, and someone has a heart attack? What happens then? What if someone is run over? Breaks a leg? Or as happened with me circa 1994, gets their through a window and is losing blood really fast?
Right now, it’s not great. I’d love to be able to spend my new found free time doing something, anything other than sitting around at home.
With fewer people out and about, and nobody getting hammered and running afoul of a weekend, it also helps to reduce avoidable trips to hospitals. It’s limitation, for now. And in time, this could see it eradicated - just need to starve it of new hosts.
And don’t forget, we’ve at least two labs moving straight to human trials with a vaccine. One is in Oxford University. Whether it’ll work? Well, I don’t bloody know. I’m not a Doctor. But hopefully those working on it have a strong enough knowledge of existing Flu Vaccines to be able to reliably tweak it.
We the populace just need to grin and bear it. Stiff upper lip, old boy. Good old British Stoicism. For a few weeks, maybe months.
But the logic is sound. The evidence is there. The benefits are tangible and measurable.
I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, it's the exact point - when one person endangers others under the guise of "freedummmm!!!!" it's not their right - as you said.
You can't engage with it because it undermines your position.
The old phrase was "a person's right to swing their fist ends where another person's nose begins", unfortunately we live in a day and age where idiots subscribe to "my freedom to swing my fist is absolute and if you try to stop me I'll shoot you with my AR-15"
No, knowingly killing a bunch of people and yourself is not freedom, it's a crime. I can't really say it any other way. It's an irrelevant example.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: To be honest dude, I think your main, apparent disconnect here is understanding what lockdowns are trying to achieve.
I mean, I don’t like not being able to go to the pub, or the gaming club, or not seeing my colleagues (close knit team, all of whom are ace)
But? This Is The Way. We suck it up collectively in the short term. This reduces overall infections, and can, in theory, keep whole areas virus free.
In turn, that means hospitals (private and NHS) aren’t facing a full strain. That alone saves lives - and not just from those with the Virus. I mean, if the beds are full, and someone has a heart attack? What happens then? What if someone is run over? Breaks a leg? Or as happened with me circa 1994, gets their through a window and is losing blood really fast?
Right now, it’s not great. I’d love to be able to spend my new found free time doing something, anything other than sitting around at home.
With fewer people out and about, and nobody getting hammered and running afoul of a weekend, it also helps to reduce avoidable trips to hospitals. It’s limitation, for now. And in time, this could see it eradicated - just need to starve it of new hosts.
And don’t forget, we’ve at least two labs moving straight to human trials with a vaccine. One is in Oxford University. Whether it’ll work? Well, I don’t bloody know. I’m not a Doctor. But hopefully those working on it have a strong enough knowledge of existing Flu Vaccines to be able to reliably tweak it.
We the populace just need to grin and bear it. Stiff upper lip, old boy. Good old British Stoicism. For a few weeks, maybe months.
But the logic is sound. The evidence is there. The benefits are tangible and measurable.
At no point have I ever really disagreed with anything you've said here. I understand the principles, and am doing my best to follow. What I object to is the unnecessary infringement on liberties, and, in this case, people's absurd desire to criminalise people simply because they disagree with their actions. It's almost like they can't see what a dangerous precedent that can potentially set.
I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, it's the exact point - when one person endangers others under the guise of "freedummmm!!!!" it's not their right - as you said.
You can't engage with it because it undermines your position.
The old phrase was "a person's right to swing their fist ends where another person's nose begins", unfortunately we live in a day and age where idiots subscribe to "my freedom to swing my fist is absolute and if you try to stop me I'll shoot you with my AR-15"
No, knowingly killing a bunch of people and yourself is not freedom, it's a crime. I can't really say it any other way. It's an irrelevant example.
Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.
Future War Cultist wrote: Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’
I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.
We cart them off to the hospital...then put them on trial and/or suspend their licenses. We don’t pretend that they had the right to endanger lives and suffer no consequences for it.
Because we run the risk of arguing with each other even though we’re on the same wavelength, by all means punish them for their reckless illegal behaviour, but don’t deny them lifesaving medical care, like one...poster...was wanting.
Future War Cultist wrote: Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’
I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.
We cart them off to the hospital...then put them on trial and/or suspend their licenses. We don’t pretend that they had the right to endanger lives and suffer no consequences for it.
Of course, no one is suggesting that. The point in the original post was the suggestion of withholding medical treatment based on someone's actions.
Future War Cultist wrote: Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’
I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.
We cart them off to the hospital...then put them on trial and/or suspend their licenses. We don’t pretend that they had the right to endanger lives and suffer no consequences for it.
Because we run the risk of arguing with each other even though we’re on the same wavelength, by all means punish them for their reckless illegal behaviour, but don’t deny them lifesaving medical care, like one...poster...was wanting.
Aye that would not just be potential killing reckless behaviour that 'd be killing.
And the last thing any responsible state should do is that
Future War Cultist wrote: Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’
I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.
We cart them off to the hospital...then put them on trial and/or suspend their licenses. We don’t pretend that they had the right to endanger lives and suffer no consequences for it.
Again, this is something we see reflected in Insurance policies.
It’s easy to lose sight of in the U.K., because we’ve the absolutely sterling NHS to scoop us up and patch us up. But, try finding any private insurance policy that’ll cough up for treatment following such stupidity?
Even Car Insurance won’t pay out if you were drink driving - because it’s an additional, predictable risk.
So in the US, and other countries without a NHS equivalent? Medical bills, car repair bills and any ensuing civil liability, and as we say in Scotland, ‘yer bums oot the windae’.
Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.
Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.
No it isn't. What a ridiculous statement.
Again deflection. I mean the entire thread has really shown what a farce "absolute freedum" ideology is when it comes to facing real world problems.
It's just a shame the plague spreaders are going to end up hurting more than themselves, and that some people don't find that objectionable.
Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.
No it isn't. What a ridiculous statement.
Knowingly acting in a manner which can spread a virus at a time when there's a pandemic is at the very least knowingly furthering the potential spread of the virus. You only need one person in the gathering to have it and then the entire gathering is potentially infected. They then take that home with them - infecting anyone they interact with along the way including at home. If they are further ignoring any safeguards then work, schools, shops etc.. are all additionally put at risk.
When the disease is known to be fatal then one can make the argument that knowingly ignoring safeguards and safepractice during a pandemic and actively engaging in activities which can further its spread is potentially exposing more people (who otherwise might not be exposed) to a potentially fatal condition.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It is though. I don’t get why you’re not getting this? To the point I’m really, genuinely starting to think your Poeing us?
How? By that logic, if I drive past a car, which then takes an action that kills someone, I should be at fault.
You're basically saying that everyone is infected, which just isn't the case. This is the problem. The media have duped everyone into believing that if anyone goes outside they are spreading this virus.
Now, of course some people have it and might potentially spread it unknowingly, but that isn't and cannot be a crime, with something that can be asymptomatic (otherwise I'd have cases against at least 2 of my former lovers)
Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.
No it isn't. What a ridiculous statement.
Knowingly acting in a manner which can spread a virus at a time when there's a pandemic is at the very least knowingly furthering the potential spread of the virus. You only need one person in the gathering to have it and then the entire gathering is potentially infected. They then take that home with them - infecting anyone they interact with along the way including at home. If they are further ignoring any safeguards then work, schools, shops etc.. are all additionally put at risk.
When the disease is known to be fatal then one can make the argument that knowingly ignoring safeguards and safepractice during a pandemic and actively engaging in activities which can further its spread is potentially exposing more people (who otherwise might not be exposed) to a potentially fatal condition.
The key word there is potentially. If I carry a knife in my bag, I could potentially murder someone with it. But if I don't, then there is no crime.
I agree with queenannesrevenge. The guy tied to another guy with a rope jumping off of a cliff is a bad example.
What we have here is a new restriction, that some people consider overly restrictive, and other people consider ignoring dangerous.
So I think it would be fair to say it's similar to a person who decides it is their right to drive through a particular intersection near their home whenever they want, even though a traffic light was installed. So they will run the red light because they think they know better than the city planners, and the other drivers. It may be harmless, or it may result in them T-boning a family.
Although risky to an unknown degree to yourself and others, it is not equivalent to jumping off of a cliff while tied to someone. Running red lights because you think you are more special than those sheep who follow traffic laws is plenty bad enough.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It is though. I don’t get why you’re not getting this? To the point I’m really, genuinely starting to think your Poeing us?
How? By that logic, if I drive past a car, which then takes an action that kills someone, I should be at fault.
You're basically saying that everyone is infected, which just isn't the case. This is the problem. The media have duped everyone into believing that if anyone goes outside they are spreading this virus.
Now, of course some people have it and might potentially spread it unknowingly, but that isn't and cannot be a crime, with something that can be asymptomatic (otherwise I'd have cases against at least 2 of my former lovers)
Got It In One.
That’s called proximate cause. Essentially, if my actions can be traced, directly, to the negligence of another driver? The fault and liability is not mine.
Example. You’re doing 40 in a 40 zone. Pootling along, minding your own business. Idiot Me pulls out of a junction, directly across your path (so, turning right in the U.K., left in the US). Your reaction is to swerve to avoid me. Unfortunately, you lose control, and your car goes through a wall or a hedge, and squishes someone in their garden.
There? Had it not been for my negligence, you simply wouldn’t have squished that person. That’s proximate cause. Provided you’ve a witness (passengers only count in Scotland) and my reg? You’re golden my dude.
That’s a pretty basic consideration in the insurance world.
As for “everyone thinks they’re spreading it”, you’re rather over egging the pudding. This is about ensuring those that do have it spread it to as few people as possible (ideally zero, naturally).
Look into the science behind it. This is not a conspiracy. This is not an overreaction or knee jerk. This is the simplest, most direct action that can be taken without a vaccine.
I think the time for protesting diminished public freedoms is if the legislation is still extant once the pandemic is past.
I'm more than happy to protest the infringement at that point.
Future War Cultist wrote: I was certain that laws against knowingly spreading diseases already existed even before the outbreak.
Oh they do in the U.K.
There are some sick minded people out there who know they have something unpleasant (up to and including HIV/AIDS) and choose to spread it. And yeah, successful prosecutions for just that.
Future War Cultist wrote: I was certain that laws against knowingly spreading diseases already existed even before the outbreak.
Knowingly yes, but you need proof that the person knowingly and maliciously spread it, which is pretty much impossible in these circumstances, or with any disease that can be asymptomatic.
Simply saying that people in a crowd are spreading a virus, is completely unfounded, unless there's someone with a proven positive test wandering around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: I think the time for protesting diminished public freedoms is if the legislation is still extant once the pandemic is past.
I'm more than happy to protest the infringement at that point.
It's too late by then.. The laws have been passed and precedents are set. Granted, there are sunset clauses, but given the government's performance with this bill, and previous historical examples, I think we have good grounds to predict that they will not simply be wiped away.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It is though. I don’t get why you’re not getting this? To the point I’m really, genuinely starting to think your Poeing us?
How? By that logic, if I drive past a car, which then takes an action that kills someone, I should be at fault.
You're basically saying that everyone is infected, which just isn't the case. This is the problem. The media have duped everyone into believing that if anyone goes outside they are spreading this virus.
Now, of course some people have it and might potentially spread it unknowingly, but that isn't and cannot be a crime, with something that can be asymptomatic (otherwise I'd have cases against at least 2 of my former lovers)
Got It In One.
That’s called proximate cause. Essentially, if my actions can be traced, directly, to the negligence of another driver? The fault and liability is not mine.
Example. You’re doing 40 in a 40 zone. Pootling along, minding your own business. Idiot Me pulls out of a junction, directly across your path (so, turning right in the U.K., left in the US). Your reaction is to swerve to avoid me. Unfortunately, you lose control, and your car goes through a wall or a hedge, and squishes someone in their garden.
There? Had it not been for my negligence, you simply wouldn’t have squished that person. That’s proximate cause. Provided you’ve a witness (passengers only count in Scotland) and my reg? You’re golden my dude.
That’s a pretty basic consideration in the insurance world.
As for “everyone thinks they’re spreading it”, you’re rather over egging the pudding. This is about ensuring those that do have it spread it to as few people as possible (ideally zero, naturally).
Look into the science behind it. This is not a conspiracy. This is not an overreaction or knee jerk. This is the simplest, most direct action that can be taken without a vaccine.
And again, I agree. I never said it was a conspiracy. I just take issue with people saying things like 'if you go outside you're spreading the virus' or suggesting criminalising and/or illegally punishing people with restriction of medical treatment, those who go against the guidance for whatever reason.
Also, I should've been clearer in my example, I didn't mean me doing something negligent.. I meant more like, say I happened to drive past a junction, making someone stop who otherwise wouldn't, who then drove down the road and hit someone for example. Technically my actions have some factor in the cause of that, but I'm long gone, and cannot be rationally blamed in any way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: They RISK spreading the virus. And from there, society RISKS the virus spreading ever further.
Look at the infection information. Just, take a look at it. Digest it. See the risk. Understand why these gatherings are frankly bloody stupid.
But that's my point, you can't criminalise risk, in this sense.
r_squared wrote: I think the time for protesting diminished public freedoms is if the legislation is still extant once the pandemic is past.
I'm more than happy to protest the infringement at that point.
It's too late by then.. The laws have been passed and precedents are set. Granted, there are sunset clauses, but given the government's performance with this bill, and previous historical examples, I think we have good grounds to predict that they will not simply be wiped away.
Well, your protests are too late now then, because the legislation is in place already.
However, legislation is not final and can be reviewed amended or withdrawn depending on the political impetuous.
Don't think that you're the only one who recognises the threat of hasty infringements, we have. We've just decided that we're prioritising our lives and those of our families over an ephemeral legal threat in the future.
We're not blind fools, we know what's happening. We've made a choice to support the actions that are being carried our at the moment. I think your problem is more with being told what to do, rather that the actual infringements themselves with which you already stated that you actually agree with.
That's a rather odd position to take for someone in the military mate.
The main issue this time is that the virus has a long incubation, where no symptoms show.
Previously, as mentioned a few pages ago, I was commuting to and from London, five days a week. That involved a coach journey, and being in an office with air conditioning ducts, with roughly 3,000 other people (not accounting for other businesses in the same building).
That’s.....that’s a lot of possible contact. Just one infected person in those circumstances could spread it to god knows how many.
Now? Well, there’s my flatmate, but we tend to stick to our relevant rooms(we get on fine, just both pretty quiet), and a trip to the supermarket a couple of times a week.
My potential vectors are massively reduced. So if, right now, I’m infected but it’s incubating? The spread will be inherently reduced.
As I mentioned above? It’s about damage limitation. Ensuring the health service and the finite resources associated aren’t overwhelmed, which keeps the mortality rate (and not just virus related) down.
This is why I really can’t shake the feeling you’re just on a wind up here.
Future War Cultist wrote: I was certain that laws against knowingly spreading diseases already existed even before the outbreak.
Knowingly yes, but you need proof that the person knowingly and maliciously spread it, which is pretty much impossible in these circumstances, or with any disease that can be asymptomatic.
Simply saying that people in a crowd are spreading a virus, is completely unfounded, unless there's someone with a proven positive test wandering around.
Which would be swell if we could actually test everyone at once, but we can't, so clearly the best course of action to save lives is to prevent people from gathering.
I've addressed that one before, in the military, orders must be legal. This is going back to the whole thing about police overreach, which has been done to death, and the media has covered it plenty, hopefully enough to shame the rest of them into sorting their acts out.
I have no real objection to authority, but I maintain a healthy questioning attitude to all governments and their policies, as should everyone, regardless whether its a government you support of not (I generally support bj government) its what our libertarian philosophies are built upon.
What this doesn't mean, as some seem to suggest, is that because of these views, I don't care about the current situation, or am not taking it seriously, Which is absurd. Of course I do. I have grandparents, and my dad is over 70. I don't want to see them die.
But as a functioning human, I'm able to be concerned about multiple issues simultaneously, and like to think that I can weigh them up against one another.
MDG you're not seeing what I'm saying. I agree with you. I understand the seriousness, and understand the measures to reduce contact. At no point did I say I believed those people in the article how ever many pages ago it was were right to do so, or that I would do it, I just said that criminalising them is an absurd and unobtainable prospect.
ced1106 wrote: I'm reading an increasing number of articles of how the virus attacks blood cells, heart failure associated with the virus, and blood clotting.
But....you still have to follow the Order, trusting that your Superior has a greater knowledge of the situation. You don’t receive the order, then pick it apart, surely?
Only if it’s wildly and obviously illegal (like, I dunno, “Private, I order you to drop kick that bairn over that wall”, ridiculousness for effect)
If it’s ‘attack this position’, then......you have to follow it, trusting that the order is legitimate, no?
I mean, I get the whole “I VAS ONLY FOLLOWINK ORDERS” is a weak defence when they’re obviously and clearly immoral.
But here? It’s basically “squad, Orders are to enforce a lockdown of this street. Residents are to be confined to their houses, barring an hours exercise each day”.
That’s......not illegal. It’s not immoral. It’s not illogical.
I'm not drawing a direct comparison. It's the principle. So that illegal order you used as an example, is in my mind equivalent in legal validity to the police using their new powers to harass, detain and charge people, not in accordance with the new laws, and sometimes contrary to current human rights laws.
An attack order is legal, provided it follows RoE and LoAC. and is fine..A legitimate law being enforced, is also fine, until it's wrongly enforced, or unnecessarily targets those who are innocent of any crime. The new laws also have to be proportionate, and legally sound. If anything, you have the benefit of being able to pick apart and examine the potential legalities or lack thereof of any laws, thanks to the fact that they are published and freely available to look at. There are plenty of lawyers questioning the scope of the new laws and guidelines.
It seems people here aren't the only ones calling for ridiculous charges to be brought against people though. Slightly off the rails fantasy writer Philip pullman weighs in again...
If it’s just down to general bureaucracy being slow off the mark?
If it is indeed down to pointless ideology based on a pack of lies sold four years ago by people who felt they could say whatever because they’d never win and thus never have to make good on it? That is negligence. Wilful, deliberate negligence.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I've addressed that one before, in the military, orders must be legal. This is going back to the whole thing about police overreach, which has been done to death, and the media has covered it plenty, hopefully enough to shame the rest of them into sorting their acts out.
I have no real objection to authority, but I maintain a healthy questioning attitude to all governments and their policies, as should everyone, regardless whether its a government you support of not (I generally support bj government) its what our libertarian philosophies are built upon.
We're not a country built on Libertarian philosophies, what makes you think that?
The legislation that has been released is also legal, not brilliant but perfectly legal. For the minute. I'm not getting into military orders and legality as I don't think it's relevant here.
What this doesn't mean, as some seem to suggest, is that because of these views, I don't care about the current situation, or am not taking it seriously, Which is absurd. Of course I do. I have grandparents, and my dad is over 70. I don't want to see them
But as a functioning human, I'm able to be concerned about multiple issues simultaneously, and like to think that I can weigh them up against one another.
So, please do us the service of recognising that we can also see multiple issues and apply appropriate priorities depending on our general viewpoint. Because you keep going on and on about how you feel the law is being overeached, it seems like you think we don't understand. We do, we just agree that it is appropriate for the moment. You obviously do not. We get that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: ....https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/04/21/a-disproportionate-interference-the-coronavirus-regulations-and-the-echr-francis-hoar/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Have a read through that. It mostly outlines the things that concern me....
While the measures are subject to review every 21 days, the decision of the Secretary of State is absolute and subject only to judicial review. Unlike regulations passed under the Civil Contingencies Act, Parliament has no right to scrutinise the Regulations until they expire after six months.
It's clear that these are temporary restrictions, even if he objects to the lack of scrutiny.
I also believe that he has used a fatality rate of between 0.1 and 1% as the base for proportionality. The link he produces is to a Guardian article which mentions a single report by Stanford. In that same sentence there's a quoted death rate of 4.1%.
He's clearly selected only one source which supports his argument which isnt particularly convincing. He should link straight to the actual study, which is also, at the moment, not peer reviewed. So he's a little off the blocks for that.
I'm not convinced that there's anything in there to be overtly concerned about. If in 6 months these restrictions are still in place, and the virus has been dealt with, then I feel that's the time to deal with it.
I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, it's the exact point - when one person endangers others under the guise of "freedummmm!!!!" it's not their right - as you said.
You can't engage with it because it undermines your position.
The old phrase was "a person's right to swing their fist ends where another person's nose begins", unfortunately we live in a day and age where idiots subscribe to "my freedom to swing my fist is absolute and if you try to stop me I'll shoot you with my AR-15"
No, knowingly killing a bunch of people and yourself is not freedom, it's a crime. I can't really say it any other way. It's an irrelevant example.
Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.
These people protesting in groups are only exposing themselves. They're not going into the homes of those who choose to stay isolated, so they're not exposing anybody who isn't participating in the event.
You'd have to prove that someone was infected, knew they were infected, and was maliciously attempting to infect someone for any sort of crime to be committed here.
Ultimately, freedom > safety in the long term. If rights can be ignored when they're inconvenient then they're not rights at all.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: They RISK spreading the virus. And from there, society RISKS the virus spreading ever further.
Look at the infection information. Just, take a look at it. Digest it. See the risk. Understand why these gatherings are frankly bloody stupid.
And already shown to be more than just a risk.
But hey for him his freedom matters more than life of others. As long as his life is not bothered no limit on how many dies. 1? Fine. 1000? No problem. 1000000? Keep 'em coming!
There's people who look at big picture and people who look just themselves.
These people protesting in groups are only exposing themselves. They're not going into the homes of those who choose to stay isolated, so they're not exposing anybody who isn't participating in the event.
This is ridiculously naïve. Do they have families at home? Do they go shopping? Do they use public transport? Anyone infected at a protest will almost certainly have multiple opportunities to pass on the infection to others.
An ad popping up for me on Dakka and other places.
Yes please by all means put your spit and mucus onto our flag, that seems right and properly patriotic thing to do and not at all a violation of the flag code.
Do people really buy this? And if they do, do they really think it shows a love of country?
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.
In my experience* the BBC world service is extremely well regarded, but the UK service is held to be fairly average (though excellent by state news standards).
*from friends and relatives that are journalists, some of whom work for international agencies in places where media bias is extreme and so their tolerance for spin is pretty high.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: [You might aswell say that people who do extreme sports shouldn't have their injuries repaired, because, well they chose to do that activity.
If their injuries were infectious and would affect others then I'd say yes, give their victims priority.
It's a good thing medical practice works on a triage basis and not on your lines then isn't it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oddly enough on the EXTREEEEEEEEEME WOOOOOO RADICAL! Sports? Most travel insurance policies don’t cover them, or injuries relating to them.
True, but the NHS will still treat them.
This is an odd thread of argument from someone who was recently advocating private healthcare recently and pitching it as a preferable system they would embrace if they didn't have to also pay NI. In your preferred system, then, what you are presenting here as an absurd logical conclusion is the norn: unless you're paying an enormous fee, you're not getting your snowboarding injury fixed precisely because it's your own fault.
Fortunately, most people that think socialised healthcare is good think that's obscene.
The NHS’s only shortcomings are a lack of funding and perhaps too many non medical managers in the middle and top tiers. I wouldn’t trade it for the world.
Some criticise it as being on its way to becoming the new state religion, and thus beyond criticism. I don’t know about this, but if that’s true, we could do a lot worse for such a thing I’m sure.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: They RISK spreading the virus. And from there, society RISKS the virus spreading ever further.
Look at the infection information. Just, take a look at it. Digest it. See the risk. Understand why these gatherings are frankly bloody stupid.
And already shown to be more than just a risk.
But hey for him his freedom matters more than life of others. As long as his life is not bothered no limit on how many dies. 1? Fine. 1000? No problem. 1000000? Keep 'em coming!
There's people who look at big picture and people who look just themselves.
'What this doesn't mean, as some seem to suggest, is that because of these views, I don't care about the current situation, or am not taking it seriously, Which is absurd. Of course I do. I have grandparents, and my dad is over 70. I don't want to see them die.'
Future War Cultist wrote: The NHS’s only shortcomings are a lack of funding and perhaps too many non medical managers in the middle and top tiers. I wouldn’t trade it for the world.
Some criticise it as being on its way to becoming the new state religion, and thus beyond criticism. I don’t know about this, but if that’s true, we could do a lot worse for such a thing I’m sure.
Just putting my thoughts out there...
Honestly, a state religion which says "Everyone shall receive healthcare free at point of use" as its guiding tenet doesn't sound so bad to me
Kid_Kyoto wrote: An ad popping up for me on Dakka and other places.
Yes please by all means put your spit and mucus onto our flag, that seems right and properly patriotic thing to do and not at all a violation of the flag code.
Do people really buy this? And if they do, do they really think it shows a love of country?
Yes, Patriots are funnily enough the people who do disrespect the flag the most. Alot of stuff done blatantly ignores the flag code.
Like wearing it as part of clothing or flying it horizantaly, or putting it on really anything that isn't a flag pole.
Future War Cultist wrote: The NHS’s only shortcomings are a lack of funding and perhaps too many non medical managers in the middle and top tiers. I wouldn’t trade it for the world.
Some criticise it as being on its way to becoming the new state religion, and thus beyond criticism. I don’t know about this, but if that’s true, we could do a lot worse for such a thing I’m sure.
Just putting my thoughts out there...
Honestly, a state religion which says "Everyone shall receive healthcare free at point of use" as its guiding tenet doesn't sound so bad to me
A cult following "reason" is still a cult though.
But i guess as far as cults go this one has some decent effects.
r_squared wrote: I think the time for protesting diminished public freedoms is if the legislation is still extant once the pandemic is past.
I'm more than happy to protest the infringement at that point.
legislation and amendments passed thus far relating to the lockdown end 6 months from the 26th March 2020
so it would not be impossible for these laws to be continually "reapproved" -- so to speak -- or altered further without the hassle of something like democratic approval.
Then we get into the fun and games of things like the Henry VIII clauses et al thrown around during the Brexit departure issues.
Thats the problem. the NHS has been made into this divine power that we praise with the weekly clap and pot banging. its quite funny that we've reverted to a primitive form of worship akin to those performed by our ancient ancestors, for our new deity, or should I say one of our new deities.
thats why I don't partake of the weekly clap for the NHS. that, aswell as the fact that its really just a form of self satisfying virtue signalling.
In before I'm accused of not caring for NHS workers...
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Thats the problem. the NHS has been made into this divine power that we praise with the weekly clap and pot banging. its quite funny that we've reverted to a primitive form of worship akin to those performed by our ancient ancestors, for our new deity, or should I say one of our new deities.
thats why I don't partake of the weekly clap for the NHS. that, aswell as the fact that its really just a form of self satisfying virtue signalling.
In before I'm accused of not caring for NHS workers...
It's a form of self satisfaction, but its also a means to have people feel like they are doing something. One of the most frustrating things about this is that the best thing most people can do is to stay at home and do nothing. That's very hard for a lot of people to come to terms with mentally - that the best thing is nothing. Most people are used to action and doing something for an achievement. The clapping is just a venting point. It's also means to try and provide some sense of unity, especially in urban areas where many people are already very distant to their locals and family. Remember a lot of people are very isolated in this situation so a united clapping, even for one evening a week, provides some sense that they aren't alone in a physical sense.
It's nothing bad and yes it achieves nothing in a physical resources sense, but it does reinforce many points.
It's like the "how to wash your hands" guide. The information itself is nearly pointless as most people know how to wash; however the guide allows for a reminder to drive home the point not how you do it, but that you should do it and do it more often.
As for the whole primitive reversion, eh its not as if clapping is something we've not done for generations. We clap at the threatre and at the school plays; a particularly good film might even get it; we clap at sporting events and parties. Clapping is just part of normal modern life.
You might be surprised how few people did know how to wash their hands properly.
I’ve always put my relatively illness free life down to a solid immune system. And whilst I do tend to bounce back on the odd occasions I do get ill? I was also taught from a really, really young age to wash my hands as the NHS now demonstrates.
So perhaps it was just that very basic hygiene, and not fortunate genes*
* though I do have fortunate genes. Dad and Brother are both bald, and I’ve a thick head of luxurious long curly hair
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You might be surprised how few people did know how to wash their hands properly.
Ask someone who's just washed their hands whether they actually washed their hands and its likely they will be offended that you question them being able to carry out a simple task.
This is the problem with "common sense" and "everybody knows". It turns out that common sense might be common but it doesn't make sense when subject to critical study. Ever been to the dentist and they put the dye on your teeth to show where you missed brushing? They do the same for washing hands and most people almost completely miss the thumbs and the little fingers. That person who just "washed their hands" actually only partially did the job but is completely unaware of their lack of competence in carrying out this simple task.
This is the reason people can't necessarily be trusted to do straightforward things without training or oversight. The requirements to do the straightforward things properly do not necessarily make sense without an understanding that's beyond a ley-person's immediate knowledge.
Hence we have people packing guns protesting the shutdowns. It isn't that they haven't got a clue - it's the fact they haven't got a clue about how much they haven't got a clue.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You might be surprised how few people did know how to wash their hands properly.
I’ve always put my relatively illness free life down to a solid immune system. And whilst I do tend to bounce back on the odd occasions I do get ill? I was also taught from a really, really young age to wash my hands as the NHS now demonstrates.
So perhaps it was just that very basic hygiene, and not fortunate genes*
* though I do have fortunate genes. Dad and Brother are both bald, and I’ve a thick head of luxurious long curly hair :P
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You might be surprised how few people did know how to wash their hands properly.
Ask someone who's just washed their hands whether they actually washed their hands and its likely they will be offended that you question them being able to carry out a simple task.
This is the problem with "common sense" and "everybody knows". It turns out that common sense might be common but it doesn't make sense when subject to critical study. Ever been to the dentist and they put the dye on your teeth to show where you missed brushing? They do the same for washing hands and most people almost completely miss the thumbs and the little fingers. That person who just "washed their hands" actually only partially did the job but is completely unaware of their lack of competence in carrying out this simple task.
This is the reason people can't necessarily be trusted to do straightforward things without training or oversight. The requirements to do the straightforward things properly do not necessarily make sense without an understanding that's beyond a ley-person's immediate knowledge.
Hence we have people packing guns protesting the shutdowns. It isn't that they haven't got a clue - it's the fact they haven't got a clue about how much they haven't got a clue.
For one, why need for gun. for two, why not atleast use the social distance guidelines atleast that way you don't turn into the next hotspot of collapse off medical system. For three, anecdotal, but you'd be surprised at upper education toilets, for people claiming to be the intelectual elite, some sure have gakky general hygiene and manners.....
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Thats the problem. the NHS has been made into this divine power that we praise with the weekly clap and pot banging. its quite funny that we've reverted to a primitive form of worship akin to those performed by our ancient ancestors, for our new deity, or should I say one of our new deities.
thats why I don't partake of the weekly clap for the NHS. that, aswell as the fact that its really just a form of self satisfying virtue signalling.
In before I'm accused of not caring for NHS workers...
It's a form of self satisfaction, but its also a means to have people feel like they are doing something. One of the most frustrating things about this is that the best thing most people can do is to stay at home and do nothing. That's very hard for a lot of people to come to terms with mentally - that the best thing is nothing. Most people are used to action and doing something for an achievement. The clapping is just a venting point. It's also means to try and provide some sense of unity, especially in urban areas where many people are already very distant to their locals and family. Remember a lot of people are very isolated in this situation so a united clapping, even for one evening a week, provides some sense that they aren't alone in a physical sense.
It's nothing bad and yes it achieves nothing in a physical resources sense, but it does reinforce many points.
It's like the "how to wash your hands" guide. The information itself is nearly pointless as most people know how to wash; however the guide allows for a reminder to drive home the point not how you do it, but that you should do it and do it more often.
As for the whole primitive reversion, eh its not as if clapping is something we've not done for generations. We clap at the threatre and at the school plays; a particularly good film might even get it; we clap at sporting events and parties. Clapping is just part of normal modern life.
Fair enough. I'm not going to decry any positives that it may or may not promote, but to me personally it just seems like the weekly act of devotion to our new religion, and thats not for me.
I'm not a big fan of the weekly applause either. Especially since the government have almost simulataneously said 'it's too early to be talking about their pay and bonuses' while granting themselves an extra package for their alleged expenses of working from home, which I thought they did when they weren't in Westminster anyway...
Crispy78 wrote: I'm not a big fan of the weekly applause either. Especially since the government have almost simulataneously said 'it's too early to be talking about their pay and bonuses' while granting themselves an extra package for their alleged expenses of working from home, which I thought they did when they weren't in Westminster anyway...
This. It's the moral equivalent of FB "thoughts and prayers", and I refuse to participate in those, too.
Yea... a lot of the dismissive post early on are not aging well.
But you can't blame people for not wanting/or not jumping on this. Nothing like this has happened in 100 years... people (not individuals) didn't understand the danger.
That said, there are still people in denial about how dangerous it is... and looking to grab onto strings of bravery through... So much "Reaction formation" happening in the protest groups its really... surreal to watch. (Reaction formation: People who use this psychologic defense mechanism recognize how they feel, but they choose to behave in the opposite manner of their instincts... i.e., the protesters are scared and instead of acting scared they act outraged so they won't be affraid)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You might be surprised how few people did know how to wash their hands properly.
Ask someone who's just washed their hands whether they actually washed their hands and its likely they will be offended that you question them being able to carry out a simple task.
This is the problem with "common sense" and "everybody knows". It turns out that common sense might be common but it doesn't make sense when subject to critical study. Ever been to the dentist and they put the dye on your teeth to show where you missed brushing? They do the same for washing hands and most people almost completely miss the thumbs and the little fingers. That person who just "washed their hands" actually only partially did the job but is completely unaware of their lack of competence in carrying out this simple task.
This is the reason people can't necessarily be trusted to do straightforward things without training or oversight. The requirements to do the straightforward things properly do not necessarily make sense without an understanding that's beyond a ley-person's immediate knowledge.
Hence we have people packing guns protesting the shutdowns. It isn't that they haven't got a clue - it's the fact they haven't got a clue about how much they haven't got a clue.
No offense, but are you an American or have you lived in America for an extended period of time? There's good reason for some of the protests since different states have varying levels of restrictions, and not all protests were done stupidly or for stupid reasons.
Operation gridlock is a good example of people protesting by driving in circles around the buildings. CA has relatively mild restrictions so protests here make less sense except for tourist areas that WILL go under during lockdown. They have to try, I don't blame them. A city near me was almost forced to use a facility without consulting the city first or even assessing the center itself. People protested because it was against local ordinance and would have been an extremely unsafe place (no reverse air pressure etc) in close proximity to a bunch of highly populated suburban areas. It got blocked and lives were probably saved as a result of it. Lots of states released prisoners into the general population while simultaneously closing gun stores which is upsetting some people for a lot of reasons.
Israel isn't protesting a lockdown in response to a pandemic, though.
The people protesting to reopen stuff are protesting the wrong thing. They should be asking where the government support is for people who are struggling, not to completely destroy any progress in curbing the spread of a highly infectious and deadly disease.
Because guess what, if you open everything back up, the infection rate massively spikes again and your health services get overwhelmed then you're still going to be up gak creek economy-wise. You'll just have a higher death toll on top of that.
Also, that is the same Operation Gridlock which blocked the emergency vehicle access to a hospital in Michigan, right? You sure you want to try and hold that up as an example of a good way to protest?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Thats the problem. the NHS has been made into this divine power that we praise with the weekly clap and pot banging. its quite funny that we've reverted to a primitive form of worship akin to those performed by our ancient ancestors, for our new deity, or should I say one of our new deities.
thats why I don't partake of the weekly clap for the NHS. that, aswell as the fact that its really just a form of self satisfying virtue signalling.
In before I'm accused of not caring for NHS workers...
It's a form of self satisfaction, but its also a means to have people feel like they are doing something. One of the most frustrating things about this is that the best thing most people can do is to stay at home and do nothing. That's very hard for a lot of people to come to terms with mentally - that the best thing is nothing. Most people are used to action and doing something for an achievement. The clapping is just a venting point. It's also means to try and provide some sense of unity, especially in urban areas where many people are already very distant to their locals and family. Remember a lot of people are very isolated in this situation so a united clapping, even for one evening a week, provides some sense that they aren't alone in a physical sense.
It's nothing bad and yes it achieves nothing in a physical resources sense, but it does reinforce many points.
It's like the "how to wash your hands" guide. The information itself is nearly pointless as most people know how to wash; however the guide allows for a reminder to drive home the point not how you do it, but that you should do it and do it more often.
As for the whole primitive reversion, eh its not as if clapping is something we've not done for generations. We clap at the threatre and at the school plays; a particularly good film might even get it; we clap at sporting events and parties. Clapping is just part of normal modern life.
Fair enough. I'm not going to decry any positives that it may or may not promote, but to me personally it just seems like the weekly act of devotion to our new religion, and thats not for me.
you do not need to clap for me, I work for the NHS and also do not like the virtue signaling, I would much rather people started to live healthier lives in honour of the NHS, or quit smoking, drinking etc.
The people protesting to reopen stuff are protesting the wrong thing. They should be asking where the government support is for people who are struggling, not to completely destroy any progress in curbing the spread of a highly infectious and deadly disease.
Because guess what, if you open everything back up, the infection rate massively spikes again and your health services get overwhelmed then you're still going to be up gak creek economy-wise. You'll just have a higher death toll on top of that.
Also, that is the same Operation Gridlock which blocked the emergency vehicle access to a hospital in Michigan, right? You sure you want to try and hold that up as an example of a good way to protest?
Those people wouldn't be struggling if the government hadn't locked everything down. So yes, it is the government who is at fault over that and they should protest that. No, they shouldn't be interfering with hospitals. That is stupid. They should be outside officials homes and the capital building.
If health services get overwhelmed, we're not going to be as stuffed economy-wise as this total shutdown will cause. There would be enough unaffected people who would still be working and having income to keep the economy from total collapse, unlike what is going to happen if we don't open soon.
There is guaranteed danger, and far more potential deaths, from not reopening the economy than there is from opening the economy. We are already potentially heading for a global famine, which will kill exponentially more than COVID could if we'd done nothing.
These people protesting in groups are only exposing themselves. They're not going into the homes of those who choose to stay isolated, so they're not exposing anybody who isn't participating in the event.
This is ridiculously naïve. Do they have families at home? Do they go shopping? Do they use public transport? Anyone infected at a protest will almost certainly have multiple opportunities to pass on the infection to others.
Yes, they can infect others. But other people who did not participate in the protest are assumed to be following 'proper' protocols. IE: If person B is staying home and practicing social distancing, it doesn't matter if person A is going out and not practicing it.
If social distancing and staying home only worked if everybody did it then it would be a useless tool because of all the essential workers who can't practice it.
Formosa wrote: ugh. I'm not going to decry any positives that it may or may not promote, but to me personally it just seems like the weekly act of devotion to our new religion, and thats not for me.
you do not need to clap for me, I work for the NHS and also do not like the virtue signaling, I would much rather people started to live healthier lives in honour of the NHS, or quit smoking, drinking etc.
Word!
Can we also stop fetishizing emergency workers, paramedics, firefighters, police officers, and military folks while we are at it too?
I was hoping this crisis might bring newfound respect to Public Health officials, Inspectors, Regulators, and Teachers.... but who am I kidding?
you do not need to clap for me, I work for the NHS and also do not like the virtue signaling, I would much rather people started to live healthier lives in honour of the NHS, or quit smoking, drinking etc.
Well, you can thank me because I try to stay healthy!
No I'm kidding. I have huge respect for the NHS, especially considering their pay and conditions, and some of the pond scum they have to deal with.
I actually do charity fundraising when I can for an NICU charity called cots for tots. I raised over £2000 for them when I was last away on detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You might aswell not bother grey templar. If you express any concern for the economy or other issues at this time, all it means is that you're selfish and want people to die.
The people protesting to reopen stuff are protesting the wrong thing. They should be asking where the government support is for people who are struggling, not to completely destroy any progress in curbing the spread of a highly infectious and deadly disease.
Because guess what, if you open everything back up, the infection rate massively spikes again and your health services get overwhelmed then you're still going to be up gak creek economy-wise. You'll just have a higher death toll on top of that.
Also, that is the same Operation Gridlock which blocked the emergency vehicle access to a hospital in Michigan, right? You sure you want to try and hold that up as an example of a good way to protest?
Oh let me be clear. I think loosening restrictions is absolutely moronic right now. Again, condemn their mistakes not the general idea. Using vehicles to protest while maintaining social distancing is a good idea. Doing it in a way that also blocks emergency vehicle traffic is not. Leave a lane open specifically for emergency vehicles. Let them protest and ignore them like we do the anti-vaxxers. People who refuse to wear PPE in public can be denied entry to businesses in the same way "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs do. Or how schools are starting to refuse students who haven't been vaccinated either. Teach them how to protest safely, punish them if they endanger others (blocking traffic, not wearing PPE), and the most important part: keep the restrictions in place as necessary medically/economically not politically.
It's the same exact stupidity as the "normal people won't wear masks right so they shouldn't even wear them" stuff that was floating around a few months ago. Educate people, "We have a shortage of supplies so medical professionals get it first followed by essential workers." Then once supplies are starting to be replenished, release a PSA from an official or celebrity showing how to safely put on masks/gloves etc.
That mask misinformation drives up the wall a bit lol, as in 20/20 hindsight it is just complete common sense. If frequent hand washing is important, obviously covering everyone's mouth would logically be, too. And yet there was this widespread narrative that it was irrelevant for people, yet vital for healthcare workers - a complete logical fallacy.
That has obviously been reversed now, but it definitely made me not want to read common / conventional wisdom, or even well meaning public health statements, not based on science.
(I'm aware, of course, that many masks are primarily stopping transmission, not one's own infection, but the end result is the same if used in a widespread manner)
I'm not being funny, but I'm not going to wander around outside wearing a mask, I'm certainly not going to wear one in my own car like I see some people doing(?)
Shops, well maybe but I won't be doing it until its mandated.
Health are workers are in an environment where there is the risk of high concentrations of virus, being aerosolised and on surfaces. It makes sense to minimise potential exposure there.
But outside in the open air with barely anyone around? No.
Yes, obviously the setting matters . But the basic principle / logic is so clear, and yet all media and public statements were of the exact opposite for so long. Ugh. If nothing else, worldwide we will have learned a ton from this pandemic and be hopefully better equipped to handle another in the future (similar to how South Korea was clearly ready for this as a society).
Yea... a lot of the dismissive post early on are not aging well.
But you can't blame people for not wanting/or not jumping on this. Nothing like this has happened in 100 years... people (not individuals) didn't understand the danger.
That said, there are still people in denial about how dangerous it is... and looking to grab onto strings of bravery through... So much "Reaction formation" happening in the protest groups its really... surreal to watch. (Reaction formation: People who use this psychologic defense mechanism recognize how they feel, but they choose to behave in the opposite manner of their instincts... i.e., the protesters are scared and instead of acting scared they act outraged so they won't be affraid)
Great article and great context, I'm glad I'm talking to my parents in NY every night.
I think there was also a feeling that people had cried wolf too many times. After SARS, Avian Influenza, H1N1 and Swine Flu there was a feeling that this would be no more than a minor inconvenience. Some kids would miss their study abroad trip in China and we'd all move on.
Yea... a lot of the dismissive post early on are not aging well.
But you can't blame people for not wanting/or not jumping on this. Nothing like this has happened in 100 years... people (not individuals) didn't understand the danger.
That said, there are still people in denial about how dangerous it is... and looking to grab onto strings of bravery through... So much "Reaction formation" happening in the protest groups its really... surreal to watch. (Reaction formation: People who use this psychologic defense mechanism recognize how they feel, but they choose to behave in the opposite manner of their instincts... i.e., the protesters are scared and instead of acting scared they act outraged so they won't be affraid)
Great article and great context, I'm glad I'm talking to my parents in NY every night.
I think there was also a feeling that people had cried wolf too many times. After SARS, Avian Influenza, H1N1 and Swine Flu there was a feeling that this would be no more than a minor inconvenience. Some kids would miss their study abroad trip in China and we'd all move on.
I think part of it is people just desperatly to to cling to normalcy and try to ignore inconvenience or anything that can change that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: Yes, obviously the setting matters . But the basic principle / logic is so clear, and yet all media and public statements were of the exact opposite for so long. Ugh. If nothing else, worldwide we will have learned a ton from this pandemic and be hopefully better equipped to handle another in the future (similar to how South Korea was clearly ready for this as a society).
RiTides wrote: Yes, obviously the setting matters . But the basic principle / logic is so clear, and yet all media and public statements were of the exact opposite for so long. Ugh. If nothing else, worldwide we will have learned a ton from this pandemic and be hopefully better equipped to handle another in the future (similar to how South Korea was clearly ready for this as a society).
What alllowed SK to be ready for this?
I was thinking about that, and I think I may have found the answer.
South Korea is under constant threat from North Korea. The necessary precautions for a war with such a belligerent neighbor that could literally happen in minutes most likely means that South Korea has massive stockpiles of supplies for such a war. A war that could involve biologicals. Sure, we mostly think about nuclear weapons from NK, but biological warfare is also a possibility. South Korea would also have put many redundancies in their healthcare system because they could have a massive chunk of their infrastructure destroyed in minutes at the same time they need to triage millions of civilians.
So they're probably better prepared for all types of crisis in general because they live day to day in a situation where it could all go to hell in mere minutes.
I think that culturally, there is a stronger sense of obedience to authority and putting the needs of society ahead of yourself in South Korea (and other countries with a confucian influence).
All that is definitely true, but what I was referring to was just the threat of SARS in recent years and how they had already prepared as a society for the real possibility of that outbreak (not to lessen any of the above points, just adding that).
RiTides wrote: All that is definitely true, but what I was referring to was just the threat of SARS in recent years and how they had already prepared as a society for the real possibility of that outbreak (not to lessen any of the above points, just adding that).
Whilest there can be cultural reasons i feel like the constant sars threat is probably the most important bit as to why South Korea is prepared.
RiTides wrote: All that is definitely true, but what I was referring to was just the threat of SARS in recent years and how they had already prepared as a society for the real possibility of that outbreak (not to lessen any of the above points, just adding that).
Whilest there can be cultural reasons i feel like the constant sars threat is probably the most important bit as to why South Korea is prepared.
And the reason why many western nations weren't prepared - we got scares with those previous viruses, but nothing ever came of it. Even those that did make it over like Bird and Swine flu were mostly isolated to the more rural regions and tended to focus more on improving farm biosecurity and stock importing laws (indeed since the major outbreak most of the more recent bird-flu outbreaks have been in big poultry units rather than from purely wild stock). So it was mostly farmers and the rural communities that felt the bite; whilst those who were afflicted were not in numbers great enough to put strain on the medical system.
This outbreak is totally different; if anything its a total flip over from rural to urban. The scale is far greater and its actually affecting the health services (and would cripple any health service without lockdowns).
And because we weren't prepared properly at the government nor at the personal level; it has been much easier for the disease to spread because lockdowns and self isolation and personal health measures etc.... are all lagging behind.
Plus it only takes a gap of a generation or so for experiences to vanish from a community. So even if we muscle through this one; if nothing happens for another hundred years chances are it will repeat all over again.
This is a response to comments made by queen_annes_revenge in the News & Rumours thread, which discussion has been banished here by the mods:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Well, I guess if you ignore the predicted deaths from an economic collapse such as that we're facing, aswell as the decreases standards of living, decreased wages, increased taxes etc, then you could probably straw man away anyone who dares to raise concerns about such issues as a 'sociopath' but then that isn't really conducive to rational and reasonable debate.
My grandad is 92 and has asbestosis, if this gets even slightly near him he's done for, I'm not even remotely interested in people trying to mumble about "reasonable debate fnar fnar". Also, if you were actually interested in "reasonable debate", you'd have gone to the trouble of actually reading the bit of my post where I explicitly addressed the nonsense idea that lifting the lockdown will somehow avoid "economic collapse" - it won't, because if you lift the lockdown now - again, even partially - in the absence of either a vaccine OR a thorough, population-wide test, trace, isolate programme, then we will be right back to where we were and be forced to lockdown again potentially for even longer, and further it's not as if half a million people dying and the NHS being unable to treat anyone for anything else for a period of potentially months is a scenario that would have no economic impact now is it
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
The NHS is not overwhelmed.
London says hi. Also you really do need to double check what tense people are using. Will be. Is predicted to. In the future. If the outbreak isn't suppressed - not "flattened", not "managed", utterly suppressed - by either a lockdown, a vaccine, or test & trace, the modeling is absolutely clear that it will be completely incapable of coping.
There are how ever many thousand icu places still free, even before you consider the new nightingale hospitals popping up all over the place. No one has had to be turned down. The London nightingale has had 41 patients last I saw.
You're literally like those people who were defending Cheltenham etc going ahead with their "only like, ten people have died, pfff, chill bruh" shtick. Those "nightingale hospitals" have been built exactly because of the scenario I've been outlining, and they will won't be sufficient according to the models.
There's no reason the overly draconian measures can't be relaxed somewhat, and have businesses that are able to do so operate with customer control measures like curbside or over counter services, and still maintain physical social distancing. (The thing that is actually helping.)
Overly draconian
I'm going to try and illustrate this in the starkest way that I can for you: Even Piers Morgan thinks the position you're advocating is irrational and immoral.
I sincerely beg you, go and read what the WHO are saying. What the professors behind the Imperial studies are saying. What Devi Sridhar(chair of public health at Edinburgh uni) and her colleagues are saying. Understand just how utterly isolated the point of view espoused by the leaders of the SAGE is, and how entirely out of step with the science your position is. Lifting the lockdown - once more, even partially - without either a vaccine or a functioning national test & trace system is the worst of all worlds. It will cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and worse, won't even achieve its supposed benefit of preventing economic problems.
Yodhrin, you really seem like the most hubristic person I've ever encountered, and I mean that sincerely. Between your proclamation that dissent from your own personal opinions is a signifier of sociopathy in the other thread, to your absolute certainty on the science of an unprecedented pandemic (from what is almost certainly the position of a layperson, correct me if I'm wrong), I'm honestly a bit impressed.
Grey Templar wrote: If health services get overwhelmed, we're not going to be as stuffed economy-wise as this total shutdown will cause. There would be enough unaffected people who would still be working and having income to keep the economy from total collapse, unlike what is going to happen if we don't open soon.
There is guaranteed danger, and far more potential deaths, from not reopening the economy than there is from opening the economy. We are already potentially heading for a global famine, which will kill exponentially more than COVID could if we'd done nothing.
The pandemic is causing famines, not lock downs. This is because funding is drying up for food aid due to the economic downturn.
It is simply untrue that that or economic devastation would be relieved by raising the lockdown:
...
Companies affected by the shutdowns say restarting the economy will not be that easy. So do a wide variety of economic and survey data, which suggest that the economy will recover slowly even after the government begins to ease limits on public gatherings and allow certain shuttered restaurants and shops to reopen.
The evidence suggests it is not just stay-at-home orders and other government restrictions that have chilled economic activity in the United States over the past month: It is also a behavioral response from workers and consumers scared of contracting the virus.
Data shows that unemployment claims rose and restaurant reservations vanished even before the lockdown orders hit, as nervous consumers retreated into their homes. And they show consumers are unlikely to return to airports, restaurants and sporting venues en masse any time soon.
Until Americans feel confident that their risks of contracting the coronavirus have fallen — either through widespread testing or a vaccine — many economists and business owners say there will be no rapid economic rebound.“You can’t just turn the light switch on and have everyone go back to work, as much as businesses would love to do that,” Suzanne Clark, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in an interview. “It’s going to be the opposite of a green light. It’s going to go from red to yellow and then green.”
“It would be good to get a yellow light from the president to reopen,” Ms. Clark said. “But then on the ground it’s going to matter, how safe do people feel?”
...
Still, many economists warn that rushing back toward normal life too quickly, without the safeguards needed to prevent a second wave of the outbreak, could simply worsen the economic damage that Mr. Trump is trying to fix. Re-infection rates climbed in China, Singapore and Hong Kongafter leaders eased strict economic restrictions that had initially slowed the virus’s spread. "States that haven’t yet closed businesses or put their populations on some sort of lockdown aren’t escaping enormous spikes in unemployment,” said Ernie Tedeschi, a managing director at Evercore ISI and a former Treasury Department economist. “The pain is not just deep, it’s wide. This punctuates that the fundamental problem with the economy right now is the pandemic.”
Mr. Tedeschi’s research underscores the degree to which Americans have suffered economic harm from the virus, no matter what form of restrictions their leaders have placed on business activity and travel.
Stay-at-home orders have not been evenly applied across America: Some states imposed them early, some imposed them later and some still have not imposed them at all. Yet all states have seen unemployment claims rise in recent weeks.
Mr. Tedeschi found the gap between more and less restrictive states — when comparing their normal levels of unemployment claims and current levels — has quickly narrowed. By the first week of April, claims were only about 23 percent higher in more restrictive states than less restrictive ones, adjusted for population.
Adam Ozimek, the chief economist at Upwork, found a similar pattern in restaurant reservation data from the online service OpenTable: declining activity even when restrictions were not in place. He plotted the drop in reservations made using the service across American cities and found the falloff began, typically, several days before local officials first imposed restrictions on dining out in their cities.
“How safe people perceive it to be,” Mr. Ozimek said, “matters independently from the shutdowns.”
Mr. Trump is set to establish a task force to examine when to begin lifting the restrictions that state and local officials have imposed on public gatherings and so-called nonessential businesses across the country.
A nationwide online survey by the data firm Civis Analytics over the past two weeks found more than eight in 10 Americans support restrictions on restaurant and gym openings, and nearly as many back “shelter in place” orders.
A survey last week by Seton Hall University found that seven in 10 Americans would not feel comfortable attending a sporting event until a vaccine for the virus was developed. New polling by the Sports and Leisure Research Group, Engagious and ROKK Solutions finds that only about a third of Americans would take a commercial flight, see a movie in a theater or visit a theme park now if they were allowed to do so. In follow-up interviews, respondents stressed two steps that would help them feel comfortable resuming those and other economic activities: reassurances from medical professionals and the development of a vaccine.
The drop in Americans’ plans to spend on travel and leisure activities in the next year drastically exceeds what similar polling found after the 2008 financial crisis and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said Jon Last, the president of the Sports and Leisure Research Group. “We are seeing people really hesitant to get back to normal,” he said.
“I’m scared to death, frankly, what our sales volume might be when we reopen,” Cameron Mitchell, an Ohio-based restaurateur, said in an interview last week.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce president, Ms. Clark, told members of the business advocacy group in a letter on Monday that “returning to work will be gradual” and phased in, and depend on a variety of developments across the country including additional access to testing of employees and the resolution of a wide range of legal liability issues in areas like employee health privacy.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Grey Templar wrote: If health services get overwhelmed, we're not going to be as stuffed economy-wise as this total shutdown will cause. There would be enough unaffected people who would still be working and having income to keep the economy from total collapse, unlike what is going to happen if we don't open soon.
There is guaranteed danger, and far more potential deaths, from not reopening the economy than there is from opening the economy. We are already potentially heading for a global famine, which will kill exponentially more than COVID could if we'd done nothing.
The pandemic is causing famines, not lock downs. This is because funding is drying up for food aid due to the economic downturn.
It is simply untrue that that or economic devastation would be relieved by raising the lockdown:
...
Companies affected by the shutdowns say restarting the economy will not be that easy. So do a wide variety of economic and survey data, which suggest that the economy will recover slowly even after the government begins to ease limits on public gatherings and allow certain shuttered restaurants and shops to reopen.
The evidence suggests it is not just stay-at-home orders and other government restrictions that have chilled economic activity in the United States over the past month: It is also a behavioral response from workers and consumers scared of contracting the virus.
Data shows that unemployment claims rose and restaurant reservations vanished even before the lockdown orders hit, as nervous consumers retreated into their homes. And they show consumers are unlikely to return to airports, restaurants and sporting venues en masse any time soon.
Until Americans feel confident that their risks of contracting the coronavirus have fallen — either through widespread testing or a vaccine — many economists and business owners say there will be no rapid economic rebound.“You can’t just turn the light switch on and have everyone go back to work, as much as businesses would love to do that,” Suzanne Clark, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in an interview. “It’s going to be the opposite of a green light. It’s going to go from red to yellow and then green.”
“It would be good to get a yellow light from the president to reopen,” Ms. Clark said. “But then on the ground it’s going to matter, how safe do people feel?”
...
Still, many economists warn that rushing back toward normal life too quickly, without the safeguards needed to prevent a second wave of the outbreak, could simply worsen the economic damage that Mr. Trump is trying to fix. Re-infection rates climbed in China, Singapore and Hong Kongafter leaders eased strict economic restrictions that had initially slowed the virus’s spread. "States that haven’t yet closed businesses or put their populations on some sort of lockdown aren’t escaping enormous spikes in unemployment,” said Ernie Tedeschi, a managing director at Evercore ISI and a former Treasury Department economist. “The pain is not just deep, it’s wide. This punctuates that the fundamental problem with the economy right now is the pandemic.”
Mr. Tedeschi’s research underscores the degree to which Americans have suffered economic harm from the virus, no matter what form of restrictions their leaders have placed on business activity and travel.
Stay-at-home orders have not been evenly applied across America: Some states imposed them early, some imposed them later and some still have not imposed them at all. Yet all states have seen unemployment claims rise in recent weeks.
Mr. Tedeschi found the gap between more and less restrictive states — when comparing their normal levels of unemployment claims and current levels — has quickly narrowed. By the first week of April, claims were only about 23 percent higher in more restrictive states than less restrictive ones, adjusted for population.
Adam Ozimek, the chief economist at Upwork, found a similar pattern in restaurant reservation data from the online service OpenTable: declining activity even when restrictions were not in place. He plotted the drop in reservations made using the service across American cities and found the falloff began, typically, several days before local officials first imposed restrictions on dining out in their cities.
“How safe people perceive it to be,” Mr. Ozimek said, “matters independently from the shutdowns.”
Mr. Trump is set to establish a task force to examine when to begin lifting the restrictions that state and local officials have imposed on public gatherings and so-called nonessential businesses across the country.
A nationwide online survey by the data firm Civis Analytics over the past two weeks found more than eight in 10 Americans support restrictions on restaurant and gym openings, and nearly as many back “shelter in place” orders.
A survey last week by Seton Hall University found that seven in 10 Americans would not feel comfortable attending a sporting event until a vaccine for the virus was developed. New polling by the Sports and Leisure Research Group, Engagious and ROKK Solutions finds that only about a third of Americans would take a commercial flight, see a movie in a theater or visit a theme park now if they were allowed to do so. In follow-up interviews, respondents stressed two steps that would help them feel comfortable resuming those and other economic activities: reassurances from medical professionals and the development of a vaccine.
The drop in Americans’ plans to spend on travel and leisure activities in the next year drastically exceeds what similar polling found after the 2008 financial crisis and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said Jon Last, the president of the Sports and Leisure Research Group. “We are seeing people really hesitant to get back to normal,” he said.
“I’m scared to death, frankly, what our sales volume might be when we reopen,” Cameron Mitchell, an Ohio-based restaurateur, said in an interview last week.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce president, Ms. Clark, told members of the business advocacy group in a letter on Monday that “returning to work will be gradual” and phased in, and depend on a variety of developments across the country including additional access to testing of employees and the resolution of a wide range of legal liability issues in areas like employee health privacy.
...
All that means is that damage has already been done. But its not too late to prevent more damage from being done. Its the difference between a mere recession or depression and permanent societal collapse.
If we keep the economy closed for several more months there won't be an economy left to reopen.
Grey Templar wrote: If health services get overwhelmed, we're not going to be as stuffed economy-wise as this total shutdown will cause. There would be enough unaffected people who would still be working and having income to keep the economy from total collapse, unlike what is going to happen if we don't open soon.
There is guaranteed danger, and far more potential deaths, from not reopening the economy than there is from opening the economy. We are already potentially heading for a global famine, which will kill exponentially more than COVID could if we'd done nothing.
The pandemic is causing famines, not lock downs. This is because funding is drying up for food aid due to the economic downturn.
It is simply untrue that that or economic devastation would be relieved by raising the lockdown:
...
Companies affected by the shutdowns say restarting the economy will not be that easy. So do a wide variety of economic and survey data, which suggest that the economy will recover slowly even after the government begins to ease limits on public gatherings and allow certain shuttered restaurants and shops to reopen.
The evidence suggests it is not just stay-at-home orders and other government restrictions that have chilled economic activity in the United States over the past month: It is also a behavioral response from workers and consumers scared of contracting the virus.
Data shows that unemployment claims rose and restaurant reservations vanished even before the lockdown orders hit, as nervous consumers retreated into their homes. And they show consumers are unlikely to return to airports, restaurants and sporting venues en masse any time soon.
Until Americans feel confident that their risks of contracting the coronavirus have fallen — either through widespread testing or a vaccine — many economists and business owners say there will be no rapid economic rebound.“You can’t just turn the light switch on and have everyone go back to work, as much as businesses would love to do that,” Suzanne Clark, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in an interview. “It’s going to be the opposite of a green light. It’s going to go from red to yellow and then green.”
“It would be good to get a yellow light from the president to reopen,” Ms. Clark said. “But then on the ground it’s going to matter, how safe do people feel?”
...
Still, many economists warn that rushing back toward normal life too quickly, without the safeguards needed to prevent a second wave of the outbreak, could simply worsen the economic damage that Mr. Trump is trying to fix. Re-infection rates climbed in China, Singapore and Hong Kongafter leaders eased strict economic restrictions that had initially slowed the virus’s spread. "States that haven’t yet closed businesses or put their populations on some sort of lockdown aren’t escaping enormous spikes in unemployment,” said Ernie Tedeschi, a managing director at Evercore ISI and a former Treasury Department economist. “The pain is not just deep, it’s wide. This punctuates that the fundamental problem with the economy right now is the pandemic.”
Mr. Tedeschi’s research underscores the degree to which Americans have suffered economic harm from the virus, no matter what form of restrictions their leaders have placed on business activity and travel.
Stay-at-home orders have not been evenly applied across America: Some states imposed them early, some imposed them later and some still have not imposed them at all. Yet all states have seen unemployment claims rise in recent weeks.
Mr. Tedeschi found the gap between more and less restrictive states — when comparing their normal levels of unemployment claims and current levels — has quickly narrowed. By the first week of April, claims were only about 23 percent higher in more restrictive states than less restrictive ones, adjusted for population.
Adam Ozimek, the chief economist at Upwork, found a similar pattern in restaurant reservation data from the online service OpenTable: declining activity even when restrictions were not in place. He plotted the drop in reservations made using the service across American cities and found the falloff began, typically, several days before local officials first imposed restrictions on dining out in their cities.
“How safe people perceive it to be,” Mr. Ozimek said, “matters independently from the shutdowns.”
Mr. Trump is set to establish a task force to examine when to begin lifting the restrictions that state and local officials have imposed on public gatherings and so-called nonessential businesses across the country.
A nationwide online survey by the data firm Civis Analytics over the past two weeks found more than eight in 10 Americans support restrictions on restaurant and gym openings, and nearly as many back “shelter in place” orders.
A survey last week by Seton Hall University found that seven in 10 Americans would not feel comfortable attending a sporting event until a vaccine for the virus was developed. New polling by the Sports and Leisure Research Group, Engagious and ROKK Solutions finds that only about a third of Americans would take a commercial flight, see a movie in a theater or visit a theme park now if they were allowed to do so. In follow-up interviews, respondents stressed two steps that would help them feel comfortable resuming those and other economic activities: reassurances from medical professionals and the development of a vaccine.
The drop in Americans’ plans to spend on travel and leisure activities in the next year drastically exceeds what similar polling found after the 2008 financial crisis and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said Jon Last, the president of the Sports and Leisure Research Group. “We are seeing people really hesitant to get back to normal,” he said.
“I’m scared to death, frankly, what our sales volume might be when we reopen,” Cameron Mitchell, an Ohio-based restaurateur, said in an interview last week.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce president, Ms. Clark, told members of the business advocacy group in a letter on Monday that “returning to work will be gradual” and phased in, and depend on a variety of developments across the country including additional access to testing of employees and the resolution of a wide range of legal liability issues in areas like employee health privacy.
...
All that means is that damage has already been done. But its not too late to prevent more damage from being done. Its the difference between a mere recession or depression and permanent societal collapse.
If we keep the economy closed for several more months there won't be an economy left to reopen.
This makes zero sense unless you ignore this part:
the gap between more and less restrictive states — when comparing their normal levels of unemployment claims and current levels — has quickly narrowed. By the first week of April, claims were only about 23 percent higher in more restrictive states than less restrictive ones, adjusted for population.
It clearly points out severe economic decline that is only partly attributable to lock down restrictions. The problem is that the economy runs on consumer confidence and a pandemic destroys that, yes reopening the economy helps alleviate some of the downturn, but as a second spike happens the economy will just collapse again. The stock market started its collapse days before the NY spike and lock down...
I think easing of some restrictions doesn't have to mean a complete re-opening of things, and even things that do open, should obviously still be practicing social distancing and the like as much as possible. There's middle ground to be had here... sometimes it's hard to find that in a format like this, though
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
RiTides wrote: I think easing of some restrictions doesn't have to mean a complete re-opening of things, and even things that do open, should obviously still be practicing social distancing and the like as much as possible. There's middle ground to be had here... sometimes it's hard to find that in a format like this, though
Eventually we might have cycles of lock down, partial opening, full opening and then rising cases will go for lock down again.
Problem for bars, movie theaters, airlines and the tourism industry is that no one is going to really feel like mingling with a lot of people in the middle of a pandemic. So relieving lock downs will not help much unfortunately for certain sectors. The cruise industry is probably going to be flat lined until a vaccine after all those stories.
JWBS wrote: Yodhrin, you really seem like the most hubristic person I've ever encountered, and I mean that sincerely. Between your proclamation that dissent from your own personal opinions is a signifier of sociopathy in the other thread, to your absolute certainty on the science of an unprecedented pandemic (from what is almost certainly the position of a layperson, correct me if I'm wrong), I'm honestly a bit impressed.
Honestly I'm kind of baffled how anyone could consider "I might have to deal with a slight reduction in my standard of living, we should just let half a million people die" to be anything other than sociopathic? That's not "dissenting from my person opinion", it's being willing to sacrifice countless lives for the sake of your hobby budget.
And yes, I am a layperson. That's why I base my views on the sources(and many, many others) I listed, as well as the tangible, observable, factual reality on the ground: Countries that locked down early have low casualties. Countries that adopted a rigorous test & trace response have low casualties. Countries that didn't take this seriously completely fethed themselves. There is no credible, supportable argument for lifting the lockdown in the absence of either a vaccine, or a comprehensive test & trace programme.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
They really are, staggering isn't it. Almost as staggering as the fact they're evidently too oblivious to grasp the fact that the scenario they're advocating doesn't actually prevent all the economic damage they're so concerned about, and the countries which are going to come out of this the best economically are the ones like New Zealand and South Korea who're doing exactly what the people they're arguing against suggest we should do.
RiTides wrote: I think easing of some restrictions doesn't have to mean a complete re-opening of things, and even things that do open, should obviously still be practicing social distancing and the like as much as possible. There's middle ground to be had here... sometimes it's hard to find that in a format like this, though
But this is what's lunacy - what I'm arguing for is the "middle ground". Presenting it as "total lockdown forever vs let 'er rip" is a false choice, there is a middle ground, but it requires we put comprehensive test & trace in place first.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
This argument is simplistic. It's akin to "Roads should be illegal because one life lost is one life too many". A total lack of nuance intended to create a false ethical binary doesn't lend any credence at all to this line of argument imo.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
I'm confused, even if we're taking about a 0.5% mortality rate and a 50% infection rate in one year as was being estimated, we're talking about dozens of millions of deaths worldwide, not hundreds of thousands.
Based on calculations in the NL on how many people might have already been infected (3% and 5000 deaths), we might have had 150.000 deaths if lock down measures had not kicked in and even worse if the system would have gotten overwhelmed. To indicate, that is about a 0.9% casualty rate on the infection calculations if the entire country of the NL gets infected.
Yodhrin wrote: This is a response to comments made by queen_annes_revenge in the News & Rumours thread, which discussion has been banished here by the mods:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Well, I guess if you ignore the predicted deaths from an economic collapse such as that we're facing, aswell as the decreases standards of living, decreased wages, increased taxes etc, then you could probably straw man away anyone who dares to raise concerns about such issues as a 'sociopath' but then that isn't really conducive to rational and reasonable debate.
My grandad is 92 and has asbestosis, if this gets even slightly near him he's done for, I'm not even remotely interested in people trying to mumble about "reasonable debate fnar fnar". Also, if you were actually interested in "reasonable debate", you'd have gone to the trouble of actually reading the bit of my post where I explicitly addressed the nonsense idea that lifting the lockdown will somehow avoid "economic collapse" - it won't, because if you lift the lockdown now - again, even partially - in the absence of either a vaccine OR a thorough, population-wide test, trace, isolate programme, then we will be right back to where we were and be forced to lockdown again potentially for even longer, and further it's not as if half a million people dying and the NHS being unable to treat anyone for anything else for a period of potentially months is a scenario that would have no economic impact now is it
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
The NHS is not overwhelmed.
London says hi. Also you really do need to double check what tense people are using. Will be. Is predicted to. In the future. If the outbreak isn't suppressed - not "flattened", not "managed", utterly suppressed - by either a lockdown, a vaccine, or test & trace, the modeling is absolutely clear that it will be completely incapable of coping.
There are how ever many thousand icu places still free, even before you consider the new nightingale hospitals popping up all over the place. No one has had to be turned down. The London nightingale has had 41 patients last I saw.
You're literally like those people who were defending Cheltenham etc going ahead with their "only like, ten people have died, pfff, chill bruh" shtick. Those "nightingale hospitals" have been built exactly because of the scenario I've been outlining, and they will won't be sufficient according to the models.
There's no reason the overly draconian measures can't be relaxed somewhat, and have businesses that are able to do so operate with customer control measures like curbside or over counter services, and still maintain physical social distancing. (The thing that is actually helping.)
Overly draconian
I'm going to try and illustrate this in the starkest way that I can for you: Even Piers Morgan thinks the position you're advocating is irrational and immoral.
I sincerely beg you, go and read what the WHO are saying. What the professors behind the Imperial studies are saying. What Devi Sridhar(chair of public health at Edinburgh uni) and her colleagues are saying. Understand just how utterly isolated the point of view espoused by the leaders of the SAGE is, and how entirely out of step with the science your position is. Lifting the lockdown - once more, even partially - without either a vaccine or a functioning national test & trace system is the worst of all worlds. It will cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and worse, won't even achieve its supposed benefit of preventing economic problems.
OK, well first, nice appeal to pity, but, I imagine pretty much everyone here has someone in the at risk group they dont want to die, so next.
have you looked the death graphs? yeah the area representing the number of dead doesnt change, it just covers a longer period of time.
The modelling may be clear, but the modelling isnt objective infallible truth, its a prediction.
So.. is that based on your extensive knowledge of economics? or just class based snobbery?
Nice projection there. no I'm not. I wont say any more on that.
The measures are draconian. A policeman searching my shopping will not prevent the spread of virus. prove me wrong.
Piers morgan? really? yeah his views and his frothing outrages on TV during this have been laughably stupid, and I usually agree with him.
RiTides wrote: I think easing of some restrictions doesn't have to mean a complete re-opening of things, and even things that do open, should obviously still be practicing social distancing and the like as much as possible. There's middle ground to be had here... sometimes it's hard to find that in a format like this, though
But this is what's lunacy - what I'm arguing for is the "middle ground". Presenting it as "total lockdown forever vs let 'er rip" is a false choice, there is a middle ground, but it requires we put comprehensive test & trace in place first.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but I think that's part of what has people so fired up about this - yes, there are people who are just out of left field, but the vast majority are not advocating for one end of the spectrum or the other. You're arguing for a "middle ground", but someone else making the "Let's start to open things back up" argument might also be thinking of a middle ground, not a full re-opening.
I had to make a run to Walmart yesterday, and despite being open, most people were wearing masks, everyone was keeping really far apart, etc. It's possible to have things open, and still practice intense social distancing. Sometimes I think people arguing with each other here are actually in agreement and just don't know it
There will always be crazies... but I don't think 90%+ of people want a full re-opening, but a phased, responsible one.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
I'm not saying that I agree with Grey T...
But, that sort of calculus happens all the time. Perfect example are automotive seatbelt laws, or regulations to purchase firearms.
JWBS wrote: Yodhrin, you really seem like the most hubristic person I've ever encountered, and I mean that sincerely. Between your proclamation that dissent from your own personal opinions is a signifier of sociopathy in the other thread, to your absolute certainty on the science of an unprecedented pandemic (from what is almost certainly the position of a layperson, correct me if I'm wrong), I'm honestly a bit impressed.
Honestly I'm kind of baffled how anyone could consider "I might have to deal with a slight reduction in my standard of living, we should just let half a million people die" to be anything other than sociopathic? That's not "dissenting from my person opinion", it's being willing to sacrifice countless lives for the sake of your hobby budget.
And yes, I am a layperson. That's why I base my views on the sources(and many, many others) I listed, as well as the tangible, observable, factual reality on the ground: Countries that locked down early have low casualties. Countries that adopted a rigorous test & trace response have low casualties. Countries that didn't take this seriously completely fethed themselves. There is no credible, supportable argument for lifting the lockdown in the absence of either a vaccine, or a comprehensive test & trace programme.
Since when was absolute financial ruin the same as dealing with a slight reduction in living standards? Who do you think you are fooling with this very obviously false equivalence? And as far as the scientific consensus goes, there definitely isn't one. I've lately seen claims of "A bad flu during a cold Winter" all the way up to those numbers from Neil Ferguson a few months ago. All from serious, credible people. None of them can be pointed to as absolutely correct, this is unprecedented, and erring on the side of pessimism has been proven to be the defacto safest position (In debate I mean, not in public health policy).
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
This argument is simplistic. It's akin to "Roads should be illegal because one life lost is one life too many". A total lack of nuance intended to create a false ethical binary doesn't lend any credence at all to this line of argument imo.
You might be barking up the wrong tree trying to get that across here.
I think the problem is, im not sure people are convinced we are past the worst part yet.
Im certainly not convinced that this will subside anytime soon.
Im honestly scared to death of this. My mom will die if she gets it, i work with immunocompromised individuals who can die from the FLU.
I get that some things can open up, maybe some smaller retail stores with time limits you can be in there, encourage a shopping list to know what you want.
But people advocating that things like HAircuts, Nail salons, golf and such baffle me.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
I'm not saying that I agree with Grey T...
But, that sort of calculus happens all the time. Perfect example are automotive seatbelt laws, or regulations to purchase firearms.
But why are we thinking of people as numbers? Sure, in the grand scheme of things, those people dont matter, none of us really do, a 1%(im pulling a number out of my ass here, im not sure of the rate of death vs survival, just using it for effect) death rate is nothing.....but those are still people, who matter to other people.
Just from an infection risk standpoint, golf seems pretty easy to handle (not yet imo, but when the time is right). Close the clubhouse, mandate that groups not come into contact, and they're basically spread out in a large outdoor space. Probably one of the best outdoor sports for minimizing contact, really...
Edit: Unless you meant professional golf with crowds! In which case, the solution would end up being to not have crowds, imo... it seems many sports leagues, when they do start up eventually, will be played without spectators (but should see record TV numbers - people are watching remote HORSE games right now, for goodness sake ).
All these "think about the economy" arguments also ignore the fact that most countries have economic advisors and the government is weighing what the important thing to do is. We already see lifting restrictions in Europe, so this amount of people saved versus acceptable loss calculus is already being made.
Right - which is why I think a lot of people disagreeing are actually saying similar things. There is obviously a balance to be had, where the absolute safest thing is no one to ever leave their house, but there are a lot of things that can be phased in with only a small increase in risk, and with a lot of benefit to society / economy / etc.
RiTides wrote: Just from an infection risk standpoint, golf seems pretty easy to handle (not yet imo, but when the time is right). Close the clubhouse, mandate that groups not come into contact, and they're basically spread out in a large outdoor space. Probably one of the best outdoor sports for minimizing contact, really...
Edit: Unless you meant professional golf with crowds! In which case, the solution would end up being to not have crowds, imo... it seems many sports leagues, when they do start up eventually, will be played without spectators (but should see record TV numbers - people are watching remote HORSE games right now, for goodness sake ).
If they close the clubhouse, i can maybe get behind it down the line.
My point being though that anything that increases risk, even minimally, should be avoided. I doupt golf courses are the one in danger of collapsing. Small retail businesses are though.
Balance the need of the activity, vs the possibility of infection vs the possibility of a business going under along with how it can be done safely
For example, Dog grooming vs Nail Solon.
Both are probably in danger of going under, but nails are not essential for everything. But dog groomers perform tasks that can be dangerous for people to do untrained(Clipping dogs nails and anal gland extraction) while nails can be done at home. Dog grooming can be done contactless. at mine i put the card on my dog, tied him up outside, left a bit away, they cam and picked him up, and done. Nails you cant do contactless.
im rambling though and avoid work soooooo.
In about three weeks we won't have to speculate as TN, SC, GA, TX and FL are all states in the US lifting their lockdowns. We can see what happens to them and the surrounding states as a test bed for these theories.
Yeah, people seem to not understand that no matter what government did, we will have both deaths and economic loss due to Covid. You don't need a shut down order to see restaurants take a hit. Major sports shut down well ahead of orders. OTOH, factories and farms are still working.
This is also why shutdown orders were incremental, because the goal is minimize the economic impact while maximizing the lifesaving aspects.
RiTides wrote: Right - which is why I think a lot of people disagreeing are actually saying similar things. There is obviously a balance to be had, where the absolute safest thing is no one to ever leave their house, but there are a lot of things that can be phased in with only a small increase in risk, and with a lot of benefit to society / economy / etc.
I think the main disagreement falls along the lines of how much damage you think is inflicted by lock downs versus just the pandemic.
Balance is hard to achieve indeed. If governments really didn't care about the economy or rights they could just go the China way and lock everyone in their house for 3-4 weeks. That pretty much wipes out the virus, but that would require the whole world to do it. As China shows its just importing cases and going into regional lock downs again. Having seen how close my country came to IC beds capacity even with a significant lock down, I can only wonder what would have happened without. But we need to keep this up for 18 months or more and I can see people can't keep up this lock down after 6+ weeks. A balance would hopefully keep the public agreeable to periodic lock downs.
I'm confused, even if we're taking about a 0.5% mortality rate and a 50% infection rate in one year as was being estimated, we're talking about dozens of millions of deaths worldwide, not hundreds of thousands.
It would be worse than that. The issue of a collapsed health system means that all other preventeable deaths because modern medicine become potentially lethal.
So we would have dozens of millions of deaths because COVID-19, and many millions more because collapsed health systems.
This is a really good article on how and why famine and starvation are likely to appear. It's sobering and horrifying. I'd thought of the economic consequences limited to lowering everyone's lifestyle, or at worst pausing most people's progress for a year or two. But internationally, and undoubtedly just in areas I'm less familiar with domestically, it's far more dire.
Polonius wrote: Yeah, people seem to not understand that no matter what government did, we will have both deaths and economic loss due to Covid. You don't need a shut down order to see restaurants take a hit. Major sports shut down well ahead of orders. OTOH, factories and farms are still working.
This is also why shutdown orders were incremental, because the goal is minimize the economic impact while maximizing the lifesaving aspects.
I would expand on that a bit.
Yes, overall that's the goal, but the primary reason why the shutdowns were instituted was so that we do NOT overwhelm the healthcare resources. That is because we simply didn't have (and we still don't!) a full understanding of this novel virus. This is why your hear the terminologies of "flattening" the curve...
By that objective, we've (meaning the US) succeeded that. We've shown that for the most part, we'll observe social distancing rules and can remain vigilant on personnel hygiene.
Because of that, I think it's prudent to explore incrementally opening up the economy. That includes services like nail salon, restarunts and tattoo parlors... so, long as those businesses observe proper PPE and social distancing.
FWIW... part of my job is that I've spent that last few weeks supporting my institution to develop/manage popup MASH units (ie, mobile/tented ICU & PUI units) to anticipate a surge... which we haven't seen and now, we're planning to decommission them. We're on the downward trend in my region, so it makes sense to start reopening the economy.
This is a really good article on how and why famine and starvation are likely to appear. It's sobering and horrifying. I'd thought of the economic consequences limited to lowering everyone's lifestyle, or at worst pausing most people's progress for a year or two. But internationally, and undoubtedly just in areas I'm less familiar with domestically, it's far more dire.
Most afraid i am of india.
Because the country has a mobile enough population with a dire enough sanitary situation.
On top of civil unrest in some provinces.
I'm confused, even if we're taking about a 0.5% mortality rate and a 50% infection rate in one year as was being estimated, we're talking about dozens of millions of deaths worldwide, not hundreds of thousands.
It would be worse than that. The issue of a collapsed health system means that all other preventeable deaths because modern medicine become potentially lethal.
So we would have dozens of millions of deaths because COVID-19, and many millions more because collapsed health systems.
That's why flattening the curve is so important.
Exactly, so the numbers game is disingenuous because based on some of the best scenarios you would already see a staggering death toll and that alone would drive the economy into the ground. So saying lock down kills more is a very loaded statement to make, because there are no calculations that we have that say so, lock downs are estimated to save millions in those scenarios and it probably ends up a net positive if you want to game with an absolute number of deaths with lock downs versus economy.
Polonius wrote: Yeah, people seem to not understand that no matter what government did, we will have both deaths and economic loss due to Covid. You don't need a shut down order to see restaurants take a hit. Major sports shut down well ahead of orders. OTOH, factories and farms are still working.
This is also why shutdown orders were incremental, because the goal is minimize the economic impact while maximizing the lifesaving aspects.
I would expand on that a bit.
Yes, overall that's the goal, but the primary reason why the shutdowns were instituted was so that we do NOT overwhelm the healthcare resources. That is because we simply didn't have (and we still don't!) a full understanding of this novel virus. This is why your hear the terminologies of "flattening" the curve...
By that objective, we've (meaning the US) succeeded that. We've shown that for the most part, we'll observe social distancing rules and can remain vigilant on personnel hygiene.
Because of that, I think it's prudent to explore incrementally opening up the economy. That includes services like nail salon, restarunts and tattoo parlors... so, long as those businesses observe proper PPE and social distancing.
FWIW... part of my job is that I've spent that last few weeks supporting my institution to develop/manage popup MASH units (ie, mobile/tented ICU & PUI units) to anticipate a surge... which we haven't seen and now, we're planning to decommission them. We're on the downward trend in my region, so it makes sense to start reopening the economy.
But the problem is that nobody is arguing that lock down needs to last until a vaccine, not even health officials. That is a false argument brought to the table by the anti-lock down crowd. The epidemiologists want to approach this in a rational manner.
Easy E wrote: In about three weeks we won't have to speculate as TN, SC, GA, TX and FL are all states in the US lifting their lockdowns. We can see what happens to them and the surrounding states as a test bed for these theories.
Sweden's path will also be very interesting. They are a state that's often put on a pedestal by many people that aren't Swedish, and their choices during this crisis have been quite unusual. I've not seen them criticised anywhere near as much as other countries have been (probably due to the aforementioned pedestal). I wonder what their stats will look like this time next month.
But the problem is that nobody is arguing that lock down needs to last until a vaccine, not even health officials. That is a false argument brought to the table by the anti-lock down crowd. The epidemiologists want to approach this in a rational manner.
Of course. I support the incremental approach and also ramping plans for the next fall/winter as we'll be address both the normal flu and corona virus at the same time.
But why are we thinking of people as numbers? Sure, in the grand scheme of things, those people dont matter, none of us really do, a 1%(im pulling a number out of my ass here, im not sure of the rate of death vs survival, just using it for effect) death rate is nothing.....but those are still people, who matter to other people.
For some people out there, unless the sick and/or dying is someone they personally know and actually care about, then people are just numbers: they're someone else and someone else's problem. That's why people are out there with posters plastered with empty slogans about "the economy" or "freedom", but not so many with posters saying "my dad" or "my best friend".
But why are we thinking of people as numbers? Sure, in the grand scheme of things, those people dont matter, none of us really do, a 1%(im pulling a number out of my ass here, im not sure of the rate of death vs survival, just using it for effect) death rate is nothing.....but those are still people, who matter to other people.
For some people out there, unless the sick and/or dying is someone they personally know and actually care about, then people are just numbers: they're someone else and someone else's problem. That's why people are out there with posters plastered with empty slogans about "the economy" or "freedom", but not so many with posters saying "my dad" or "my best friend".
It's almost like you don't understand the concept of abstraction.
Edit: nevermind. I'm just overly pissed right now because I just came from another forum where I saw people I thought were decent people basically lacking even the tiniest shred of empathy for any human life other than their own.
Sweden, and for example, Finland, as I understand it though, as societies already basically practice social distancing as normal - they like their personal space a LOT.
OTOH are places like Angola, which have barely been hit at all (yet), but despite existing poverty have been in lockdown since mid-march now, and it has just been extended until may 10th at which point gvt will re-evaluate. And people are managing. So honestly, if even countries dirt-poor like in West Africa can manage to stay put for at least two months, the only reason anyone in rich places like Europe and the US can't or won't is pure selfishness.
I would just like to address one thing in regards to the nightingale hospital. The nightingale hospital hasn't admitted only 41 people because that's all the people that needed help. Its only admitted 41 people because they cant staff the place.
Bran Dawri wrote: Sweden, and for example, Finland, as I understand it though, as societies already basically practice social distancing as normal - they like their personal space a LOT.
OTOH are places like Angola, which have barely been hit at all (yet), but despite existing poverty have been in lockdown since mid-march now, and it has just been extended until may 10th at which point gvt will re-evaluate. And people are managing. So honestly, if even countries dirt-poor like in West Africa can manage to stay put for at least two months, the only reason anyone in rich places like Europe and the US can't or won't is pure selfishness.
Yes, I looked a while at the map of Sweden and the population of Sweden, and I can see why there may be some form of natural distancing at play there.
High concentration iso alcohol, like what you use to make homemade hand sanatizer, has been hard to find. I just cam across a lot of bottles of it at a dollar store and grabbed one automatically.
I'd bought it before for various regular uses and never had a bottle that was less than 90% pure so I didn't even check the level. Only after i got it home i found it was only 50%, which is too low to use as a reliable sanitizer..
Looks like some company was diluting it's higher concentration stuff to sell en masse and make a quick profit.
I suppose in a twilight zone ep the ceo of this company or someone he cared about would get covid from someone who'd bought his diluted alcohol to use as a sanitizer.
So if you see a bottle of iso alcohol on sale be damn sure to check the concentration before buying it. If it's less than 60% it's useless.
The norse countries in general are big on their personal space, which is something I can get behind. However they have the benefit of lower population densities, large open spaced countries and lots of places for solitude which is difficult to find in more densely populated mid European countries.
Matt Swain wrote: High concentration iso alcohol, like what you use to make homemade hand sanatizer, has been hard to find. I just cam across a lot of bottles of it at a dollar store and grabbed one automatically.
I'd bought it before for various regular uses and never had a bottle that was less than 90% pure so I didn't even check the level. Only after i got it home i found it was only 50%, which is too low to use as a reliable sanitizer..
Looks like some company was diluting it's higher concentration stuff to sell en masse and make a quick profit.
I suppose in a twilight zone ep the ceo of this company or someone he cared about would get covid from someone who'd bought his diluted alcohol to use as a sanitizer.
So if you see a bottle of iso alcohol on sale be damn sure to check the concentration before buying it. If it's less than 60% it's useless.
Moonshining it is then.
Thank GOD i live in a rural Part and get access to the things i need via alternatives.
But why are we thinking of people as numbers? Sure, in the grand scheme of things, those people dont matter, none of us really do, a 1%(im pulling a number out of my ass here, im not sure of the rate of death vs survival, just using it for effect) death rate is nothing.....but those are still people, who matter to other people.
For some people out there, unless the sick and/or dying is someone they personally know and actually care about, then people are just numbers: they're someone else and someone else's problem. That's why people are out there with posters plastered with empty slogans about "the economy" or "freedom", but not so many with posters saying "my dad" or "my best friend".
Yeah, but you can assume that most people don't want their dad to die. Generally that doesn't need to be mentioned.
It's the same reason that those talking about the economic effects aren't talking about their kids. It's irrelevant to the conversation. It's not a matter of life vs money, as people seem to want to suggest. It's life vs life, if you want to boil it down to such an elementary level.
For example. Many are predicting that deaths due to cancer could actually be higher due to the lack of medical diagnosis and or treatment
Matt Swain wrote: High concentration iso alcohol, like what you use to make homemade hand sanatizer, has been hard to find. I just cam across a lot of bottles of it at a dollar store and grabbed one automatically.
I'd bought it before for various regular uses and never had a bottle that was less than 90% pure so I didn't even check the level. Only after i got it home i found it was only 50%, which is too low to use as a reliable sanitizer..
Looks like some company was diluting it's higher concentration stuff to sell en masse and make a quick profit.
I suppose in a twilight zone ep the ceo of this company or someone he cared about would get covid from someone who'd bought his diluted alcohol to use as a sanitizer.
So if you see a bottle of iso alcohol on sale be damn sure to check the concentration before buying it. If it's less than 60% it's useless.
Moonshining it is then.
Thank GOD i live in a rural Part and get access to the things i need via alternatives.
Finally! A growth industry us mountain folks have been perfecting for generations!
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The norse countries in general are big on their personal space, which is something I can get behind. However they have the benefit of lower population densities, large open spaced countries and lots of places for solitude which is difficult to find in more densely populated mid European countries.
Depends where you are.
London? Yep. A mighty busy place. Always has been.
Down in Kent, where I am? Far more room to oneself. Sure we’re not exactly Bumpkinville. Tunbridge Wells is rather cosmopolitan. But we’ve plenty of green spaces and woods and that to wander in.
But why are we thinking of people as numbers? Sure, in the grand scheme of things, those people dont matter, none of us really do, a 1%(im pulling a number out of my ass here, im not sure of the rate of death vs survival, just using it for effect) death rate is nothing.....but those are still people, who matter to other people.
For some people out there, unless the sick and/or dying is someone they personally know and actually care about, then people are just numbers: they're someone else and someone else's problem. That's why people are out there with posters plastered with empty slogans about "the economy" or "freedom", but not so many with posters saying "my dad" or "my best friend".
Yeah, but you can assume that most people don't want their dad to die. Generally that doesn't need to be mentioned.
It's the same reason that those talking about the economic effects aren't talking about their kids. It's irrelevant to the conversation. It's not a matter of life vs money, as people seem to want to suggest. It's life vs life, if you want to boil it down to such an elementary level.
For example. Many are predicting that deaths due to cancer could actually be higher due to the lack of medical diagnosis and or treatment
Absolutely. Framing the argument as "My neighbour has lung cancer and she will die and you're inhumane for talking about numbers when I'm talking about this" is really quite absurd. The reality is, when someone says "We're going to lose $500 billion dollars from this mistake and that is going to be bad for a lot of people", then they absolutely are thinking about your neighbour. And also your daughter, and your postman and your cat. They're thinking of far more people than you are. Human suffering can and should be quantified in numbers. We can't see everythign and everyone as an individual case study. That is madness. We take very large numbers of individual case studies and turn them into the useful semi-science of sociology. Everything can be measured in numbers. The universe is made of numbers. They're the only constant. Not your mother or your husband. Hundreds, thousands, millions of mothers and husbands, counted and accounted. If your best argument is "My mate James", then IDK what to say (apart from everything I've already said here).
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The norse countries in general are big on their personal space, which is something I can get behind. However they have the benefit of lower population densities, large open spaced countries and lots of places for solitude which is difficult to find in more densely populated mid European countries.
Depends where you are.
London? Yep. A mighty busy place. Always has been.
Down in Kent, where I am? Far more room to oneself. Sure we’re not exactly Bumpkinville. Tunbridge Wells is rather cosmopolitan. But we’ve plenty of green spaces and woods and that to wander in.
Oh yeah, I'm talking about the countries in general. I watch a Norwegian guy on YouTube called bjorn anders bull hansen, and he talked about when he goes to European cities, and how he was uncomfortable with how close people sit and things like that, which as I said, I agree with. On trains I will often stand in the atriums by the luggage rather than sit close to other people. I usually only sit if there are plenty of spare seats. I don't really have a problem with people sitting next to me, I'd just rather not if possible.
Were lucky in Oxfordshire too. We have the Chilterns all around us, with lots of open space. I've only ever been to Kent once. To Canterbury. It's a part of the country I haven't spent much time in.
Not Online!!! wrote: Utilitariansim has massive issues though Jwbs, especially because it can easily be abused as a Legitimation for rather nasty things.
That is also true, but I think in this situation no one is really pushing for pure utilitarianism. God knows I wouldn't want it.. A lot of its concepts are anathema to my beliefs and philosophies. Its more calling for a balanced approach, and not just following the main narrative, which has not really given any real consideration to those other issues.
Not Online!!! wrote: Utilitariansim has massive issues though Jwbs, especially because it can easily be abused as a Legitimation for rather nasty things.
Yes that's true. Definitely the number needs to have a human face. But imo it's a big mashup of all the human faces, not just that one face of yours or mine or anyone else's nearest and dearest.
He states that everything can be quantified and accounted.
That is the purest Version to my knowledge.
Also i Find it not to be the case that economy Stands behind.nr 1 Concern here was maintaining as much Off the economy as possible in conjunction with buissness , unions and people/government. So no it is at most an issue in your Region seemingly.
Not Online!!! wrote: Utilitariansim has massive issues though Jwbs, especially because it can easily be abused as a Legitimation for rather nasty things.
Yes that's true. Definitely the number needs to have a human face. But imo it's a big mashup of all the human faces, not just that one face of yours or mine or anyone else's nearest and dearest.
Sure however then you can't Account anymore for anything.
And i happen to agree with many points with qar as insofar if we manage to not get a decent size Part Off out economy working again and maintaining it at that condition we will get massive issues, i just disagree to a degree on certain issues including protests.
However we should not forget that since 2008 alot of states failed to do their homework economically. And that a recession or even depression was inevitable.
You can't disconnect economy form human dignity, happiness, health, everything else. "Economics" is not a dirty word. It definitely should have a place of importance in any covid discussion.
JWBS wrote: You can't disconnect economy form human dignity, happiness, health, everything else. "Economics" is not a dirty word. It definitely should have a place of importance in any covid discussion.
Fundamental disagree, neither dignity nor happiness in the Truest sense are connected to economy. (Alone)
Repsectively i feel Like an over valueing in purely economy based focus is happening but that is a philosophical Debate which infamously tend to be never Finished
Edit: autocorrect is the Name of my dakka mobile experience.
JWBS wrote: You can't disconnect economy form human dignity, happiness, health, everything else. "Economics" is not a dirty word. It definitely should have a place of importance in any covid discussion.
Fundamental disagree, neither dignity nor happiness in the Truest sense are connected to economy. (Alone)
Repsectively i feel Like an over valueing in purely economy based focus is happening but that is a philosophical Debate which infamously tend to be never Finished
Edit: autocorrect is the Name of my dakka mobile experience.
No, of course, I'm not saying that economics is the only (or even the primary) driver of human happiness. It is not so in my case. But, in the end, the importance cannot be denied. You live in Switzerland. With respect, you've never even had to think of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_needs Basic needs (neither have I). For many people around the worls, this is reality. And that's just the start. When you think of everything else that relies wholly on economic prosperity, it's impossible to separate economics from human happiness (In my opinion. I'm not an economist, but I am a human).
JWBS wrote: You can't disconnect economy form human dignity, happiness, health, everything else. "Economics" is not a dirty word. It definitely should have a place of importance in any covid discussion.
Fundamental disagree, neither dignity nor happiness in the Truest sense are connected to economy. (Alone)
Repsectively i feel Like an over valueing in purely economy based focus is happening but that is a philosophical Debate which infamously tend to be never Finished
Edit: autocorrect is the Name of my dakka mobile experience.
No, of course, I'm not saying that economics is the only (or even the primary) driver of human happiness. It is not so in my case. But, in the end, the importance cannot be denied. You live in Switzerland. With respect, you've never even had to think of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_needs Basic needs (neither have I). For many people around the worls, this is reality. And that's just the start. When you think of everything else that relies wholly on economic prosperity, it's impossible to separate economics from human happiness (In my opinion. I'm not an economist, but I am a human).
On a economic scale i think the worst will happen in countries that are developping but not there yet, Like india, These have neither the luxury of stopping nor of working as buissness as usual.
Further These developping countries also have often lackluster sanitation and mobile populations.
Also the basic needs approach is by far not undisputed or as easy as the english article makes it out to be. The german Version allready splits up into psychological and political subparts and notes various effects of crisis etc on determination of what Accounts for a basic need.
I don't get the cancer argument. Yes, people don't always get the treatment they need because of the lock down. But the alternative to that is not getting the treatment they need because the healthcare system is overwhelmed by Coronavirus cases.
People are going to die more from other causes yes, but are they going to die more from other causes with or without a lock down?
You say that, but in the UK it seems some people have been taking advantage and doing ridiculous speeds on some roads. There has been a big uptick in speeding fines aparantly.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: You say that, but in the UK it seems some people have been taking advantage and doing ridiculous speeds on some roads. There has been a big uptick in speeding fines aparantly.
Well Overall there's less trafic here aswell but the reckless and overly dumb now drift along some smaller mountain Passes and speeding whilest Overall down has gotten alot more severe...
Alpharius wrote: Is that actually true and happening or is it just an assumption at this point?
IDk. I know economic downturns lead to more self-destruction (I say again, I'm no economist. This is just common knowledge). I think the traffic fatalities is true though - I've read (before reading on Dakka) that road deaths are down right now. Seems legit, when you think of how many fewer cars are on the road (I live near a heavily trafficked road and I can safely say, yes, traffic is definitely down!)
Matt Swain wrote: High concentration iso alcohol, like what you use to make homemade hand sanatizer, has been hard to find. I just cam across a lot of bottles of it at a dollar store and grabbed one automatically.
I'd bought it before for various regular uses and never had a bottle that was less than 90% pure so I didn't even check the level. Only after i got it home i found it was only 50%, which is too low to use as a reliable sanitizer..
Looks like some company was diluting it's higher concentration stuff to sell en masse and make a quick profit.
I suppose in a twilight zone ep the ceo of this company or someone he cared about would get covid from someone who'd bought his diluted alcohol to use as a sanitizer.
So if you see a bottle of iso alcohol on sale be damn sure to check the concentration before buying it. If it's less than 60% it's useless.
Moonshining it is then.
Thank GOD i live in a rural Part and get access to the things i need via alternatives.
I know you were joking, but now I have to ask if moonshine alcohol, ethanol, is as effective at killing germs as isopropyl alcohol is? I know isopropyl alcohol is more effective at killing people than ethanol alcohol is. I know it makes a better paint stripper.
Now that you say that - I think I remember some sort of series specifically about Moonshiners? It wasn't a documentary - it was a fictional drama series. Maybe something from netflix or another non-network production? Anyone know what I'm thinking of? (2015 onwards, not some throwback pre-internet TV series).
/Edit it was this - Outsiders - it was quite good
Most of the people who are out screaming to "end the quarantine" and "give me back my freedom!" tend to belong to the same part of the social spectrum that is almost always in favor of more prisons and more people in prison for longer times.
JWBS wrote: Yodhrin, you really seem like the most hubristic person I've ever encountered, and I mean that sincerely. Between your proclamation that dissent from your own personal opinions is a signifier of sociopathy in the other thread, to your absolute certainty on the science of an unprecedented pandemic (from what is almost certainly the position of a layperson, correct me if I'm wrong), I'm honestly a bit impressed.
Honestly I'm kind of baffled how anyone could consider "I might have to deal with a slight reduction in my standard of living, we should just let half a million people die" to be anything other than sociopathic? That's not "dissenting from my person opinion", it's being willing to sacrifice countless lives for the sake of your hobby budget.
And yes, I am a layperson. That's why I base my views on the sources(and many, many others) I listed, as well as the tangible, observable, factual reality on the ground: Countries that locked down early have low casualties. Countries that adopted a rigorous test & trace response have low casualties. Countries that didn't take this seriously completely fethed themselves. There is no credible, supportable argument for lifting the lockdown in the absence of either a vaccine, or a comprehensive test & trace programme.
Half a million dead is less than the alternative of global collapse and famine. But thats not what I am advocating. I'm saying we need to start reopening at a steady pace, but it needs to start now. Yes, that will cause a spike, but the alternative to that is total collapse.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
They really are, staggering isn't it. Almost as staggering as the fact they're evidently too oblivious to grasp the fact that the scenario they're advocating doesn't actually prevent all the economic damage they're so concerned about, and the countries which are going to come out of this the best economically are the ones like New Zealand and South Korea who're doing exactly what the people they're arguing against suggest we should do.
RiTides wrote: I think easing of some restrictions doesn't have to mean a complete re-opening of things, and even things that do open, should obviously still be practicing social distancing and the like as much as possible. There's middle ground to be had here... sometimes it's hard to find that in a format like this, though
But this is what's lunacy - what I'm arguing for is the "middle ground". Presenting it as "total lockdown forever vs let 'er rip" is a false choice, there is a middle ground, but it requires we put comprehensive test & trace in place first.
No. You are not arguing for middle ground. You are arguing for a shutdown lasting months, maybe into next year. That is utterly unacceptable.
The middle ground is a shutdown lasting for 6-8 weeks tops, which in my area has already gone way past that. With a gradual opening starting at week 6 and working up to full reopening maybe 12 weeks. Anything longer than that is going to not just cripple the economy. Its going to annihilate it.
CA is utterly screwed by the shutdown. We're going to lose all of our small businesses and millions will be unemployed permanently. Its too late for no damage to be done. But its not too late to ensure we only experience a recession, and not complete collapse. Considering how infectious the virus is, we are all most likely infected already. And anybody who isn't will be soon. So there is little point in making life miserable for 100% of the population.
We should allow all businesses to resume operations, just keep recommendations(not mandates) in place for social distancing and limiting unnecessary trips. Then we focus all efforts on direct treatment of patients and servicing at-risk people. Maybe government programs that can deliver groceries to the elderly and perform periodic wellness checks so they do not need to leave their homes at all. Build temporary hospitals to deal with the extra strain. Focus on helping those who actually need help rather than beating on the healthy portion of the population.
If someone wants to keep operating their barbershop and is themselves healthy, they should be allowed to keep doing it.
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?
Practicality, more than anything else. ID'ing the person a the protest and then tracking them forward to the point where they infected someone who then died is, for all practical purposes, impossible. And without that chain of evidence securing a conviction becomes a practical impossibility if the defense lawyer is even halfway competent. It probably won't ever even be heard in front of a jury as the judge is almost certain to throw it out before that. And on the incredibly unlikely event you do secure a conviction, there will be appeals and it's unlikely the conviction would be upheld. So it's a whole lot of work for a very tiny possibility of accomplishing anything.
And even if you did, there would be screams of political discrimination and a whole raft of conspiracy theories born that the Democrats were coming to purge the Republicans out of the country for good...
LOL Good series Also Matt Swain, you may need to refresh your definition of "Irony" my man
Hmm, people who belong to a persuasion that tends to favor prison sentences for what are often matters of personal choice that do not harm others are now claiming that the restrictions and curtailments of the corona virus limitation measures are an unbearable violation of their freedom because they are often stuck at home with family, unrestricted TV, internet, phone, mail, a choice of what they eat, when they eat and other things people in prison generally do not have.
Because of the definition of Irony is why. What you're (kinda disingenuously) describing there is a conservative outlook. It's not Ironic. It's not sarcastic, or surreal, or Neo-classical, or French. It's Conservative. That's it. No Irony there mate.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: 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.
Liberty comes with responsibility. Your liberty ends when it impinges on the rights of another (the 'your right to swing your fists around end at my nose' argument). For example, your right to own and shoot a gun ends when an innocent person downrange is killed. So your right to gather or worship or protest ends when there's a highly contagious disease out and about killing people in job lots.
JWBS wrote: Because of the definition of Irony is why. What you're (kinda disingenuously) describing there is a conservative outlook. It's not Ironic. It's not sarcastic, or surreal, or Neo-classical, or French. It's Conservative. That's it. No Irony there mate.
Well, I think we will not come to an agreement here and I'll leave it at that.
Vulcan - That's kind of a clumsy description. You can still do all those things, but with restrictions and with following social distancing.
To let any crisis cause a blanket ban of any protest, for instance, is a slippery slope no one wants. However, in my opinion protests which violate social distancing should result in arrests / more consequences, whereas those that don't (like people staying in cars) should be treated like any protest or act of civil disobedience normally.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: 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.
Liberty comes with responsibility. Your liberty ends when it impinges on the rights of another (the 'your right to swing your fists around end at my nose' argument). For example, your right to own and shoot a gun ends when an innocent person downrange is killed. So your right to gather or worship or protest ends when there's a highly contagious disease out and about killing people in job lots.
Except that only works if you put no responsibility on the person who gets sick in that case. If Person A catches the virus from Person B who attended a rally, obviously Person A left their house and came into contact with Person B. IE: Unless you can determine that Person B made a deliberate effort to infect person A, they aren't responsible. Person A left their house, meaning all responsibility lies with them. They chose to take a risk and leave their house while a plague is going around. That abdicates any responsibility from other individuals unless those individuals make deliberate and targeted efforts to infect someone else.
If Person B walked up to Person A and deliberately coughed on them and smeared their wet handkerchief on their face then they would be responsible. But anything short of that is the responsibility of Person B.
Otherwise, we would have to extend this to all sorts of potentially deadly contagious conditions. We'd have to hold people with a cold criminally responsible if they went out in public to buy some drammamine and while they were at the store left a smear on the counter which the elderly lady behind them in line got infected from, caught pneumonia and died. Which would be utterly ridiculous.
Vulcan wrote: Okay, as of page 103 I see that the battle lines are set, neither side is budging, and there's no point in continuing to read this thread.
Peace, y'all. I'm out.
You're the God of Fire. But you can't deal with this? Ok. The rest of us are screwed then. Thanks for letting us know i suppose.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The norse countries in general are big on their personal space, which is something I can get behind. However they have the benefit of lower population densities, large open spaced countries and lots of places for solitude which is difficult to find in more densely populated mid European countries.
The lower population densities are somewhat misleading, since the population is rather concentrated. Lappland being huge doesn't really matter when most of the population lives elsewhere.
Also, I don't know where people have been looking, but as a Swede I've seen an absolute avalanche of people, both domestic and foreign, telling us how stupid we are and how we're gonna have hundreds of thousands of deaths. There's a really nasty undercurrent of schadenfreude, with people wanting us to have a large amount of deaths so they can caress their own egoes and tell everyone how clever they were.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The norse countries in general are big on their personal space, which is something I can get behind. However they have the benefit of lower population densities, large open spaced countries and lots of places for solitude which is difficult to find in more densely populated mid European countries.
The lower population densities are somewhat misleading, since the population is rather concentrated. Lappland being huge doesn't really matter when most of the population lives elsewhere.
Also, I don't know where people have been looking, but as a Swede I've seen an absolute avalanche of people, both domestic and foreign, telling us how stupid we are and how we're gonna have hundreds of thousands of deaths. There's a really nasty undercurrent of schadenfreude, with people wanting us to have a large amount of deaths so they can caress their own egoes and tell everyone how clever they were.
TBH mate, I've been looking at the death vs test ratio, and it seems fairly clear (to me, as someone who isn't particularly adept at statistics or indeed medicine) that the countries that test most have a far lower incidence of mortality. The ramifications of this are obvious so I won't repeat them here, but anyone that cares to look further can see for themselves.
Antibody testing from NYC just showed an infection rate of 20% in a sample population. Needs lots of follow up and confirmation but it would imply both that the virus was more widespread and contagious than previously thought, but also less deadly (0.5% fatality rate - still high but lower than previously indicated):
Matt Swain wrote: I know you were joking, but now I have to ask if moonshine alcohol, ethanol, is as effective at killing germs as isopropyl alcohol is? I know isopropyl alcohol is more effective at killing people than ethanol alcohol is. I know it makes a better paint stripper.
RiTides wrote: Antibody testing from NYC just showed an infection rate of 20% in a sample population. Needs lots of follow up and confirmation but it would imply both that the virus was more widespread and contagious than previously thought, but also less deadly (0.5% fatality rate - still high but lower than previously indicated):
Not something to jump to conclusions over but let's see if it gets confirmed in follow ups...
Yeah. More tests equals less deaths. Basically fear of the unknown. If we only test the most ill of all of us? Yeah - we get more deaths per test (who would have thought??? ) But if we test loads of people - the ill, the queasy, and the healthy - guess what - less of us die! Anyway. I've said a few times already in this thread - I think we're working on a "Worst case scenario" - and this, whilst "Morally Acceptable", isn't really "Pragmatic" (which, in my opinion, is the most Humanitarian outlook).
Grey Templar wrote: CA is utterly screwed by the shutdown. We're going to lose all of our small businesses and millions will be unemployed permanently. Its too late for no damage to be done
I think you posted some pretty questionable ideas in that post but I want to single this one out in particular. Why will millions be unemployed permanently? How could you form such an idea?
If you are a 20 year old dishwasher that got laid off, you're saying he might live to 100 and not work again for the next 80 years?
I mean, how even? The economy in 1918 after the Spanish Flu and WW1 was recovering by 1919 and totally recovered by 1921. Have you heard the phrase "Roaring 20s" before? It wasn't because "millions were permanently unemployed" after following pretty much the same kind of social distancing... and then they had a world war to boot.
Grey Templar wrote: CA is utterly screwed by the shutdown. We're going to lose all of our small businesses and millions will be unemployed permanently. Its too late for no damage to be done
I think you posted some pretty questionable ideas in that post but I want to single this one out in particular. Why will millions be unemployed permanently? How could you form such an idea?
If you are a 20 year old dishwasher that got laid off, you're saying he might live to 100 and not work again for the next 80 years?
I mean, how even? The economy in 1918 after the Spanish Flu and WW1 was recovering by 1919 and totally recovered by 1921. Have you heard the phrase "Roaring 20s" before? It wasn't because "millions were permanently unemployed" after following pretty much the same kind of social distancing... and then they had a world war to boot.
Ok, by "permanently" I mean that he won't have a job to go back to because his employer will no longer exist. This will be true for a huge chunk of the population because many thousands of businesses will go out of business. And with such a large drop in available jobs a huge quantity of people will be unemployed and have no real chance of competing for the few jobs that do exist.
I'll admit, permanent was not an accurate word for what I was conveying. Unemployed for the foreseeable future doesn't really have a single word that sums it up nicely.
Nail Ferguson (No - the Historian - not the Epidemiologist) discusses the epidemic in this vid - apparently Taiwan had the perfect balance between lockdown and life-goes-on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3s6pzmmvEg
Grey Templar wrote: CA is utterly screwed by the shutdown. We're going to lose all of our small businesses and millions will be unemployed permanently. Its too late for no damage to be done
I think you posted some pretty questionable ideas in that post but I want to single this one out in particular. Why will millions be unemployed permanently? How could you form such an idea?
If you are a 20 year old dishwasher that got laid off, you're saying he might live to 100 and not work again for the next 80 years?
I mean, how even? The economy in 1918 after the Spanish Flu and WW1 was recovering by 1919 and totally recovered by 1921. Have you heard the phrase "Roaring 20s" before? It wasn't because "millions were permanently unemployed" after following pretty much the same kind of social distancing... and then they had a world war to boot.
Ok, by "permanently" I mean that he won't have a job to go back to because his employer will no longer exist. This will be true for a huge chunk of the population because many thousands of businesses will go out of business. And with such a large drop in available jobs a huge quantity of people will be unemployed and have no real chance of competing for the few jobs that do exist.
I'll admit, permanent was not an accurate word for what I was conveying. Unemployed for the foreseeable future doesn't really have a single word that sums it up nicely.
'Temporary' does a pretty fine job.
There will be problems, but there isn't any need to overstate them, or craft overwrought predictions.
Grey Templar wrote: CA is utterly screwed by the shutdown. We're going to lose all of our small businesses and millions will be unemployed permanently. Its too late for no damage to be done
I think you posted some pretty questionable ideas in that post but I want to single this one out in particular. Why will millions be unemployed permanently? How could you form such an idea?
If you are a 20 year old dishwasher that got laid off, you're saying he might live to 100 and not work again for the next 80 years?
I mean, how even? The economy in 1918 after the Spanish Flu and WW1 was recovering by 1919 and totally recovered by 1921. Have you heard the phrase "Roaring 20s" before? It wasn't because "millions were permanently unemployed" after following pretty much the same kind of social distancing... and then they had a world war to boot.
Ok, by "permanently" I mean that he won't have a job to go back to because his employer will no longer exist. This will be true for a huge chunk of the population because many thousands of businesses will go out of business. And with such a large drop in available jobs a huge quantity of people will be unemployed and have no real chance of competing for the few jobs that do exist.
I'll admit, permanent was not an accurate word for what I was conveying. Unemployed for the foreseeable future doesn't really have a single word that sums it up nicely.
'Temporary' does a pretty fine job.
There will be problems, but there isn't any need to overstate them, or craft overwrought predictions.
I agree. Things will be terrible, probably... in the short term. There might be a vaccine in a year, or longer, but 3 or 4 years from now I don't see any precedent for us not having a recovery. I don't see anything right now to suspect this could cause anything near the major fundamental collapse that we're talking about. Even the Great Depression - which was caused by a series of severe issues, the bank failures being only one of them - only lasted 4 years.
Yes, some places will definitely shut down, and we should try to mitigate that as much as reasonably possible. But if you believe in capitalism - and I know you say you do, GT - then the reason those jobs exist in the first place is because they are filling a demand. When normalcy returns, either the demand will as well, or it won't for specific things, and those workers will transition into filling the needs of new demands, just as already happens all the time now due to automation, offshoring, and whatever other mundane reason.
If anything, a perk of this - if it's not obscene to think in terms of perks when tens of thousands have died - is that perhaps our social safety nets will get a little stronger after having been chipped away at and degraded for generations. Perhaps people will remember the essential workers that kept our society functioning despite low wages and no healthcare.
Perhaps not,. people haven't the gratitude of even dogs. But it's a nice dream.
Is he trolling us? Honestly - I don't mean to be offensive - I haven't been following world news as of late (the past year or two), but recently I've been forced to, for obvious reasons. Now, I'm a man in his Thirties - I'm from the UK, and was indoctrinated into a Leftist way of thinking in my youth, and I gradually became more Conservative as I matured - All that said, I've lately been watching a lot of Trump and one thing I can say is this -He is HILARIOUS! I'd definitely vote for him
RiTides wrote: Antibody testing from NYC just showed an infection rate of 20% in a sample population. Needs lots of follow up and confirmation but it would imply both that the virus was more widespread and contagious than previously thought, but also less deadly (0.5% fatality rate - still high but lower than previously indicated):
Not something to jump to conclusions over but let's see if it gets confirmed in follow ups...
Yeah. More tests equals less deaths. Basically fear of the unknown. If we only test the most ill of all of us? Yeah - we get more deaths per test (who would have thought??? ) But if we test loads of people - the ill, the queasy, and the healthy - guess what - less of us die! Anyway. I've said a few times already in this thread - I think we're working on a "Worst case scenario" - and this, whilst "Morally Acceptable", isn't really "Pragmatic" (which, in my opinion, is the most Humanitarian outlook).
Some European governments have estimated an infection rate of 50% in a year without measures That's millions of deaths based on that 'low' 0.5% rate in Europe alone. What is the pragmatic approach to that?
JWBS wrote: Is he trolling us? Honestly - I don't mean to be offensive - I haven't been following world news as of late (the past year or two), but recently I've been forced to, for obvious reasons. Now, I'm a man in his Thirties - I'm from the UK, and was indoctrinated into a Leftist way of thinking in my youth, and I gradually became more Conservative as I matured - All that said, I've lately been watching a lot of Trump and one thing I can say is this -He is HILARIOUS! I'd definitely vote for him
No, he's just that ignorant. He's a walking, talking Dunning-Kruger Effect.
And the last time he touted a treatment, some pair of idiots self-medicated with bloody aquarium cleaner containing the chemical in question - and died.
The rest of the world marvel’s at America letting armed terrorists roam the streets threatening civil authorities under the guise of protest.
In any other sane country these people would be locked up for life. I’m a conservative who owns a gun myself and I hunt with it.
Knockagh wrote: The rest of the world marvel’s at America letting armed terrorists roam the streets threatening civil authorities under the guise of protest.
In any other sane country these people would be locked up for life. I’m a conservative who owns a gun myself and I hunt with it.
Honestly, I'm kidna drunk off last night (drinking alone in front of my computer), but still, even when I'm sober, the man has some weird dumbass charisma imo
OK, guys, this thread's been allowed a lot of leeway, but I just removed a bunch of discussion on the Chinese Government and the political standing of the WHO, which as topics are really pushing over into overt politics discussion. Let's steer clear of this sort of discussion moving forward, please.
JWBS wrote: Is he trolling us? Honestly - I don't mean to be offensive - I haven't been following world news as of late (the past year or two), but recently I've been forced to, for obvious reasons. Now, I'm a man in his Thirties - I'm from the UK, and was indoctrinated into a Leftist way of thinking in my youth, and I gradually became more Conservative as I matured - All that said, I've lately been watching a lot of Trump and one thing I can say is this -He is HILARIOUS! I'd definitely vote for him
whilest i disagree on the conclusion that you'd should vote for a "hilarious" politician, i wouldn't put it past him to actually believe in that.
Fun fact injecting Alcohol in such a way is one of the most painfull ways to do something, not to mention sanitizer.
Further fun fact, rubbing alcohol (typically 60%) is allready potentially dangerous for infants, now skip the skin as a barrier and make up your own mind.
Further fun fact, highly precisce injections of alcohol are also used to fight tumors, which btw as a sideeffect grants fever, pain that needs medication and more. And in more extreme and unlucky cases , Death.
Tbf tho if you die you are a smaller vector for spread maybee that's his angle? probably not.
Understood. Sorry for the politics, I understand it isn't conducive to a harmonious environment (I really do dislike seeing other people's political opinions here - except, weirdly, my own )
insaniak wrote: OK, guys, this thread's been allowed a lot of leeway, but I just removed a bunch of discussion on the Chinese Government and the political standing of the WHO, which as topics are really pushing over into overt politics discussion. Let's steer clear of this sort of discussion moving forward, please.
So far as it relates directly to people's experience with coronavirus, there's some leeway, so long as it stays civil.
To set some sort of benchmark, pointing out that a political figure said something stupid about coronavirus treatment is fine. Going from there to attacking or endorsing a particular political group as a result of that would be less fine.
So far as it relates directly to people's experience with coronavirus, there's some leeway, so long as it stays civil.
To set some sort of benchmark, pointing out that a political figure said something stupid about coronavirus treatment is fine. Going from there to attacking or endorsing a particular political group as a result of that would be less fine.
Can I quote Trump's press conference in full? I'm watching it again, and it really is absolutely surreal when it is spoken and also subtitled - again everyone, I actually like this guy, he is undoubtedly mesmerizing in so many ways!
Automatically Appended Next Post: "So...Supposing we hit the body...whether it is ultraviolet or just tremendously powerful light "
Seriously, this type of proclamation must be carved into stone somewhere!
Automatically Appended Next Post: "And,.. it hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it? And...supposing it's brought inside of the body"
Ok I'm gonna stop now. Seriously though, watch this clip, it's good.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fun fact injecting Alcohol in such a way is one of the most painfull ways to do something
Not to mention a total waste of alcohol that could have been butt-chugged.
Kinda interesting how now that we found out hydroxychroquine kills more people than it helps when used to treat covid, we're now just kind of pretending that wasn't a thing, huh?
The TV movies about this period in time are going to be amazing.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fun fact injecting Alcohol in such a way is one of the most painfull ways to do something
Not to mention a total waste of alcohol that could have been butt-chugged.
Kinda interesting how now that we found out hydroxychroquine kills more people than it helps when used to treat covid, we're now just kind of pretending that wasn't a thing, huh?
The TV movies about this period in time are going to be amazing.
Why do you think Dakka has a thread specific for stupidity.
Aka the mankind continues to learn nothing (from sci-fi).
in many ways i beleive it is our timelines big thing.
like ww1 was for the 20th and napoleon for the 19th.
JWBS wrote: Is he trolling us? Honestly - I don't mean to be offensive - I haven't been following world news as of late (the past year or two), but recently I've been forced to, for obvious reasons. Now, I'm a man in his Thirties - I'm from the UK, and was indoctrinated into a Leftist way of thinking in my youth, and I gradually became more Conservative as I matured - All that said, I've lately been watching a lot of Trump and one thing I can say is this -He is HILARIOUS! I'd definitely vote for him
No, he's just that ignorant. He's a walking, talking Dunning-Kruger Effect.
And the last time he touted a treatment, some pair of idiots self-medicated with bloody aquarium cleaner containing the chemical in question - and died.
His latest idea on dealing with corona. Inject disinfectants to patients. You know. The kind of stuff people inject as form of suicide...That's not healthy or safe even in diluted form to put into human body.
Seems he's deliberately trying to kill off as many americans as possible.
Trump is actually suggesting injecting disinfectant. What the actual
Hopefully he decides to prove he's a true leader BY TRYING IT ON HIMSELF FIRST!!!
I doubt he'd survive it, in his age.
But since he's suggesting it as a treatment surely it's not dangerous. After all surely he wouldn't suggest anything dangerous and lethal So prove it by showing how it's done! Lead by example like good leader does!
And if he dies...Well at least then the guy suggesting it dies and not some innocent person who is put to to test it by "leader" who leads from the back rather than front like leaders do.
Kinda interesting how now that we found out hydroxychroquine kills more people than it helps when used to treat covid, we're now just kind of pretending that wasn't a thing, huh?
.
Not entirely. I've seen a couple of commentators suggest that it's just a media beatup to discredit the treatment.
Kinda interesting how now that we found out hydroxychroquine kills more people than it helps when used to treat covid, we're now just kind of pretending that wasn't a thing, huh?
.
Not entirely. I've seen a couple of commentators suggest that it's just a media beatup to discredit the treatment.
Honestly never heard of it until now. So people are trying home remedies? And I imagine these people probably aren't even infected?
JWBS wrote: [Honestly never heard of it until now. So people are trying home remedies? And I imagine these people probably aren't even infected?
Oh yeah, one guy and his wife drank fish tank cleaner (chrolorquine phosphate) right after the President suggested hydroxychlorquinine. .
Coronavirus is definitely no longer a concern for him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Not entirely. I've seen a couple of commentators suggest that it's just a media beatup to discredit the treatment.
I think my least favorite thing about this current timeframe in the US is literally everything now has to be filtered through this stupid red\blue lens. Someone says something dangerously stupid? You're just biased, as your bias has any relevance as to whether or not those ideas are dangerously stupid, and often, consistently so. It wasn't this way not that long ago - the country was previously capable of coming together during a disaster. Now I don't even see a way forward to getting there.
I would bet any amount of money within the next week someone shows up dead after injecting lysol or frying themselves with a tanning lamp or something.
You know its honestly rather scary when you're on the outside looking in that Trump is allowed to even make these wild claims on national television to his people. I wager in many other countries they'd have somehow gagged their leader or heavily curtailed what they were allowed to say during a disaster if they were prone to daftness of the scale of suggesting to inject disinfectant into peoples bloodstream.
The scariest part for me is that there are an these doctors screaming 'No, don't inject disinfectant' who are going to be dismissed as biased, or trying to profit somehow.
insaniak wrote: The scariest part for me is that there are an these doctors screaming 'No, don't inject disinfectant' who are going to be dismissed as biased, or trying to profit somehow.
As time goes on, it starting to look more and more like these are the type of people that click on those online adds you see proclaiming (paraphrased) "this guy found the cure for Coronavirus and doctors hate him!".
Is it normal for any US President to be this free from any kind of oversight restraint type stuff?
Seriously, not getting into the party side, just the mechanics. For instance, the Queen is completely immune from prosecution. The armed forces belong to her, not the Government.
Yet there are checks on her use of said power. Whilst she could, theoretically, have anyone killed, it’s understood that she doesn’t. Whilst she could, theoretically, pardon or order someone to be found Not Guilty, it’s understood that she doesn’t. In theory she wields absolute power, but it’s understood that she doesn’t.
I just can’t imagine other heads of state of the Western world, particularly a proud republic wouldn’t have similar restraint mechanisms?
Remember. Just want to know if they exist or not. Let’s not get into whether they should or shouldn’t be used, because that’s Politics with a capital P, and my question is more politic.
I think my least favorite thing about this current timeframe in the US is literally everything now has to be filtered through this stupid red\blue lens. Someone says something dangerously stupid? You're just biased, as your bias has any relevance as to whether or not those ideas are dangerously stupid, and often, consistently so. It wasn't this way not that long ago - the country was previously capable of coming together during a disaster. Now I don't even see a way forward to getting there.
I would bet any amount of money within the next week someone shows up dead after injecting lysol or frying themselves with a tanning lamp or something.
i feel like that has to do with the two party system. It leads to vastly more influence of the respective wings due to publicity.
A decent shattering via reform might need to happen for this effect to slowly subside, however then you'd end up with coalition politics potentially.
Overread wrote: You know its honestly rather scary when you're on the outside looking in that Trump is allowed to even make these wild claims on national television to his people. I wager in many other countries they'd have somehow gagged their leader or heavily curtailed what they were allowed to say during a disaster if they were prone to daftness of the scale of suggesting to inject disinfectant into peoples bloodstream.
It'd be unthinkable over here.
However unlike the US where top positions often of officials still change hand according to patronage system with each new president we have as a counter balance to the militia system for politicians a well disciplined and trained staff of officials at the federal level. Which often runs the country inbetween sessions and are responsible for basically everything, including army logistics, state television, statistics (very important) Medical planning, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Ed conway, economics editor for sky, suggests a 10% one off wealth tax to pay for the lockdown.
Is it normal for any US President to be this free from any kind of oversight restraint type stuff?
Seriously, not getting into the party side, just the mechanics. For instance, the Queen is completely immune from prosecution. The armed forces belong to her, not the Government.
Yet there are checks on her use of said power. Whilst she could, theoretically, have anyone killed, it’s understood that she doesn’t. Whilst she could, theoretically, pardon or order someone to be found Not Guilty, it’s understood that she doesn’t. In theory she wields absolute power, but it’s understood that she doesn’t.
I just can’t imagine other heads of state of the Western world, particularly a proud republic wouldn’t have similar restraint mechanisms?
Remember. Just want to know if they exist or not. Let’s not get into whether they should or shouldn’t be used, because that’s Politics with a capital P, and my question is more politic.
There are checks (Congress, SCOTUS, 2nd amendment) but they've either also been compromised or would lead to civil war.
On the subject of Taiwan, how much of their success is due to them literally being an island? I'd imagine rigorous testing etc. is a lot easier when you're geographically isolated, no?
If anyone wants to hear the thoughts of Procopious on the Justinian Plague (a far more dire affliction than Covid - probably Bubonic Plague) this guy reads it well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxQGgEcAwDs (good production too).
JWBS wrote: If anyone wants to hear the thoughts of Precopious on the Justinian Plague (a far more dire affliction than Covid - probably Bubonic Plague) this guy reads it well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxQGgEcAwDs
We are not over it, infact if we get unlucky and this is a virus we maybee get a mutation of one that is even more deadly.
However that channel is indeed good.
Overread wrote: You know its honestly rather scary when you're on the outside looking in that Trump is allowed to even make these wild claims on national television to his people. I wager in many other countries they'd have somehow gagged their leader or heavily curtailed what they were allowed to say during a disaster if they were prone to daftness of the scale of suggesting to inject disinfectant into peoples bloodstream.
It'd be unthinkable over here.
However unlike the US where top positions often of officials still change hand according to patronage system with each new president we have as a counter balance to the militia system for politicians a well disciplined and trained staff of officials at the federal level. Which often runs the country inbetween sessions and are responsible for basically everything, including army logistics, state television, statistics (very important) Medical planning, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Ed conway, economics editor for sky, suggests a 10% one off wealth tax to pay for the lockdown.
As a concept affecting the super rich, maybee. However effectiveness depends o the strucutre of the tax system in place.
As far as I'm aware, Its a blanket 10% from everybody. I dont know if it only applies to assets like businesses or properties, or also to savings and stock holdings. either way, its an absurd concept. those super rich that everyone complains about will avoid the tax with their offshore holdings and other tax avoidance techniques. the poorest will be affected obviously, but if they dont have much they wont pay much. its the middle that will be affected most. small business owners, and people like myself, who (not blowng my own horn) have amassed properties and savings through hard work and good financial management. for example, if they were to tax me that now, on my property, stocks and shares, and savings, it would be a substantial sum.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: for example, if they were to tax me that now, on my property, stocks and shares, and savings, it would be a substantial sum.
Likewise. I'm lucky enough to have a large house, thanks to an inheritance from my grandparents. But I certainly don't have 10% of the value of it knocking around that I can chip in to the tax man.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: for example, if they were to tax me that now, on my property, stocks and shares, and savings, it would be a substantial sum.
Likewise. I'm lucky enough to have a large house, thanks to an inheritance from my grandparents. But I certainly don't have 10% of the value of it knocking around that I can chip in to the tax man.
Similarly some of the "super rich" if priced on assets held (like land and properties) appear far richer than when you price things based on the income generated from those holdings. I would only imagine a 10% tax would be based on incomes and such rather than on owned assets because otherwise a vast majority of home owners would be unable to pay that kind of sum; especially in areas where house prices have grown over the years. For example many rural areas might have lower income local employment, but house prices are very high due to pressure from people in more affluent areas moving in.
10% wealth tax is absolutely just outrage-bait. Who does it go to? The people that have just paid it? That's probably this writer's most clicked story ever, and absolutely calculated to be so. He may as well have written "Cure for Covid has been found" and gotten something like the same result. In fact, were I this guy's editor, I'd fire him today.
Overread wrote: You know its honestly rather scary when you're on the outside looking in that Trump is allowed to even make these wild claims on national television to his people. I wager in many other countries they'd have somehow gagged their leader or heavily curtailed what they were allowed to say during a disaster if they were prone to daftness of the scale of suggesting to inject disinfectant into peoples bloodstream.
It'd be unthinkable over here.
However unlike the US where top positions often of officials still change hand according to patronage system with each new president we have as a counter balance to the militia system for politicians a well disciplined and trained staff of officials at the federal level. Which often runs the country inbetween sessions and are responsible for basically everything, including army logistics, state television, statistics (very important) Medical planning, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Ed conway, economics editor for sky, suggests a 10% one off wealth tax to pay for the lockdown.
As a concept affecting the super rich, maybee. However effectiveness depends o the strucutre of the tax system in place.
As far as I'm aware, Its a blanket 10% from everybody. I dont know if it only applies to assets like businesses or properties, or also to savings and stock holdings. either way, its an absurd concept. those super rich that everyone complains about will avoid the tax with their offshore holdings and other tax avoidance techniques. the poorest will be affected obviously, but if they dont have much they wont pay much. its the middle that will be affected most. small business owners, and people like myself, who (not blowng my own horn) have amassed properties and savings through hard work and good financial management. for example, if they were to tax me that now, on my property, stocks and shares, and savings, it would be a substantial sum.
well then it's stupid, because it's the little persons that are keeping the economy liquid due to expenses and income are about equal.
I think they should sell Corona Bonds - Offer a smallish rate of interest, it will still be better than putting it in a savings account at the moment, and may well be less of a cost to the treasury than international borrowing.
Slinky wrote: I think they should sell Corona Bonds - Offer a smallish rate of interest, it will still be better than putting it in a savings account at the moment, and may well be less of a cost to the treasury than international borrowing.
That's not a bad shout actually. Especially as my bank informed me only last week that my ISA interest rate has dropped from 0.35% to 0.01%
I'd be happy to invest in the future of the country.
Skinnereal wrote: Can the number of deaths be directly linked to Trump explaining his "good you-know-what"? Can he be held responsible for them?
Also, did any experts get to look at the material he wheeled out beforehand? Who told him that "Sunlight impedes virus transmission"?
Seeing president can't be criminally charged and republican senate won't vote against rep president even if they admit he is guilty of what he was charged in impeachment(and reverse for democrats also applies) the first time he can be held responsible is in november unless he can find some legal way to postpone it. I have been told by those better knowleadgable about US laws that the president elections are flat out matter for congress which president can't mess around on himself no matter what emergency order he tries. He could order shut down phones and internet, put in troops to roads etc but not postpone elections without congress saying "aye" which is unlikely with one house controlled by democrats.
Let's just hope nobody is stupid enough to actually try that grand idea. Though seeing precedence(RIP the old guy that drank fish tank cleaner...) not too hopeful about that.
Why he has to improvise those statements etc and not run his ideas through at least some experts. Even if he doesn't have brightest minds available this should be fairly trivial for even less good expert to get rid out of his statements in advance if he bothered to ask in advance.
Hoping so (if their coronavirus coverage is free like many places)? It is showing a just over 20% infection rate in a sample test population from NYC, which would also indicate a 0.5% mortality rate. So scary in the sense that it's more contagious and widespread than we realized, but also less deadly. All of this is preliminary and needs more testing to verify, but really interesting...
The UV light suggestion is like saying that the best treatment for termites in your house is the precise application of a flamethrower to the affected areas, which is a sure-fire way to kill nests.
Frankly, there should be a law against the passing of false or just plain untested medical treatments or theories as "legitimate new things", even at the highest levels.
Needed to sign in account but no need to subscribe.
Good news indeed if already 20% of NYC has caught it. Means it's not that deadly as it could be.
Locally here in Finland doubt it has spread nearly as fast. For one lockdowns have been in place and for example whole Uusimaa was cut off from rest of Finland beyond essential traffic so cases outside Uusimaa stayed low quite long. If even 10% would already be infected though there would be about 130 cases for each reported which makes mortality rate not as severe as it could have been.
Makes me hope the infected % is atm as high as possible. We are coping with the patients atm so the more of Finland is infected atm the better it means long run.
Hopefully the result was if anything too small % than too big %. The bigger it is the more people deal with it with little to no effects and less deaths this will cause in the end.
This could prove an interesting data point for tracing the impact of Woo Medical Claims.
I mean, anyone injecting themself with disinfectant is gonna be headed for hospital, surely? And even those that don’t, well not to over egg the pudding, pretty sure it’ll come out in the autopsy.
For those with an interest in highlighting the dangers of Woo Peddlers and their crazy schemes (kid got autism, squirt this bleach up his nips, BANG AND THE AUTISM IS GONE!), this could be just the evidential cudgel needed to challenge its growth.
Ouze wrote: The TV movies about this period in time are going to be amazing.
I think where you're going with that assumes that this isn't a glimpse of the future. While Mr. Trump may be a unique personality facing a unique crisis, I'm still not ready to assume that.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fun fact injecting Alcohol in such a way is one of the most painfull ways to do something
Not to mention a total waste of alcohol that could have been butt-chugged.
Just don't google that... you'd need a brain bleach.
Kinda interesting how now that we found out hydroxychroquine kills more people than it helps when used to treat covid, we're now just kind of pretending that wasn't a thing, huh?
Because that statement is missing a lot of context.
Hydroxychroquine is a medication that need to be carefully prescribed, especially if the patient is diagnosed with cardiovascular issues.
It's primarily used for prophylaxis anti-Malarial treatments and certain auto-immune diseases (ie, Lupus and arthritis). It's an old, old drug discovered back in the 50's widely used medication.
The missing context here is that this med was hoarded earlier on the pandemic by folks concerned for Lupus and other auto-immune patients. Then the panic buys in the early days by everyone. There was a nationwide shortage, such that, guidance was issued to prescribe it as a last resort. Meaning, patients already compromised in the ICU, likely on the ventilator.
Here's the thing: If a patient finds themselves on the ventilator, it's very sketchy at that point (morbidity at that point is around 50%).
More clin trials and investigation is needed for this drug AND the literature suggests that this med would only be effective either prophylactically or early on the disease phase. We simply do not know enough at this point.
Even the Gilead anti-viral drug Redemsivr seems "hit or miss". That's why we do these studies.
The TV movies about this period in time are going to be amazing.
Movie tag line: "Just when you thought it couldn't get crazier... it does!"
Is it normal for any US President to be this free from any kind of oversight restraint type stuff?
I don't think any president since T. Roosevelt has been this prone to speaking "off the cuff" and I use those words only as a civil alternative to what I really think. And T. Roosevelt was still a functional human being in his own right. It's a completely out-of-context problem. There is no safety net for "what if the President is just daft?"
JWBS wrote: [Honestly never heard of it until now. So people are trying home remedies? And I imagine these people probably aren't even infected?
Oh yeah, one guy and his wife drank fish tank cleaner (chrolorquine phosphate) right after the President suggested hydroxychlorquinine. .
Coronavirus is definitely no longer a concern for him.
You don't hear much of that story since it was found out that the woman was rabidly anti-Trump and there are police reports of marital disputes. That whole story seem sketchy as feth anyways.
That's like buying rat poison at your hardware store for personal consumption because someone said blood thinning meds was first discovered to be used to kill rodents.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Not entirely. I've seen a couple of commentators suggest that it's just a media beatup to discredit the treatment.
I think my least favorite thing about this current timeframe in the US is literally everything now has to be filtered through this stupid red\blue lens. Someone says something dangerously stupid? You're just biased, as your bias has any relevance as to whether or not those ideas are dangerously stupid, and often, consistently so. It wasn't this way not that long ago - the country was previously capable of coming together during a disaster. Now I don't even see a way forward to getting there.
Honestly, it's been that way for as long as I can remember. (I've been politically aware since the 2nd Reagan admin).
The only "pause" of that "red\blue lens" was after 9/11... and even that only lasted a few months.
Is it normal for any US President to be this free from any kind of oversight restraint type stuff?
I don't think any president since T. Roosevelt has been this prone to speaking "off the cuff" and I use those words only as a civil alternative to what I really think. And T. Roosevelt was still a functional human being in his own right. It's a completely out-of-context problem. There is no safety net for "what if the President is just daft?"
Well, there is. Legal repercussions for spreading false information which can lead to harm. Only a moron would end up getting into the situation where such a thing would apply to them and maybe seeing morons get sued into oblivion, fined or imprisoned might act as a deterrent for other morons running for the presidency. Or at the very least they'll hide away from press briefings or only read off the cards given to them by the specialists who are the ones who should actually be giving these press briefings.
Grey Templar wrote: CA is utterly screwed by the shutdown. We're going to lose all of our small businesses and millions will be unemployed permanently. Its too late for no damage to be done
I think you posted some pretty questionable ideas in that post but I want to single this one out in particular. Why will millions be unemployed permanently? How could you form such an idea?
If you are a 20 year old dishwasher that got laid off, you're saying he might live to 100 and not work again for the next 80 years?
I mean, how even? The economy in 1918 after the Spanish Flu and WW1 was recovering by 1919 and totally recovered by 1921. Have you heard the phrase "Roaring 20s" before? It wasn't because "millions were permanently unemployed" after following pretty much the same kind of social distancing... and then they had a world war to boot.
Everything getting back to being the same as it was before the pandemic is very optimistic.We had the recession in 2008 and I don't recall the 2010s being a vibrant roaring economy. I'm not trying to be a prophet of doom, this pandemic isn't an existential threat to the US and I don't think we're going to end up living in Barter Town deciding if it's better to vote for Aunt Entity or Master Blaster to be in charge. However, I do think that there's a lot of evidence that makes me believe the recovery will not be quick or smooth at all.
We had 2.5 million people file for unemployment this past week which brings the total up to 26 million since the lock down started. That has predictably led to system crashes in the state unemployment departments as they weren't set up to handle this kind of massive spike.
Quick note to our nonAmerican Dakka-ites, in the US we don't have any legislation that is requiring the Federal government to cover lost wages due to the lockdown. Everyone who gets laid off during the lockdown has to file for unemployment with State in which they live to get money while they're out of work. Congress did pass legislation that called for everyone to get $1200, depending on how you filed your taxes that may have shown up via direct deposit or it may show up in the regular mail sometime, depending on other conditions. They also set up a small business loan fund but that ran out of money in a week (while Congress was on vacation) in part because it was so poorly written that Harvard, a private school with a $40 billion endowment laid off it's cafeteria workers and then collected $9million from the federal covid19 assistance fund that they then agreed to send back afte rthe media reported on it. Congress just now passed legislation to give more funding to the small business loan assistance program. Health insurance is also tied to employment so if the 26 million unemployed people were getting health insurance from their employer they've now either lost it or have to pay a much higher rate for it. If they didn't have health insurance from their employer they still don't have it.
Whenever this pandemic is over there's no guarantee that it has no short or long term effect on consumer demand. Will everyone go back to dining out at the same frequency? Will people go to movie theaters with the same frequency? How many people will have the desire or the means to open new restaurants or business? How easy will it be to get loans? There's already a glut of retail space still on the market from the 2008 recession and now we'll have even more vacancies.
The realistic best case scenario is that the 20 year old dishwasher gets laid off, files for unemployment and eventually gets through and does his paperwork that eventually gets processed and he gets a monthly check. Hopefully during this time he still manages to pay for his housing, utilities, food, etc. without getting evicted or having his car repo'd or having any medical emergencies. Then he collects unemployment until things are "normal" and either his previous employer reopens or he gets hired at a new restaurant. At his new job he can now earn hopefully more than minimum wage doing unskilled labor working full time hours with either no health insurance or very basic high deductible health insurance. He won't be able to accumulate much in the way of savings given his subsistence level wages and it will be a minor miracle if he manages to bootstrap himself up into a better career.
That's the best case scenario and it requires that coronavirus doesn't linger too long, that the State and Federal responses and assistance programs are timely and effective and that new jobs are created quickly and in large numbers. It's also still a suboptimal situation for both the dishwasher and our consumer based economy as a whole.
I've tried my best to stick to facts and not get too political in this post so hopefully the mods are ok with it. I think you're correct ouze in that things will bounce back to a certain extent and this isn't an existential threat to the country economically. However, I think a lot of discussion in this thread is getting derailed with extreme hypotheticals and it loses sight of some crucial facts: the pandemic is having a massive negative impact on tens of millions of Americans, a number far greater than the number of people getting infected with covid19. There are very legitimate concerns about the economic impact of the shut down notably from a humanitarian aspect of the amount of mental, emotional and financial suffering that tens of millions of Americans are enduring. I want us to do fight this pandemic as intelligently and effectively as we can. I also want my local coffee shop to reopen as soon as possible, not because I miss my morning latte but because the owner and the employees are suffering and the longer the lock down goes on the more likely it is that they'll all be unemployed without an income when it ends.
Is it normal for any US President to be this free from any kind of oversight restraint type stuff?
I don't think any president since T. Roosevelt has been this prone to speaking "off the cuff" and I use those words only as a civil alternative to what I really think. And T. Roosevelt was still a functional human being in his own right. It's a completely out-of-context problem. There is no safety net for "what if the President is just daft?"
Well, there is. Legal repercussions for spreading false information which can lead to harm. Only a moron would end up getting into the situation where such a thing would apply to them and maybe seeing morons get sued into oblivion, fined or imprisoned might act as a deterrent for other morons running for the presidency. Or at the very least they'll hide away from press briefings or only read off the cards given to them by the specialists who are the ones who should actually be giving these press briefings.
We are talking about the US. It is extremely hard to sue someone for harmful information as most of the time it is protected as freedom of speech.
Basically you need to prove intent to cause harm, and Trump being a moron pretty much protects him from it.
Politics has always been something that you don't bring up at parties. But it wasn't always like this. THIS is nuts.
Big reasons why include internet echo chambers not existing back then, no anonymous-ish internet communication driving conversation into a more aggressive and staccato thing, and news media that didn't target and bombard you with slanted information designed to outrage people of your particular political leaning.
Right now, more extreme people and opinions are driving more of the political conversation.
gorgon wrote: Politics has always been something that you don't bring up at parties. But it wasn't always like this. THIS is nuts.
Big reasons why include internet echo chambers not existing back then, no anonymous-ish internet communication driving conversation into a more aggressive and staccato thing, and news media that didn't target and bombard you with slanted information designed to outrage people of your particular political leaning.
Right now, more extreme people and opinions are driving more of the political conversation.
Too true. I think the conspiracy thread touched on with the posts about 24 hour news mirroring sports coverage. Politics has become very absolutist. It's very unfortunate because in an internet driven information age when there should be more transparency in governance than ever it's just as easy for politicians to hide and obfuscate their dealings. All they have to do is trot out some tangential issues that are good for getting controversy, outrage and extremism worked up and it the media gets their tempest in a teapot so nobody pays attention to what's actually going on. You can look at how many other countries are dealing with the pandemic and compare it to what we're doing in the US and highlight a lot of problems with our response. Then you look at all the coverage given to Federal legislation for covid19 and none if really examines the content of the legislation. Bad legislation is a much bigger problem, that's what actually impacts the country. The partisan bickering about credit and blame is secondary to what they're actually doing to the country.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fun fact injecting Alcohol in such a way is one of the most painfull ways to do something
Not to mention a total waste of alcohol that could have been butt-chugged.
Just don't google that... you'd need a brain bleach.
Kinda interesting how now that we found out hydroxychroquine kills more people than it helps when used to treat covid, we're now just kind of pretending that wasn't a thing, huh?
Because that statement is missing a lot of context.
Hydroxychroquine is a medication that need to be carefully prescribed, especially if the patient is diagnosed with cardiovascular issues.
It's primarily used for prophylaxis anti-Malarial treatments and certain auto-immune diseases (ie, Lupus and arthritis). It's an old, old drug discovered back in the 50's widely used medication.
The missing context here is that this med was hoarded earlier on the pandemic by folks concerned for Lupus and other auto-immune patients. Then the panic buys in the early days by everyone. There was a nationwide shortage, such that, guidance was issued to prescribe it as a last resort. Meaning, patients already compromised in the ICU, likely on the ventilator.
Here's the thing: If a patient finds themselves on the ventilator, it's very sketchy at that point (morbidity at that point is around 50%).
More clin trials and investigation is needed for this drug AND the literature suggests that this med would only be effective either prophylactically or early on the disease phase. We simply do not know enough at this point.
See, the problem is that hydroxychloroquine is an immunosuppressant. The idea was that it could help treat the cytokine storms that kill a lot of COVID patients. Trials showed that not only did it NOT do that, it increased the rate of death by about 10%, due to its severe cardiac side effects. Used as a prophylaxis it's likely to be even LESS effective, thanks to the aforementioned side effect (also blindness) and its immunosuppressant nature.
gorgon wrote: Politics has always been something that you don't bring up at parties. But it wasn't always like this. THIS is nuts.
Big reasons why include internet echo chambers not existing back then, no anonymous-ish internet communication driving conversation into a more aggressive and staccato thing, and news media that didn't target and bombard you with slanted information designed to outrage people of your particular political leaning.
Right now, more extreme people and opinions are driving more of the political conversation.
Too true. I think the conspiracy thread touched on with the posts about 24 hour news mirroring sports coverage. Politics has become very absolutist. It's very unfortunate because in an internet driven information age when there should be more transparency in governance than ever it's just as easy for politicians to hide and obfuscate their dealings. All they have to do is trot out some tangential issues that are good for getting controversy, outrage and extremism worked up and it the media gets their tempest in a teapot so nobody pays attention to what's actually going on. You can look at how many other countries are dealing with the pandemic and compare it to what we're doing in the US and highlight a lot of problems with our response. Then you look at all the coverage given to Federal legislation for covid19 and none if really examines the content of the legislation. Bad legislation is a much bigger problem, that's what actually impacts the country. The partisan bickering about credit and blame is secondary to what they're actually doing to the country.
i feel like that has to do with the two party system. It leads to vastly more influence of the respective wings due to publicity.
A decent shattering via reform might need to happen for this effect to slowly subside, however then you'd end up with coalition politics potentially.
YOu'd have to change the basic political culture at an enormusly fundamental level and the outcome isn't necessarily better.
Okay guys, general discussion of the two party system is definitely no longer adjacent-enough to coronavirus to keep posting about here since we are trying our best to avoid politics (and thus keep the thread open) after all...
Let's try to get back on the more focused topic of coronavirus news / policies / statistics / etc. Thanks all
There's a small potential drop in daily cases increase and a slight drop in the death rate. Though right now that seems to be just part of the smoothing of the curve process so still a bit early to see a drop off.
Oddly the recovered stats, which were showing there at one time, aren't now showing which is a bit of a pain since ideally we should be starting to see a rise in that value (one would expect)
and scroll down the proportion of male to female deaths shows that men are more likely to die than women in the UK. Though its still somewhat early days, its still a significant enough value I think
A lot of it could simply be unhealthy habits (like smoking) or underlying conditions that the virus affects being more common in men, but that article also references a study (here, although it's gibberish to me) showing female mice are less susceptible to SARS, a very similar disease.
So, makes me happy for the women in my life being less at risk but yeah... looks like men are susceptible for possibly a variety of reasons.
See, the problem is that hydroxychloroquine is an immunosuppressant. The idea was that it could help treat the cytokine storms that kill a lot of COVID patients. Trials showed that not only did it NOT do that, it increased the rate of death by about 10%, due to its severe cardiac side effects. Used as a prophylaxis it's likely to be even LESS effective, thanks to the aforementioned side effect (also blindness) and its immunosuppressant nature.
The studies/trials are still incomplete for hydroxychloroquine.
Just as Remdesivir is still incomplete...while its on Phase 3 of their trials, this med is still bit of a "hit or miss" while showing knarly side-effects (primarily adverse renal functions).
The fact it's an immunosuppressant made it an early option because of the disease's damage to patient's pulmonary (lungs) system, because traditional steroid medications weren't as effective in transporting the ingredient past the lung gunk (hence why severe patients had to be ventilated). The body's immune system going into overdrive that seems to be part of the challenge with this disease.
Simply stated, we don't have enough information yet that hydroxychloroquine is effective and it's continued to be used during trials. It'll literally be years before we'd get a final determination, since it's so early. It's possible that no impact is found and they'll drop the study... but, we're not there yet.
A couple of points I’d like to emphasize with the readers here:
1) The mainstay treatement for covid19 remains to be SUPPORTIVE CARE. The current body of evidence does not meet the rigorous standards to support routine uses of any specific treatment regimen. Nor is there any panacea/cure at this time.
2) Whether or not to initiate therapy is at the prescriber’s discretion based on evaluation of risks and benefits with consultation with patients.
Standard supportive care consist of:
a. management of respiratory failure, ARDS, sepsis, septic shock
b. management of consistent fevers
c. antibiotic should ONLY be used for confirmed or strong suspicion of bacterial infection or sepsis
Frankly I'm hoping for a streamlined Convalescent Plasma treatment (like IVIG), which is a passive defense as a bridge until vaccines are available (an active defense). This passive defense has a shelf-life as your body doesn't produce those antigens on its own. The problem here is that while the Plasma treatment is an old procedure, harvesting plasmas and antigens is extremely expensive. Not sure how that would start out, but I suspect that the first responders, healthcare workers and those severely compromised would be able to get the plasma treatment this year.
We just need to weather storm for the next 12 months for, hopefully, a vaccine becomes available while practicing meaningful social distancing and engaging with full spectrum lab surveillance.
See, the problem is that hydroxychloroquine is an immunosuppressant. The idea was that it could help treat the cytokine storms that kill a lot of COVID patients. Trials showed that not only did it NOT do that, it increased the rate of death by about 10%, due to its severe cardiac side effects. Used as a prophylaxis it's likely to be even LESS effective, thanks to the aforementioned side effect (also blindness) and its immunosuppressant nature.
The studies/trials are still incomplete for hydroxychloroquine.
Just as Remdesivir is still incomplete...while its on Phase 3 of their trials, this med is still bit of a "hit or miss" while showing knarly side-effects (primarily adverse renal functions).
Except they aren't incomplete. Quite a few of them have finished, or been halted because of patient deaths due to side effects, and found zero benefit.
See, the problem is that hydroxychloroquine is an immunosuppressant. The idea was that it could help treat the cytokine storms that kill a lot of COVID patients. Trials showed that not only did it NOT do that, it increased the rate of death by about 10%, due to its severe cardiac side effects. Used as a prophylaxis it's likely to be even LESS effective, thanks to the aforementioned side effect (also blindness) and its immunosuppressant nature.
The studies/trials are still incomplete for hydroxychloroquine.
Just as Remdesivir is still incomplete...while its on Phase 3 of their trials, this med is still bit of a "hit or miss" while showing knarly side-effects (primarily adverse renal functions).
Except they aren't incomplete. Quite a few of them have finished, or been halted because of patient deaths due to side effects, and found zero benefit.
True...and quite a few trials are still ongoing too.
Not to mention other anti-HIV medications as well.
According to the industry bulletin I get, there are 481 drugs in development (mix of novel and repurposed drugs) and 1,158 clinical trials for COVID-19.
As I think I've said, the media is HORRIBLE when it comes to reporting this stuff. They get fixated on this or that compound -- maybe it's a good story, or maybe it's been pushed hard by a PR department. But science doesn't care how good of a story something is, or that we're hoping really hard. Clinical development is a grind with no guarantees. Believe it's a 90-something percent failure rate for drugs that reach human trials.
And the fastest vaccine development ever -- mumps -- took 4 years. *IF* a vaccine is achievable, there's reason to think it won't need to be that long. But IMO, the media should be properly informing the public about the realities of our situation, instead of glomming onto the timeframe blurted by a chief executive who's now blathering about light and disinfectants.
I can't get how people can be this stupid. I heard about people poisoning themselves by washing their vegetables with bleach or burning their pets by..washing them with bleach, too, and that's already incredibly DUMB. I mean, I don't even live on my own in my own house, I'm not the most autonomous person in the world. But I damn know this is dangerous.
And now this ..
(Btw, as usual I went to the internet to hear and read what exactly happened...and I got the feeling He didn't say to inject disinfectant but to do something similarly effective, for example by a cleaning or an injection. Am I right ? I'm no native speaker)
godardc wrote: I can't get how people can be this stupid. I heard about people poisoning themselves by washing their vegetables with bleach or burning their pets by..washing them with bleach, too, and that's already incredibly DUMB. I mean, I don't even live on my own in my own house, I'm not the most autonomous person in the world. But I damn know this is dangerous.
And now this ..
(Btw, as usual I went to the internet to hear and read what exactly happened...and I got the feeling He didn't say to inject disinfectant but to do something similarly effective, for example by a cleaning or an injection. Am I right ? I'm no native speaker)
Nope, he said to inject disinfectant. We know this because today he walked it back by saying he was being sarcastic.
My main Hope here, outside of the health and safety of my fellow humans?
That the sheer complexity of this is the turning point against all current forms of populist politics.
Because right now, the trite soundbites so beloved of late are being shown to be hollow.
Doesn’t matter which wing they’re coming from. This is a horrifically complex issue, which requires an equally complex solution.
You can’t call it names. You can’t blame it on them.
It simply is. And it’s killing people. This is a wake up slap we’ve possibly needed as a society. Would that nobody had to die for us to get to this point, but sadly it seems we just don’t bloody learn until that point.
This has been a bipartisan post by Mad Doc Grotsnik.
godardc wrote: I can't get how people can be this stupid. I heard about people poisoning themselves by washing their vegetables with bleach or burning their pets by..washing them with bleach, too, and that's already incredibly DUMB. I mean, I don't even live on my own in my own house, I'm not the most autonomous person in the world. But I damn know this is dangerous.
And now this ..
(Btw, as usual I went to the internet to hear and read what exactly happened...and I got the feeling He didn't say to inject disinfectant but to do something similarly effective, for example by a cleaning or an injection. Am I right ? I'm no native speaker)
Nope, he said to inject disinfectant. We know this because today he walked it back by saying he was being sarcastic.
We were never at war with Eurasia, we were always at war with Eastasia right?
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Also, I don't know where people have been looking, but as a Swede I've seen an absolute avalanche of people, both domestic and foreign, telling us how stupid we are and how we're gonna have hundreds of thousands of deaths. There's a really nasty undercurrent of schadenfreude, with people wanting us to have a large amount of deaths so they can caress their own egoes and tell everyone how clever they were.
I find comparisons between Sweden and Denmark interesting, as we are similar countries.
Denmark has enacted social distancing and shut down schools and non-essential businesses and, as far as I have understood, Sweden has not.
Immediate difference?
Sweden, 198 deaths per million population.
Denmark, 67 deaths per million population.
Don't stop reading!
I am perfectly aware that some differences in reporting methodology might exist.
This is of course only a preliminary comparison, as the Corona virus hasn't finished it's 2019/20 World Tour ("Coming to a town near you!").
It might very well turn out, that in the long run, Sweden will be "better off", so to speak, be developing herd immunity faster and more comprehensively.
As Denmark is about to open things back up (slowly and in controlled stages), we might see a reversal of the trend.
Sweden might have gotten the hard hits out of the way early, while Denmark might linger longer.
It will be interesting to see, from an epidemiological stand point.
I would very much hold back any condemnation/praise, until we have seen the actual result.
Considering that we are looking at 3-4 if not more years for a viable and safe vaccine; whilst likely nearly as many years to get testing to a point where you could potentially consider isolation and containment; I suspect herd immunity is the game plan in many nations.
The gamble is when you impose lockdowns. Imposing them too early is good in a health aspect, but it means even more potential further lockdowns and a much longer period to achieve herd immunity. This could potentially mean increased damage to the economy and reduced potential recovery.
In the extreme there's also the chance that increased lockdown/unlock periods could result in reduced effectiveness of latter lockdowns as more of the population becomes complacent/fed up with the lockdowns.
Of course the other side of the coin is if you impose them too late (or not at all) and you lose control of the situation and the health services become overloaded and crippled. Resulting in many many more deaths from both corona related sickness and general sickness/injury within the population. In theory you reach herd immunity much faster, but at a much greater potential cost of human lives. Perhaps also a greater chance of reduced effective recovery of survivors as well; leaving you with a damaged population of significant proportion .
The battleground for governments is the line between those two extremes and attempting to avoid either one (though one would hope with a bias toward the first rather than the latter).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: My main Hope here, outside of the health and safety of my fellow humans?
That the sheer complexity of this is the turning point against all current forms of populist politics.
Because right now, the trite soundbites so beloved of late are being shown to be hollow.
Doesn’t matter which wing they’re coming from. This is a horrifically complex issue, which requires an equally complex solution.
You can’t call it names. You can’t blame it on them.
It simply is. And it’s killing people. This is a wake up slap we’ve possibly needed as a society. Would that nobody had to die for us to get to this point, but sadly it seems we just don’t bloody learn until that point.
This has been a bipartisan post by Mad Doc Grotsnik.
Curiosly, I would bet on the opposite: the global failure of the West and the social democracies throughout the whole world will "prove" globalism and traditional parties are out of touch for them.
I mean, we'll see haha
Back on topic, I'm super interested by your Danemark / Norway comparison, I hope I won't forget to check it back in a few weeks /months
While the article argues a different point, the increase of CoVid deaths emphasizes the articles you've probably read about hospitals overwhelmed by the virus. It's the virus' *additional* demand to the *total* existing need for hospital beds and staff that's the problem. If, suddenly, everyone with heart disease and cancer suddenly stopped having heart disease and cancer (where have the heart disease and cancer pixies been since 2017?), hospitals would be better able to accommodate the epidemic.The somewhat good news is that the slope is decreasing, but we still need a total demand that hospitals and healthcare workers can handle.
Matt Swain wrote: Despite educated medical experts saying that it is useless against covid, some states are stocking up on the malaria drug trump touted.
I'm not surprised. Their President stated that X was potentially useful as a drug to combat the disease. Even if it only had potential it was singled out from hundreds/thousands of other potential drugs on the market. So they are going to follow and react to that fast adn start trying to get stock before other states. It also seems that each State is operating more on its own (or at least from the outside that's the impression); so they likely setup orders as fast as they could to get ahead of other states. Those systems might be swift to start but slow to stop - esp as information on the drugs effectiveness likely doesn't get as much publicity and exposure so unless they go looking for it they might find that they miss the boat in time to stop their stockpile schemes.
Whilst the bleach situation touted earlier might not result in any states actually thinking its a cure, I can see it causing a bit surge in the purchasing of bleach and the bleaching of houses/homes/workplaces/shoppingtrollies. Indeed its quite encouraging to hear that general disinfectants and bleaches are so effective as it does make surface wiping and cleaning practical solutions to keeping workplaces and any public areas still in operation as clean as practical to help reduce potential spread.
At least 4,163,464 people in the U.S. have been tested, as of Wednesday. This amounts to around 1.2 percent of the country's population of nearly 332,639,000.
New York, the worst-hit state, has tested around three percent of its more than 19.5 million residents, with nearly 650,000 tested as of Wednesday.
Less than one percent—nearly 0.7 percent—of the population of California (nearly 39.5 million), the country's most populous state, has been tested.
Florida (which has a population of nearly 21.4 million) and Pennsylvania (nearly 12.8 million), the third- and fifth-most populous states, respectively, have each tested only around 1.3 percent of their residents.
Texas, the second-most populous state (with a population of 28.9 million), has also only tested nearly 0.7 percent, as of Wednesday.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: My main Hope here, outside of the health and safety of my fellow humans?
That the sheer complexity of this is the turning point against all current forms of populist politics.
Because right now, the trite soundbites so beloved of late are being shown to be hollow.
Doesn’t matter which wing they’re coming from. This is a horrifically complex issue, which requires an equally complex solution.
You can’t call it names. You can’t blame it on them.
It simply is. And it’s killing people. This is a wake up slap we’ve possibly needed as a society. Would that nobody had to die for us to get to this point, but sadly it seems we just don’t bloody learn until that point.
This has been a bipartisan post by Mad Doc Grotsnik.
You can’t fix an issue where one side is saving lives and one side is telling you to drink bleach by starting with the premise that “both sides are the same”.
whembly wrote: NYS is bit of a bellweather, they're now experiencing downward trends, such as hospitalization (although you can argue it's still on the "plateau" ):
New York City isn't much of a bellwether. There aren't many other cities that come close to the population density and transportation model, and that's globally. Other big cities in the US, notably SF and LA aren't seeing nearly the same kind of pattern.
Neither Philadelphia or Miami are following the same patterns that New York did, even though their counties are comparable in size to the counties in and around NYC
Looking at the table in the article, NYC and its surrounding counties are its own unique bubble. Its the top 20 counties in the US in terms of cases (from April 14th). Cook county, Illinois (Chicago) and Wayne county MI (Detroit) are the only other ones that make the top 10. The other 8 counties make up the New York City metropolitan area.
Los Angeles county, with 10 million people, doesn't even make the top 10. Part of that, I suspect, is the horrible-to-nonexistent public transportation. A blessing for once.
---
And of course for the majority of the country (non-urban), the NYC model doesn't apply at all.
There's a small potential drop in daily cases increase and a slight drop in the death rate. Though right now that seems to be just part of the smoothing of the curve process so still a bit early to see a drop off.
Oddly the recovered stats, which were showing there at one time, aren't now showing which is a bit of a pain since ideally we should be starting to see a rise in that value (one would expect)
This shows 4 days of increasing daily new case rate and deaths again jumped up and past 4 have been higher death counts than 2 days before that. Daily variance.
Another 500 deaths and it has exceeded goverment's official "we did well" limit. Doubtful they still admit having handled it badly. And this is with the more benign numbers that don't show nearly all. Even the more cautious estimates of true death count puts it somewhere about 40% higher than official numbers.
And the fastest vaccine development ever -- mumps -- took 4 years. *IF* a vaccine is achievable, there's reason to think it won't need to be that long. But IMO, the media should be properly informing the public about the realities of our situation, instead of glomming onto the timeframe blurted by a chief executive who's now blathering about light and disinfectants.
At least here media is telling consistently 1-2 years is earliest you can expect vaccine and even that would be record breaking fast development.
But did they say anything about injecting them directly into the blood stream? No?
Well, it must be okay then
They did, actually.
"As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route)," the company said in a statement.
The part that's really sad and disturbing is this bit:
On Monday, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said calls about poisonings with cleaners and disinfectants had increased more than 20% in the first three months of 2020 -- as coronavirus cleaning increased -- than from the same period a year earlier. Among cleaners, bleaches accounted for the largest percentage increase in calls from 2019 to 2020.
This is already something that happens, and was already on the rise this year.
But did they say anything about injecting them directly into the blood stream? No?
Well, it must be okay then
They did, actually.
"As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route)," the company said in a statement.
The part that's really sad and disturbing is this bit:
On Monday, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said calls about poisonings with cleaners and disinfectants had increased more than 20% in the first three months of 2020 -- as coronavirus cleaning increased -- than from the same period a year earlier. Among cleaners, bleaches accounted for the largest percentage increase in calls from 2019 to 2020.
This is already something that happens, and was already on the rise this year.
Public Health England has selected Trevor Phillips to investigate racial disparity in Coronavirus deaths.
A guy whose entire career is essentially excusing British racism and who is currently being investigated for Islamophobia. Talk about reading the room.
ValentineGames wrote: I'll be out to get bleach and needles today.
I'm sure it's safe. Presidents are never unsafe lunatics
Don't forget the UV light to stick up your arse
At that point i need bleach for my eyes and brain.....
Remove the images AND the corona virus. It’s a win/win!
I will be honest, i laughed way harder then i should've...
Which level on the facepalm skala have we reached, are we allready at the most imfamous tripple through stage allready or just one?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nfe wrote: Public Health England has selected Trevor Phillips to investigate racial disparity in Coronavirus deaths.
A guy whose entire career is essentially excusing British racism and who is currently being investigated for Islamophobia. Talk about reading the room.
best case scenario he finds contradictory evidence for his nonsense?
Allbeit i admit i don't know him however i also have the dubious privilege of living were a certain AFD politican went to live half the time that sits in the german parliament.
nfe wrote: Public Health England has selected Trevor Phillips to investigate racial disparity in Coronavirus deaths.
A guy whose entire career is essentially excusing British racism and who is currently being investigated for Islamophobia. Talk about reading the room.
I don't know what they are expecting to find anyway... Its a virus, it doesn't discriminate on hosts. Being more or less affected is going to be down to socio cultural and economic factors.
Awaits.. 'coronavirus shown to be racist' headlines.
nfe wrote: Public Health England has selected Trevor Phillips to investigate racial disparity in Coronavirus deaths.
A guy whose entire career is essentially excusing British racism and who is currently being investigated for Islamophobia. Talk about reading the room.
I don't know what they are expecting to find anyway... Its a virus, it doesn't discriminate on hosts. Being more or less affected is going to be down to socio cultural and economic factors.
Awaits.. 'coronavirus shown to be racist' headlines.
Indeed, most likely it will be the same factors that result in poorer health overall for BAME UK citizens in lots of other studies. That being, more of them are in lower income groups. Poorer people having on average worse health due to diet, living conditions, lifestyle ect is not exactly a ground breaking revelation.
POC being disproportionately poorer will definitely be a factor. There may also be cultural reasons that play in to susceptibility to infection, pursuing medical intervention, and so on, that are not exclusively economic and are worth investigating.
Aside from anything else, the majority of doctors that have died are POC (I think, half are Muslim, not sure how many of the rest are POC but it's not zero). Writing off the demographic imbalance simply as 'they're poorer, no more study required' is negligent.
nfe wrote: Public Health England has selected Trevor Phillips to investigate racial disparity in Coronavirus deaths.
A guy whose entire career is essentially excusing British racism and who is currently being investigated for Islamophobia. Talk about reading the room.
I don't know what they are expecting to find anyway... Its a virus, it doesn't discriminate on hosts. Being more or less affected is going to be down to socio cultural and economic factors.
Awaits.. 'coronavirus shown to be racist' headlines.
Indeed, most likely it will be the same factors that result in poorer health overall for BAME UK citizens in lots of other studies. That being, more of them are in lower income groups. Poorer people having on average worse health due to diet, living conditions, lifestyle ect is not exactly a ground breaking revelation.
But no doubt will be put in format that suits their white supremacy views.
Priti Patel has just used the daily briefing to boast of the policing successes during lockdown. Heavy stress placed on the fact that 'burglary, car crime, and shoplifting are all down on the same period last year'.
nfe wrote: Writing off the demographic imbalance simply as 'they're poorer, no more study required' is negligent.
Not sure about writing it off. But I do think its a symptom of bigger problems regarding racial and economic inequality that are fairly well known already. Another study or inquiry into the specifics of the COVID-19 effects on BAME citizens just seems like "jobs for the boys". Especially given who's doing it.
nfe wrote: Priti Patel has just used the daily briefing to boast of the policing successes during lockdown. Heavy stress placed on the fact that 'burglary, car crime, and shoplifting are all down on the same period last year'.
So that's where we are.
Ugh At least she's not just inventing new numbers like last time.
nfe wrote: POC being disproportionately poorer will definitely be a factor. There may also be cultural reasons that play in to susceptibility to infection, pursuing medical intervention, and so on, that are not exclusively economic and are worth investigating.
Aside from anything else, the majority of doctors that have died are POC (I think, half are Muslim, not sure how many of the rest are POC but it's not zero). Writing off the demographic imbalance simply as 'they're poorer, no more study required' is negligent.
as you say Given that decent number of senior BME doctors are among the dead it looks like the is something other than (current) poverty is involved (although it could be effects feeding through from their parents lives or their own early years)
Edit: I guess not many may be aware that what happened in your grandparents and parents lives can program their genes of their offspring to respond in different ways than they otherwise would, a phenomenon called epigenetics https://www.livescience.com/21902-diet-epigenetics-grandchildren.html
so given that one of the major reasons to move countries is having a hard time it could be that something set up in their parents or even grandparents DNA are what is causing the excess deaths when covid 19 enters the picture
and Nature has a worrying article on another consequence of the Chloroquine hype
difficulty in recruiting patients for other drug trials even if they may be more effective, and even if you can recruit they may have been taking/continue to take chloroquine meaning interepreting the results of the trial are a lot harder meaning your risk missing stuff that would help..... after all while a 'cure' would be excellent, a drug that improved survival even 10% would be a real boon now and those are the sort of effects having chloroquine mixed in will hide
Another factor could be that people of European descent tend to be more resistant to disease, due to the black plague(s) and general Dark Ages sanitation doing a significant degree of natural selection.
nfe wrote: Priti Patel has just used the daily briefing to boast of the policing successes during lockdown. Heavy stress placed on the fact that 'burglary, car crime, and shoplifting are all down on the same period last year'.
So that's where we are.
That's not really a policing success.. I imagine a burglar or car criminals job is much harder when everyone is at home all the time, and the only place people are leaving their cars is supermarket car parks.
nfe wrote: POC being disproportionately poorer will definitely be a factor. There may also be cultural reasons that play in to susceptibility to infection, pursuing medical intervention, and so on, that are not exclusively economic and are worth investigating.
Aside from anything else, the majority of doctors that have died are POC (I think, half are Muslim, not sure how many of the rest are POC but it's not zero). Writing off the demographic imbalance simply as 'they're poorer, no more study required' is negligent.
as you say Given that decent number of senior BME doctors are among the dead it looks like the is something other than (current) poverty is involved (although it could be effects feeding through from their parents lives or their own early years)
Edit: I guess not many may be aware that what happened in your grandparents and parents lives can program their genes of their offspring to respond in different ways than they otherwise would, a phenomenon called epigenetics https://www.livescience.com/21902-diet-epigenetics-grandchildren.html
Sure, but whilst there are rags to riches stories, the majority of people who move to the UK and whose kids become doctors are not poor to start with.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
nfe wrote: Priti Patel has just used the daily briefing to boast of the policing successes during lockdown. Heavy stress placed on the fact that 'burglary, car crime, and shoplifting are all down on the same period last year'.
So that's where we are.
That's not really a policing success.. I imagine a burglar or car criminals job is much harder when everyone is at home all the time, and the only place people are leaving their cars is supermarket car parks.
nfe wrote: Priti Patel has just used the daily briefing to boast of the policing successes during lockdown. Heavy stress placed on the fact that 'burglary, car crime, and shoplifting are all down on the same period last year'.
So that's where we are.
That's not really a policing success.. I imagine a burglar or car criminals job is much harder when everyone is at home all the time, and the only place people are leaving their cars is supermarket car parks.
So let me get this straight, crimes down is a success in Times were going outside is basically a nono ......
Basically. It's a good thing too, because the police here are too busy taping up park benches, finger wagging at people buying wine, then gloating about said actions on social media to deal with actual crimes.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Basically. It's a good thing too, because the police here are too busy taping up park benches, finger wagging at people buying wine and then gloating about said actions on social media.
Huh maybee to do with the increased presence then.
Nah its down because there are less targetd and less opportunity for crime. I believe online scams and telephone based fraud crimes are on the increase though.
In other news I'm getting anxious about the length of my hair. May need to order some clippers and attempt some sort of 1920s undercut. 5 weeks is longer than I've gone without a trim for over 10 years.
nfe wrote: Priti Patel has just used the daily briefing to boast of the policing successes during lockdown. Heavy stress placed on the fact that 'burglary, car crime, and shoplifting are all down on the same period last year'.
So that's where we are.
or it could be shes taking a leaf out of johnsons book and using his dead cat strategy to distract from passing 20.000 hospital deaths today.
Vulcan wrote: Okay, as of page 103 I see that the battle lines are set, neither side is budging, and there's no point in continuing to read this thread.
Peace, y'all. I'm out.
You're the God of Fire. But you can't deal with this? Ok. The rest of us are screwed then. Thanks for letting us know i suppose.
Less "I can't deal with this", more "I have other things to do with my time than watch a circular argument go 'round and 'round for another hundred pages or so'.
nfe wrote: Public Health England has selected Trevor Phillips to investigate racial disparity in Coronavirus deaths.
A guy whose entire career is essentially excusing British racism and who is currently being investigated for Islamophobia. Talk about reading the room.
I don't know what they are expecting to find anyway... Its a virus, it doesn't discriminate on hosts. Being more or less affected is going to be down to socio cultural and economic factors.
Awaits.. 'coronavirus shown to be racist' headlines.
Given that the virus affects the respiratory system I think they’ll find that a key contributing factor in the racial disparity is smoking. I know in the US smoking is more common in non white ethnic groups than in whites and there is also a disparity of incidence rates depending on income. Culture plays a role too. For instance smoking is much more commonplace in Middle East countries.
but you keep grinding that organ mate.
