Dreadwinter wrote: You know what would have helped immensely in this situation? More funding for Education to deal with this sort of thing. Actually dealing with infrastructure needs and treating the internet as basic utilities.
Hindsight is 20/20 though! So here we go! Sure hope none of those big colleges or universities go out of business. *eats chips* I would feel terrible if those loans got forgiven.
Why would they be? Most student loans aren't with the universities. Even if they did go out of business, people will still have the loans.
Its also a bit of a tangent from the K-12 education people have been talking about.
Not all loans are through the Government. Which means some loans would be forgiven due to the school no longer existing. Lots of small colleges have things like this, at the local community college I never took a loan with the government but I did get in debt to the College. The Government could of course decide they are too big to fail and prop them up, but then that would be an even bigger fiasco in the long run.
If you want to look in to even more fun issues with this, look in to employers paying for employee education. This is huge in healthcare, agree to work for a place for 2 years after your graduation and you will get a free ride through RN school at the local crappy junior college. The Hospital doesn't actually pay much in the way of your education, because the Hospital and the College have an agreement for their Clinicals to be held there. Now imagine the College you went to goes under and well, nobody has those records anymore. The ONLY place that will believe your degree is your current job. You cannot prove you earned your degree or it exists. This was happening before Covid, so it will only get worse.
As far as K-12, we have been willing to let children die in school shootings for decades now with no sign of even attempting to deal with the situation. Why are people shocked that we are willing to send kids in to danger during a Pandemic? This is par for the course.
Dreadwinter wrote: You know what would have helped immensely in this situation? More funding for Education to deal with this sort of thing. Actually dealing with infrastructure needs and treating the internet as basic utilities.
Hindsight is 20/20 though! So here we go! Sure hope none of those big colleges or universities go out of business. *eats chips* I would feel terrible if those loans got forgiven.
Why would they be? Most student loans aren't with the universities. Even if they did go out of business, people will still have the loans.
Its also a bit of a tangent from the K-12 education people have been talking about.
Not all loans are through the Government. Which means some loans would be forgiven due to the school no longer existing. Lots of small colleges have things like this, at the local community college I never took a loan with the government but I did get in debt to the College. The Government could of course decide they are too big to fail and prop them up, but then that would be an even bigger fiasco in the long run.
I didn't even vaguely suggest they were all through the government. I didn't mention the government at all.
They do quite a few, but when they don't, most schools bounce the students over to a variety of lending institutions (banks and other private lenders, particularly Sallie Mae and Nelnet), they don't do it themselves. Checking on it, its rare enough that I can't find any references to it happening on a regular basis. Some school-channel loans involved certification of the amount (by the school) but they still aren't the lender.
It still doesn't have anything to do with the topic, though.
Dreadwinter wrote: You know what would have helped immensely in this situation? More funding for Education to deal with this sort of thing. Actually dealing with infrastructure needs and treating the internet as basic utilities.
Hindsight is 20/20 though! So here we go! Sure hope none of those big colleges or universities go out of business. *eats chips* I would feel terrible if those loans got forgiven.
Why would they be? Most student loans aren't with the universities. Even if they did go out of business, people will still have the loans.
Its also a bit of a tangent from the K-12 education people have been talking about.
Not all loans are through the Government. Which means some loans would be forgiven due to the school no longer existing. Lots of small colleges have things like this, at the local community college I never took a loan with the government but I did get in debt to the College. The Government could of course decide they are too big to fail and prop them up, but then that would be an even bigger fiasco in the long run.
I didn't even vaguely suggest they were all through the government. I didn't mention the government at all.
They do quite a few, but when they don't, most schools bounce the students over to a variety of lending institutions (banks and other private lenders, particularly Sallie Mae and Nelnet), they don't do it themselves. Checking on it, its rare enough that I can't find any references to it happening on a regular basis. Some school-channel loans involved certification of the amount (by the school) but they still aren't the lender.
It still doesn't have anything to do with the topic, though.
The second part of what I originally said didn't have to do with K-12, but education. The second was added on for fun, because of the major issues a lot of these colleges are going to be having major issues with these sorts of things. Which happen.
The first part I said about not putting funding towards education and not dealing with infrastructure issues definitely had to do with the topic though. Why am I having the explain this?
Yep, let her go to school until the county can put in the infrastructure required to make distant learning effective (broadband access, teach the teachers how to do it effectively, ensure kids have the tech they need and so on).
Sure. I mean, we're not going to do that, either. Too many people are going to scream about how that sounds like socialism, and the invisible hand, and all the stuff that brought us to where we are now: deciding what percentage of the elderly we are comfortable with needlessly dying so that we can pretend the Coronavirus isn't real and send kids back to their schools\infesting pits.
We're not supposed to talk about politics here, but politics are what brought us precisely to this false dichotomy of bad decisions. it's like being in a room with an elephant, and everyone discussing how bad the piles of poop smell, but no one is allowed to mention the elephant.
I don't think we should be re-opening schools until either the curve is much, much flatter than it is now... or we have a vaccine. I'm sure all the people that have said All Lives Matter with a straight face will agree with me.
Yep, let her go to school until the county can put in the infrastructure required to make distant learning effective (broadband access, teach the teachers how to do it effectively, ensure kids have the tech they need and so on).
Sure. I mean, we're not going to do that, either. Too many people are going to scream about how that sounds like socialism, and the invisible hand, and all the stuff that brought us to where we are now: deciding what percentage of the elderly we are comfortable with needlessly dying so that we can pretend the Coronavirus isn't real and send kids back to their schools\infesting pits.
We're not supposed to talk about politics here, but politics are what brought us precisely to this false dichotomy of bad decisions. it's like being in a room with an elephant, and everyone discussing how bad the piles of poop smell, but no one is allowed to mention the elephant.
I don't think we should be re-opening schools until either the curve is much, much flatter than it is now... or we have a vaccine. I'm sure all the people that have said All Lives Matter with a straight face will agree with me.
I think schools could open just like many work places have. The schools could implement COVID mitigation strategies just like I have to at work. Basically stopping education for a huge chunk of the population isn't a good thing. I believe the reality is we are going to have to deal with COVID-19 and whatever comes next for a long time. Stopping basic societal activities indefinitely in the hopes a vaccine shows up and can be distributed doesn't make sense to me. We need to learn to operate in the contaminated environment. You mitigate risk to an acceptable level and drive on.
Clearly there are trade spaces, it isn't Open Everything as if there was no COVID or Shut Down Everything as the only options. Like it or not we need to figure out how to live with it.
Hahahaha, we can't even get people here in the US to wear masks without Dear Leader's approval and you want to reopen?
No. Just no. The time for "Open Everything As If There Was No COVID" isn't coming, because they chose to make an already untenable situation worse back in March/April by passing the buck to states as quickly as they could.
RiTides wrote: Stratigo, you clearly view it as binary “Open, Yes/No?”. If I did, too, the answer would be “No.” But there are about a thousand options between those binary poles, and I’m much more interested in talking to people who can at least acknowledge that (and consider the cost to kids across the range of options).
CptJake wrote: I live in a pretty rural area (Aiken county, SC), and broadband internet is not available everywhere. Add in some families with multiple school aged kids do not have multiple computers and 'online' or 'distant learning' just doesn't work well. In the suburban/urban parts of the county it may work better, but definitely not in all areas. Surrounding counties are more rural. The 'distant learning' just isn't a one size fits all solution.
Exactly...
Each school has to decide based on their student population, facilities, viral caseload, etc and be ready to adapt quickly if their first attempt results in either increased viral transmission, lack of educational progress, or both.
You know that won't happen. Schools are not allowed to decide if they're open or not. It'll be the Superintendents at the district level. For instance, my county's reopening plan (Keep in mind this is a county in FL, land of 10,000 new cases a day) in the event of a student testing positive is for the parent to report it to the principal. The principal kicks it up to the superintendent. It's the same procedure if a teacher tests positive. The individual that tests positive is then to quarantine for 2 weeks, or until 72 hours without fever. You'll notice that missing from this is any track and trace protocol, where we tell the other students that they've been exposed and should get tested. Social media will take care of it for us, of course, but the fact that our leadership would rather keep control of the information rather than alert the people impacted by it is horrifying. At present, the plan isn't even to shut down a classroom when a positive case presents itself. You may not even be informed when your children are exposed to students or teacher who test positive for Coronavirus.
CptJake wrote: I think schools could open just like many work places have. The schools could implement COVID mitigation strategies just like I have to at work. Basically stopping education for a huge chunk of the population isn't a good thing.
You argued earlier that it was too complex for most children to study from packets, but you're also thinking those same children can be trusted the way adults can with using hand sanitizer, keeping social distance, wearing masks, and all the other things that adults have done in their workplaces. To reiterate, a great many workplaces are not open, also - lets not gloss over that, a huge chunk are still working remotely when possible. I don't think same kids that can't keep their fingers out of their noses can be trusted to efficiently scrub down x times per day.
I agree stopping education for a huge chunk of the population is undesirable. So is needlessly killing a lot of vulnerable people. Kids can catch up on their classes - and this is a distinct minority of children with no broadband, no ability to work from packets, etc. A subset of the learning population. Once those people are dead, they are dead.
Covid is not going to last forever; there is going to be a vaccine. It might be 6 months, it might be a year, it might be 2 years. AstraZeneca is already starting phase 3 of their vaccine. If we could come together as a country, and really start aggressively getting on the same page - social distancing, harsh lockdowns, very high mask compliance, effective track and trace - we could flatten the hell out of the curve in 2 months and resume a semblance of normal life, just dealing with flareups. We know this is possible because other countries have done this.
I don't agree we just need to accept the vulnerable are gonna die anyway so lets get on with it. It is a deeply, deeply immoral stance.
If you can't trust elementary schools to effectively prevent the spread of lice or chickenpox, why do you realistically think they would be even more effective at covid?
One thing to remember is how Americans think.
For the longest time, we where taught only way to survive is to work. That is the ONLY way you get to live. No one, Especially the govern\ment, gets to help you.
So the Govt starts closing things, with not helping those we are closing beyond 1200$
Well......Then people are loosing houses, money, and cars. So we demand we have the govt help us.......nope
We demand things reopen because we have been programmed to only think about work and our Status Quo.
Remember the infamous line "Dont think about what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" is very thinly veiled where country means "Govt"
People are so desperate to get to normal because its so stressful....but normal isnt coming back. Ever. we are forging a new normal, one im hoping ends up better.
hotsauceman1 wrote: are so desperate to get to normal because its so stressful....but normal isnt coming back. Ever. we are forging a new normal, one im hoping ends up better.
Heck to the no. This is an event to be endured. Creating a society based around limiting human contact as standard is unhealthy.
hotsauceman1 wrote: are so desperate to get to normal because its so stressful....but normal isnt coming back. Ever. we are forging a new normal, one im hoping ends up better.
Heck to the no. This is an event to be endured. Creating a society based around limiting human contact as standard is unhealthy.
I mean.....No?
That isnt what i meant. What i mean is society is going to be changing with massive social changes coming up, that will end up for the better.
Also, One where movie theaters are dead. feth em i hope they die
These are the conditions that should have lead to something like a new New Deal, government leadership with programs to help the vulnerable and provide for the destitute. This is exactly the kind of situation that is too big for individuals to handle and requires government action. Unfortunately, the government decided to pass the buck and then hobble actual leadership in the states to cover up its own incompetence.
Movie theaters are the worst. You go in, spend like, 29-30$ to see a movie in a crowded room full of strangers who never stay quiet and laugh so hard I miss parts of the movie. if you gotta pee you miss parts of the movie.
Where movie can be release direct to my house, they have no purpose anymore. They only exist to justify hollywoods giant overinflated budget CGI driven mess.
Trolls 2 and Onward did amazing with VOD, lets follow their lead.
Movie theaters are fine. I like going to them comfy chairs and an overpriced snack as a treat. Just go a week or two after release to cut down on crowds and watch a big release movie on a giant screen and big sound. Combine with a meal out (before or after) and that's a nice evening.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Movie theaters are the worst. You go in, spend like, 29-30$ to see a movie in a crowded room full of strangers who never stay quiet and laugh so hard I miss parts of the movie. if you gotta pee you miss parts of the movie.
Where movie can be release direct to my house, they have no purpose anymore. They only exist to justify hollywoods giant overinflated budget CGI driven mess.
Trolls 2 and Onward did amazing with VOD, lets follow their lead.
No to get too far off topic, but I love movie theaters. The energy of a crowd can make some movies, even terrible movies like Cats, into amazing experiences.
I wish everyone would take this pandemic seriously, wear masks and cooperate with track and trace programs so we could start getting back to enjoying public life again in three months instead of two years.
Kanluwen wrote: The time for "Open Everything As If There Was No COVID" isn't coming, because they chose to make an already untenable situation worse back in March/April by passing the buck to states as quickly as they could.
I disagree with your last point, and I feel it is actually an important distinction to make: the buck could have been passed as early as January, certainly by February. Instead they chose to actively dismiss the problem as a non-issue. There are still a huge amount of people in the US partly or totally dismissive of Covid as a result.
That's actually why I made the point about "make an already untenable situation worse". Prior to March/April, it was being dismissed as a flu or something like that--not a pandemic. March/April saw the whole "it's a state thing, we can't do nothin! we're just the federal government!" start up.
Schools are reopening here in the Fall. Sports conditioning has already started at the High School. Football Conditioning has already been suspended because of a positive Covid test on the team. This Fall is going to be HYPE!
Dreadwinter wrote: Schools are reopening here in the Fall. Sports conditioning has already started at the High School. Football Conditioning has already been suspended because of a positive Covid test on the team. This Fall is going to be HYPE!
Feth them kids. Let em die! I need my sportsball!
But Dread, one of those kids could get a sports scholarship. So it's totally worth risking the health of the players, staff and family members!
Dreadwinter wrote: Schools are reopening here in the Fall. Sports conditioning has already started at the High School. Football Conditioning has already been suspended because of a positive Covid test on the team. This Fall is going to be HYPE!
Feth them kids. Let em die! I need my sportsball!
But Dread, one of those kids could get a sports scholarship. So it's totally worth risking the health of the players, staff and family members!
/s
I just checked and two more have it. I didn't think they would make an announcement about it on the radio here at 9PM. This is Sunday in a VERY rural and VERY christian area. We cannot even buy alcohol here on Sundays, our Walmart has no liquor license. Things must be getting real. The locals are getting frightened.....
Dreadwinter wrote: Schools are reopening here in the Fall. Sports conditioning has already started at the High School. Football Conditioning has already been suspended because of a positive Covid test on the team. This Fall is going to be HYPE!
Feth them kids. Let em die! I need my sportsball!
But Dread, one of those kids could get a sports scholarship. So it's totally worth risking the health of the players, staff and family members!
/s
Dude dont get off topic, we can talk about head injuries in sports players in another thread.......
OH, you do mean covid, my bad.
I just checked and two more have it. I didn't think they would make an announcement about it on the radio here at 9PM. This is Sunday in a VERY rural and VERY christian area. We cannot even buy alcohol here on Sundays, our Walmart has no liquor license. Things must be getting real. The locals are getting frightened.....
Edit: Random Capitalization
Wait.....the RADIO announced school football changes?
hotsauceman1 wrote: are so desperate to get to normal because its so stressful....but normal isnt coming back. Ever. we are forging a new normal, one im hoping ends up better.
Heck to the no. This is an event to be endured. Creating a society based around limiting human contact as standard is unhealthy.
I think there have to be some positives that come out of this situation, and I think it's likely to fall somewhere in between 'no contact' and 'contact all the time'
Take commuting for example. I miss working in an office and face to face conversation with my work colleagues. I don't miss the 15-20 hours a week I spend with the several million people in the country sat looking at the brake lights of the car in front.
Now that a lot of businesses have proven that distance working is indeed possible (and I suspect profitable) I'm expecting some kind of hybrid home/office work schedule even when/if the virus has disappeared entirely, with a mix of the two.
I suspect a lot of people will be having this kind of discussion with their employers and I think most companies will be having this discussion themselves.
In terms of the ecology, at least where I live the difference in air quality from the reduced traffic is definitely noticeable. It's incredible how far you can now see from local hill-tops without the pall of traffic smoke!
I'm looking at places more local to home (B&Bs in the countryside etc.) for holidays rather than the auto-holiday to Spain or Italy every single year.
Bad for the airlines I know but that wasn't ever going to be sustainable if people in coastal cities aren't going to have water around their ankles in 40-50 years time.
I think all of these things combined with a renewed effort from governments for green initiatives - try and use public investment to kickstart economies, there is definitely a massive potential to make something of all this.
What we mustn't do is go back to how things were, just because that's how they were, but I think it gives an opportunity to decide about what is in need of change.
Ouze wrote:
CptJake wrote: I think schools could open just like many work places have. The schools could implement COVID mitigation strategies just like I have to at work. Basically stopping education for a huge chunk of the population isn't a good thing.
You argued earlier that it was too complex for most children to study from packets, but you're also thinking those same children can be trusted the way adults can with using hand sanitizer, keeping social distance, wearing masks, and all the other things that adults have done in their workplaces. To reiterate, a great many workplaces are not open, also - lets not gloss over that, a huge chunk are still working remotely when possible. I don't think same kids that can't keep their fingers out of their noses can be trusted to efficiently scrub down x times per day.
I agree stopping education for a huge chunk of the population is undesirable. So is needlessly killing a lot of vulnerable people. Kids can catch up on their classes - and this is a distinct minority of children with no broadband, no ability to work from packets, etc. A subset of the learning population. Once those people are dead, they are dead.
Covid is not going to last forever; there is going to be a vaccine. It might be 6 months, it might be a year, it might be 2 years. AstraZeneca is already starting phase 3 of their vaccine. If we could come together as a country, and really start aggressively getting on the same page - social distancing, harsh lockdowns, very high mask compliance, effective track and trace - we could flatten the hell out of the curve in 2 months and resume a semblance of normal life, just dealing with flareups. We know this is possible because other countries have done this.
I don't agree we just need to accept the vulnerable are gonna die anyway so lets get on with it. It is a deeply, deeply immoral stance.
If you can't trust elementary schools to effectively prevent the spread of lice or chickenpox, why do you realistically think they would be even more effective at covid?
"Coronavirus: Government admits its Test and Trace programme is unlawful"
....
This follows on from scattered reports on social media of people being targeted by text adverts and the like after leaving contact details and the entirely unsurprising cases of customers being contacted by bar staff/similar after giving their details -- despite them protesting they totally did not get their details from the T & T info.
nosiree.
In better news though : "UK secures deal for 90 million COVID-19 vaccine doses
The UK has become the first country to sign a deal with a number of pharmaceutical companies for early access to COVID-19 vaccines. The first is with BioNTech and Pfizer, for 30 million doses. The second deal, for 60 million doses, is with French firm Valneva. These are in addition to the 100 million doses of the Oxford University vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca"
... now we just wait to find out if we have in fact bought the wrong ones or perhaps have bought from a firm that does not in fact sell vaccines at all.
... now we just wait to find out if we have in fact bought the wrong ones or perhaps have bought from a firm that does not in fact sell vaccines at all.
In my local, rural area the testing kits at the only drive-thru testing center ran out a few days ago.
Since then our new cases have flat lined! Success!
Edit: Also got a notice from the school district. The plan to keep kids from getting COVID this year is for all parents to sign waivers so the school can not be sued if they get COVID. That will protect someone but I am not sure it is the kids.
CptJake wrote: I think schools could open just like many work places have. The schools could implement COVID mitigation strategies just like I have to at work. Basically stopping education for a huge chunk of the population isn't a good thing.
You argued earlier that it was too complex for most children to study from packets, but you're also thinking those same children can be trusted the way adults can with using hand sanitizer, keeping social distance, wearing masks, and all the other things that adults have done in their workplaces. To reiterate, a great many workplaces are not open, also - lets not gloss over that, a huge chunk are still working remotely when possible. I don't think same kids that can't keep their fingers out of their noses can be trusted to efficiently scrub down x times per day.
I agree stopping education for a huge chunk of the population is undesirable. So is needlessly killing a lot of vulnerable people. Kids can catch up on their classes - and this is a distinct minority of children with no broadband, no ability to work from packets, etc. A subset of the learning population. Once those people are dead, they are dead.
Covid is not going to last forever; there is going to be a vaccine. It might be 6 months, it might be a year, it might be 2 years. AstraZeneca is already starting phase 3 of their vaccine. If we could come together as a country, and really start aggressively getting on the same page - social distancing, harsh lockdowns, very high mask compliance, effective track and trace - we could flatten the hell out of the curve in 2 months and resume a semblance of normal life, just dealing with flareups. We know this is possible because other countries have done this.
I don't agree we just need to accept the vulnerable are gonna die anyway so lets get on with it. It is a deeply, deeply immoral stance.
If you can't trust elementary schools to effectively prevent the spread of lice or chickenpox, why do you realistically think they would be even more effective at covid?
You are really oversimplifying schools' role in kids' lives. A year of not being able to attend school properly means wasting a year of the childs' time during which the brain can learn new things at (comparatively) breakneck speed. This speed rapidly declines as the child comes closer to adulthood where it settles at a much slower pace. Ever wondered why every child that doesn't have a mental handicap learns to speak it's native language fluently while picking up a new language at age 30 is very hard for even the most gifted of people? That's the reason. Wasting a year of this time means irrepairably damaging the childs' development having lifelong consequences on wellbeing, job prospects etc. And I haven't even talked about jeopardizing childrens' mental and social development by keeping them home away from their peers. That too will incur irrepairable damage.
Does this mean I would support reopening schools in the middle of the clusterfeth that the US is right now? I'm not sure. I can very much understand the anxiety and opposition to it in the current situation. I do strongly feel that schools should be the last to close and the first to reopen again in a situation like this however. Both to minimize the developmental damage done to our children and also because I strongly feel this isn't their crisis. SARS-CoV-2 is a direct consequence of decades of human greed and carelessness so our chilldren had no part in causing this bs. Therefore we should do our very best to minimize the impact of this crisis on them. And it's also why I fully support schools fully reopening here in the Netherlands (we have much lower infection numbers here) after the summer break. If that means us adults have to take an extra step back in order to prevent the epidemic from exploding, so be it. I can make up for cancelled parties, festivals and what have you later. A child can't do the same for disruptions to their development.
Easy E wrote: In my local, rural area the testing kits at the only drive-thru testing center ran out a few days ago.
Since then our new cases have flat lined! Success!
Edit: Also got a notice from the school district. The plan to keep kids from getting COVID this year is for all parents to sign waivers so the school can not be sued if they get COVID. That will protect someone but I am not sure it is the kids.
reds8n wrote: "UK secures deal for 90 million COVID-19 vaccine doses
The UK has become the first country to sign a deal with a number of pharmaceutical companies for early access to COVID-19 vaccines. The first is with BioNTech and Pfizer, for 30 million doses. The second deal, for 60 million doses, is with French firm Valneva. These are in addition to the 100 million doses of the Oxford University vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca"
It makes sense - they have to start manufacturing them so that once approved they can be distributed immediately. By buying some of each they're increasing the chances that they will have at least one effective vaccine.
There have also been some really good developments on drugs to help reduce symptoms and either keep people off of ventilators, or help them recover more quickly once they are on them (freeing them up for other patients).
reds8n wrote: "UK secures deal for 90 million COVID-19 vaccine doses
The UK has become the first country to sign a deal with a number of pharmaceutical companies for early access to COVID-19 vaccines. The first is with BioNTech and Pfizer, for 30 million doses. The second deal, for 60 million doses, is with French firm Valneva. These are in addition to the 100 million doses of the Oxford University vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca"
It makes sense - they have to start manufacturing them so that once approved they can be distributed immediately. By buying some of each they're increasing the chances that they will have at least one effective vaccine.
There have also been some really good developments on drugs to help reduce symptoms and either keep people off of ventilators, or help them recover more quickly once they are on them (freeing them up for other patients).
People grossly underestimate the manufacturing and distribution challenges we're going to have after one or more of these vax candidates are approved.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Movie theaters are the worst. You go in, spend like, 29-30$ to see a movie in a crowded room full of strangers who never stay quiet and laugh so hard I miss parts of the movie. if you gotta pee you miss parts of the movie.
Where movie can be release direct to my house, they have no purpose anymore. They only exist to justify hollywoods giant overinflated budget CGI driven mess.
Trolls 2 and Onward did amazing with VOD, lets follow their lead.
Well i know my home has nowhere near enough room for such a screen and neighbours would be complaining about noice with such audio output. And dubious my home could be fitted with equally good output.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oxford vaccine is showing increase in resistance to virus though how lasting is next step. Fairly safe though 70% receivers gets fever or headache but treatable level with standard medicines
Gorgon - Oh absolutely! But the first step is to pay up and get the manufacturing rolling... how they figure out everything downstream of that is going to be pretty crazy.
Oxford vaccine is showing increase in resistance to virus though how lasting is next step. Fairly safe though 70% receivers gets fever or headache but treatable level with standard medicines
I'd take those side effects in a heartbeat if a vaccine gave resistance.
Pandabeer wrote: You are really oversimplifying schools' role in kids' lives. A year of not being able to attend school properly means wasting a year of the childs' time during which the brain can learn new things at (comparatively) breakneck speed. This speed rapidly declines as the child comes closer to adulthood where it settles at a much slower pace. Ever wondered why every child that doesn't have a mental handicap learns to speak it's native language fluently while picking up a new language at age 30 is very hard for even the most gifted of people? That's the reason. Wasting a year of this time means irrepairably damaging the childs' development having lifelong consequences on wellbeing, job prospects etc.
Hasn't that theory been debunked a few years ago? The last I read about especially this language learning example was that the big difference is that kids have nothing to do while 30 year old adults have jobs and responsibilities. For the most part they just don't have the time to immerse themselves into a language like kids can. People who start learning a new language at college age and who have time for that— like when taking language related courses (interpreter,…) full time—seem to learn faster than kids because they can dedicate themselves to their studies.
reds8n wrote: "UK secures deal for 90 million COVID-19 vaccine doses
The UK has become the first country to sign a deal with a number of pharmaceutical companies for early access to COVID-19 vaccines. The first is with BioNTech and Pfizer, for 30 million doses. The second deal, for 60 million doses, is with French firm Valneva. These are in addition to the 100 million doses of the Oxford University vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca"
It makes sense - they have to start manufacturing them so that once approved they can be distributed immediately. By buying some of each they're increasing the chances that they will have at least one effective vaccine.
There have also been some really good developments on drugs to help reduce symptoms and either keep people off of ventilators, or help them recover more quickly once they are on them (freeing them up for other patients).
People grossly underestimate the manufacturing and distribution challenges we're going to have after one or more of these vax candidates are approved.
Yep. Especially in the US. Most of 'our' pharmaceutical manufacturing is actually overseas- I'm personally envious of Germany and Switzerland on this score.
Of course, once it starts rolling, there's going to be prioritization and availability issues. It also doesn't help that politicians and journalists have been hopelessly optimistic on the arrival of a viable candidate, and don't seem to grasp that manufacturing meaningful quantities, let alone shifting those quantities to distribution centers and then to local areas are all going to take time.
I highly doubt that regarding language lol. Just personally speaking, I failed miserably at learning a foreign language later in life, while my kid was quite easily fluent in both english and spanish at just 3 years old.
There's a reason that - outside of pandemic conditions - there's a huge push to get kids better access to preschools, for instance. They can learn and absorb a crazy amount at a young age, and under normal circumstances, you want to take full advantage of that.
I think we need to be honest about the challenges kids will face, and not try to minimize those challenges by saying lost learning will be easily able to be made up later. The hard choices we're needing to make now are due solely to the severity of the consequences - NOT because kids don't learn all that well at a young age, or that schooling isn't really all that important, or any other similar minimizing argument...
If it wasnt a life or death case for many people i would agree.
But.....im not sure with the numbers we have, we can justify opening schools in all reality.
I get it can cause problems, but IME, kids can be pretty flexible.
I think we need to seriously consider that its possible this whole school year could be distance learning and prepare accordingly both as educators and those with kids on how to mitigate this.
reds8n wrote: "UK secures deal for 90 million COVID-19 vaccine doses
The UK has become the first country to sign a deal with a number of pharmaceutical companies for early access to COVID-19 vaccines. The first is with BioNTech and Pfizer, for 30 million doses. The second deal, for 60 million doses, is with French firm Valneva. These are in addition to the 100 million doses of the Oxford University vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca"
It makes sense - they have to start manufacturing them so that once approved they can be distributed immediately. By buying some of each they're increasing the chances that they will have at least one effective vaccine.
There have also been some really good developments on drugs to help reduce symptoms and either keep people off of ventilators, or help them recover more quickly once they are on them (freeing them up for other patients).
People grossly underestimate the manufacturing and distribution challenges we're going to have after one or more of these vax candidates are approved.
Yep. Especially in the US. Most of 'our' pharmaceutical manufacturing is actually overseas- I'm personally envious of Germany and Switzerland on this score.
Of course, once it starts rolling, there's going to be prioritization and availability issues. It also doesn't help that politicians and journalists have been hopelessly optimistic on the arrival of a viable candidate, and don't seem to grasp that manufacturing meaningful quantities, let alone shifting those quantities to distribution centers and then to local areas are all going to take time.
Erm, the manufacturing is all over the shop depending on how easily it is to outsource , the most major* production facilities to my knowledge from Novartis are in the USA, aswell as eastern europe.
Edit* major, by their own Standards truth is as soon as China stopped delievering gak went south.
Eh. Even the most optimistic figures suggest the US produces only about a quarter of its demand for pharma domestically.
No one is making big noises about ramping up facilities in anticipation for the political or public good will points, so I don't see that changing. (and Johnson and Johnson, our largest pharma company, absolutely would, as they're coming off a PR debacle with tainted baby powder)
~330 million doses of a vaccine when less than a quarter of production is domestic (and production for other drugs needs to continue)... that's going to take a while.
Imo , just an opinion, but production facilities of medical baseline products Like masks, generika , well known medicin not requireing special individualisation should've been decentralised a Long time ago
We saw what happened when the plandemic hit first and Basically all of Europe had no masks because everyone bought from China...
The problem is decentralising costs and when the pandemic ends the demand will reduce which means less market pressure. With less pressure the prices will likely settle and lower and there just won't be the need nor demand for extensive local infrastructure.
Especially when things like faceshields and masks can be more cheaply bought from overseas and then stockpiled.
One issue about vaccines is that less effective it is, the more people who need to take them for artificial herd immunity. (Not to be confused with natural herd immunity, which means exposure to the virus itself.) Of course, individual immunity is a different matter.
This new study shows how well a coronavirus vaccine must work before we can stop social distancing
"Based on these findings, a vaccine with an efficacy as low as 60% could still stop the pandemic and allow society to return to normal. However, most if not all of the population would have to be vaccinated. his seems unlikely, given polls showing that only about three-quarters of Americans say they would get a coronavirus vaccine if assured that it was safe. With fewer people protected, a vaccine would have to have an efficacy of at least 80% to be able to stop the pandemic by itself, meaning social distancing could be completely relaxed."
Overread wrote: The problem is decentralising costs and when the pandemic ends the demand will reduce which means less market pressure. With less pressure the prices will likely settle and lower and there just won't be the need nor demand for extensive local infrastructure.
Especially when things like faceshields and masks can be more cheaply bought from overseas and then stockpiled.
Sure , so what, states and governments have wasted money on worse things, Like italy and traintracks without the rails.
Or Briefes f.e.
Atleast that way you could instigate some development in poorer regions.
Overread wrote: The problem is decentralising costs and when the pandemic ends the demand will reduce which means less market pressure. With less pressure the prices will likely settle and lower and there just won't be the need nor demand for extensive local infrastructure.
Especially when things like faceshields and masks can be more cheaply bought from overseas and then stockpiled.
Sure , so what, states and governments have wasted money on worse things, Like italy and traintracks without the rails.
Or Briefes f.e.
Atleast that way you could instigate some development in poorer regions.
True but at the same time don't forget there's going to be a lagtime.
Post Corona the first order will be getting current companies, production and such back on track. Ergo focusing on just getting what countries have and had back in working order once again. Couple that to the debts earned through corona and it doesn't present a system that will be ripe to invest heavily into preparations for the "next" disaster. Instead it presents a system that will likely take years to reach such an affluent point once again.
So it would make sense that cheaper overseas imports and local storage would be more attractive than investment into factories and production that would cost more to source locally. At best we might see designs for emergancy production facilities being drawn up and concepts being used on how quickly we could ramp up required production on short notice. So you might see some raw material buying and storing.
It was only a few pages back when I related my wife's very similar experiences to this poor woman that someone flat out denied that it happened unless it was because my wife had gakky customer service skills.
People can be really, really selfish and take their frustration out over the most minor inconveniences on the poor sod who has to face this sort of thing day in, day out.
There is a big part of america that straight believes that rights means "I get to do what i want and no one can stop me"
And its true and something i can admire, you have the right to be an idiot and set off a firework in your hand.
But, the problem comes when that same firework is being done in a county notorious for wildfires and in a dry frield. Suddeny you are not just harming yourself, but others too.
Your rights end when you put others in danger.
Trump is now apparently pushing masks (not the one-off at Walter Reed). As much as I'd like to point out the obvious in terms of his prior behavior and how many infected and people were OK until his polling wasn't, and so on, ultimately all that really matters is that now both major political figures in the US are pushing mask wearing when you cannot distance, which is a good thing.
It's not where I'd like for us to be, but it's at least finally sorta heading in the right direction.
Treat them like normal and not get worried because there are tools and therapies that can help with behaviors associated with autism.
Oh wiat you meant AUTISM!!!!!! the big boogie man of antivaxxers that is a death sentence for young kids and the worst thing to happen to anyone anywhere ever.
Dreadwinter wrote: Schools are reopening here in the Fall. Sports conditioning has already started at the High School. Football Conditioning has already been suspended because of a positive Covid test on the team. This Fall is going to be HYPE!
Feth them kids. Let em die! I need my sportsball!
But Dread, one of those kids could get a sports scholarship. So it's totally worth risking the health of the players, staff and family members!
/s
Dude dont get off topic, we can talk about head injuries in sports players in another thread.......
OH, you do mean covid, my bad.
I just checked and two more have it. I didn't think they would make an announcement about it on the radio here at 9PM. This is Sunday in a VERY rural and VERY christian area. We cannot even buy alcohol here on Sundays, our Walmart has no liquor license. Things must be getting real. The locals are getting frightened.....
Edit: Random Capitalization
Wait.....the RADIO announced school football changes?
Yeah, the local Radio Station announced it on their Facebook Account. BTW, the guy running the station hates "social media" and he thinks it is ruining the world. I live in a special place.
I managed to find some made in UK masks. They are more expensive than the generic Chinese made masks, but I don't need a lot because I won't be going shopping and so on very much.
Things aren't going back to normal for a long time. Maybe not ever. I hope not.
I don't like the "normal" of spending over 15 hours and £60 a week simply going to the office and home again, when I can do my job equally well in my pyjamas. Why would I want to go back to "normal" even if there wasn't a danger of getting infected?
Kilkrazy wrote: I managed to find some made in UK masks. They are more expensive than the generic Chinese made masks, but I don't need a lot because I won't be going shopping and so on very much.
Things aren't going back to normal for a long time. Maybe not ever. I hope not.
I don't like the "normal" of spending over 15 hours and £60 a week simply going to the office and home again, when I can do my job equally well in my pyjamas. Why would I want to go back to "normal" even if there wasn't a danger of getting infected?
There is something to say about knowing your co workers.
My job was implementing telehealth long before this, this thing just speed it up.
Yes, I agree with you. What I think will happen is that we will go back to working perhaps one or two days a week in the office, and working from home the rest of the time. Some businesses will go virtual. They will just hire office space for their weekly meetings.
But "return to normality" wants us all working in the office every day, burning petrol or bus fares to get there, and buying lots of coffee and sandwiches. That isn't going to happen.
City centre businesses are like the dinosaurs now. I don't wish it upon them, but it's the new world.
Oxford vaccine is showing increase in resistance to virus though how lasting is next step. Fairly safe though 70% receivers gets fever or headache but treatable level with standard medicines
I'd take those side effects in a heartbeat if a vaccine gave resistance.
True. Good tradeoff since usual self medication sorts those out. It's just Q of how LONG that resistance lasts. that's what they are testing out now. Vaccine isn't much use if it lasts like a month at most.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: So if a vaccine is produced and goes out to the public, what will we do about the wave of autism?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Treat them like normal and not get worried because there are tools and therapies that can help with behaviors associated with autism.
Oh wiat you meant AUTISM!!!!!! the big boogie man of antivaxxers that is a death sentence for young kids and the worst thing to happen to anyone anywhere ever.
i am fairly sure, that he was jokingly and humoristicly ,pointing to the obvious issues associated with these groups and the corresponding issues, associated with mandatory vaccination etc.
However, yes, this, considering these people also are allready somewhat normally socialized, one would assume them catching autism, through dark magic because you don't get it from vaccines but just humoristically entertaining that thought, the effects would be marginal.
I don't like the "normal" of spending over 15 hours and £60 a week simply going to the office and home again, when I can do my job equally well in my pyjamas. Why would I want to go back to "normal" even if there wasn't a danger of getting infected?
There's certainly variation in what we consider "a return to normal." I think for most people when they say it mean a return to a period in time where we don't have to worry about social distancing; washing our hands every 5 minutes; worrying about breathing near people etc... Ergo where we can safely go to a rave or a party or just bustle around the shops. When we can spend an hour in a store and not feel concerned or stand in a vast stadium with thousands of others watching sports etc... Ergo when we have the choice to freely socialise
Of course there will be changes; a lot of businesses have or will go under. We might well see shifts in how international transport and holidays are conducted. At the same time as things get going we might well see new businesses open up into markets that were damaged - eg tourism could have a big boom year.
At the same time I agree this big stay at home policy has likely pushed working from home - paperless offices - computing and such forward in a massive way. It might even result in huge changes and improvements to road infrastructures if we can shift significant portions of the workforce into working from home more days than in the office.
not to mention work in teams often times leads to better results.
It also lends itself better to worker organisation, and relationship between upper and lower positions within a company, both beeing, atleast to me, massively important in order to avoid certain developments that happened in other industries, like 16 H workdays in the game industry, etc.
Basically the whole computing revolution that was "supposed" to happen and never quite did is likely going to start happening now for real. A big part might also be how the various work from home software companies treat this.
One big issue was always starting the ball rolling and the running costs. A lot of the software firms have made their software cheaper/free for the corona event. Now as things ease out if those firms stick to lower price brackets we might well see more firms keep with the adaption of the new approach; however if prices soar up high we might see many go "eh well it was nice, but I don't like this big cost and we've got the offices paid for anyway lets just go back".
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, I agree with you. What I think will happen is that we will go back to working perhaps one or two days a week in the office, and working from home the rest of the time. Some businesses will go virtual. They will just hire office space for their weekly meetings.
But "return to normality" wants us all working in the office every day, burning petrol or bus fares to get there, and buying lots of coffee and sandwiches. That isn't going to happen.
City centre businesses are like the dinosaurs now. I don't wish it upon them, but it's the new world.
I agree wholeheartedly with this and think it's likely to pan out that way. I think all that has really happened has been a large acceleration of what was happening already in a number of industries, with others now also being pushed along that route.
Johnson can say what he likes about returning to the office and pretending like things are back to normal, but they're not and ultimately it's the businesses and their purse-strings that will make the decision. They are the ones that have to answer to employment tribunals if they're not able to guarantee a safe work space (which they can't do entirely, no matter what precautions are taken) and if staff are able to adequately carry out their role at a distance, then it's a pretty simple equation for senior management to work out.
I'm not entirely convinced that it's a good thing. I did read that we are no longer working from home, but living at work (definitely true for some people looking at the date and time stamps on work emails I receive). It takes some discipline to have a start and stop time, take a break for lunch, make sure you walk away at a decent time in the evening (I suspect that a lot of people actually working longer hours - and a marked increase in productivity - is no doubt going to be factored into any large-scale return to work conversations)
Kilkrazy wrote: I managed to find some made in UK masks. They are more expensive than the generic Chinese made masks, but I don't need a lot because I won't be going shopping and so on very much.
Things aren't going back to normal for a long time. Maybe not ever. I hope not.
I don't like the "normal" of spending over 15 hours and £60 a week simply going to the office and home again, when I can do my job equally well in my pyjamas. Why would I want to go back to "normal" even if there wasn't a danger of getting infected?
I don’t work in an office, and not everyone does.
While you might be able to sit at home in your PJs to do your job, some of us are still waiting to go back to work at all.
It might be nice for you that things never get back to normal.
But you know what? I’d like my income back, and the ability to earn again.
I’m sure if you were laid off indefinitely without an income, you’d be wanting to get back to normal after being on govt subsidies for four months.
Not everyone can work remotely, and in order to make any sort of living, we need to get back to normal.
I’m amazed a how one can be called out for being selfish because we simply can’t survive like this, and regardless of the danger, there is serious danger of some folks not being able to support themselves without reopening.
I think it’s a rather selfish attitude to have when you assume everyone can and does work in an office that they can work remotely.
What about those of us that can’t? It’s killing those people too, and I’d like to see some more balance. In that we’re putting lives at risk by NOT returning to some normality.
I think there's an obvious implication in the post of 'back to normal for me'.
I can't imagine for a minute that Kilkrazy is meaning 'screw everyone who can't work remotely'.
I have similar hopes. I think most office-based businesses have had a major wake-up call through this and have discovered that yes, a lot of office staff can actually work productively from home. I very much hope we don't come out the other side of this and just say 'well, that was fun. back to the daily commute then.'
Perhaps the time of the Results Only Work Environment is here again! However, i am skeptical. There is a reason the Results Only Work Environment has not stuck, and it was not because of reduced productivity.
However, I have worked with a lot of management and executive staff and the #1 thing they desire is Control Over Results. They do not perceive to have the same control over results in a WFH environment. Therefore, it will go back to "in the office" again.
There is a reason the WFH revolution has NOT happened all ready. That reason is because management and corporate leaders do not want it to happen for psychological reasons.
Easy E wrote: There is a reason the WFH revolution has NOT happened all ready. That reason is because management and corporate leaders do not want it to happen for psychological reasons.
Is that where the managers want to be seen managing, and can't do that when not looming over their staff's shoulders?
There are lots of other reasons, but some want to be seen to have the power they do.
WFH was a privilege at my place, and us lowly plebs were not allowed to do that regularly. Now it's the norm.
RiTides wrote: Stratigo, you clearly view it as binary “Open, Yes/No?”. If I did, too, the answer would be “No.” But there are about a thousand options between those binary poles, and I’m much more interested in talking to people who can at least acknowledge that (and consider the cost to kids across the range of options).
CptJake wrote: I live in a pretty rural area (Aiken county, SC), and broadband internet is not available everywhere. Add in some families with multiple school aged kids do not have multiple computers and 'online' or 'distant learning' just doesn't work well. In the suburban/urban parts of the county it may work better, but definitely not in all areas. Surrounding counties are more rural. The 'distant learning' just isn't a one size fits all solution.
Exactly...
Each school has to decide based on their student population, facilities, viral caseload, etc and be ready to adapt quickly if their first attempt results in either increased viral transmission, lack of educational progress, or both.
The options between are just more hypotheticals, which I still don't care about. If you want to talk options in between, provide concrete examples of schools planning to use those options. It shouldn't even be that hard, colleges throughout the country are looking into it and detailing such plans.
But, guess what, Florida and texas are full on insisting full reopening of schools and classes. This is the reality. At a time where the US has less a control over the virus than we have ever had. Public school systems don't have a lot of power to set their own plans in this time, they are beholden, supine if you will, to the wishes of the state government. And, it just so happens that certain state governments with a lot of Rs involved, are bulldozing through every plan or idea of how to educate children safely in favor of trying to return to the old normal, for their political and, this is a big one, financial benefit.
RiTides wrote: To repeat, schools do NOT provide "nebulous gain" for students, and unless you can acknowledge that, we're not even having the same discussion.
For as long as I can remember, public school being useless has been the hip viewpoint for people to express if they want to seem smart. I think it is an implied statement about how one is 'smarter' than the system, but phrasing it that way reveals how nonsensical the statement is. The nature of the public school system and its varying factors is of such complexity that reducing it down to "nebulous gain" is essentially a non-statement. It would be like saying "cardboard packaging offers nebulous gain" or "starting work at 9 am offers nebulous gain" the statement technically works but in a realistic sense does not. All of this is to say; sometimes it is better to ignore and move on.
A number of public schools ARE effectively useless. By design. Because they are attended by minorities, and schools in this country are still heavily segregated. The programs receive minimal funding, the teachers are ground down with stress, the halls are filled with police officers looking for reasons to oppress.
There are plenty of wonderful public schools that provide well funded education and preparation for adulthood. In areas where the neighborhoods are mostly white and affluent.
This isn't a trick or mistake, not an example of governmental incompetence not knowing how to run education. This is by design.
So, kindly, actually read the statements I am making.
CptJake wrote: I think schools could open just like many work places have. The schools could implement COVID mitigation strategies just like I have to at work. Basically stopping education for a huge chunk of the population isn't a good thing.
You argued earlier that it was too complex for most children to study from packets, but you're also thinking those same children can be trusted the way adults can with using hand sanitizer, keeping social distance, wearing masks, and all the other things that adults have done in their workplaces. To reiterate, a great many workplaces are not open, also - lets not gloss over that, a huge chunk are still working remotely when possible. I don't think same kids that can't keep their fingers out of their noses can be trusted to efficiently scrub down x times per day.
I agree stopping education for a huge chunk of the population is undesirable. So is needlessly killing a lot of vulnerable people. Kids can catch up on their classes - and this is a distinct minority of children with no broadband, no ability to work from packets, etc. A subset of the learning population. Once those people are dead, they are dead.
Covid is not going to last forever; there is going to be a vaccine. It might be 6 months, it might be a year, it might be 2 years. AstraZeneca is already starting phase 3 of their vaccine. If we could come together as a country, and really start aggressively getting on the same page - social distancing, harsh lockdowns, very high mask compliance, effective track and trace - we could flatten the hell out of the curve in 2 months and resume a semblance of normal life, just dealing with flareups. We know this is possible because other countries have done this.
I don't agree we just need to accept the vulnerable are gonna die anyway so lets get on with it. It is a deeply, deeply immoral stance.
If you can't trust elementary schools to effectively prevent the spread of lice or chickenpox, why do you realistically think they would be even more effective at covid?
feth, if we were in europe we could have an actual conversation about the utility of opening schools with new cases regularly shrinking, But this is America.
Easy E wrote: In my local, rural area the testing kits at the only drive-thru testing center ran out a few days ago.
Since then our new cases have flat lined! Success!
Edit: Also got a notice from the school district. The plan to keep kids from getting COVID this year is for all parents to sign waivers so the school can not be sued if they get COVID. That will protect someone but I am not sure it is the kids.
It's actually becoming clear that this is kinda what the federal government plans to do, just stop testing, or suppressing data of the tests that do come through. And I imagine republican aligned state governments will play along with it.
Easy E wrote: There is a reason the WFH revolution has NOT happened all ready. That reason is because management and corporate leaders do not want it to happen for psychological reasons.
Is that where the managers want to be seen managing, and can't do that when not looming over their staff's shoulders?
There are lots of other reasons, but some want to be seen to have the power they do.
WFH was a privilege at my place, and us lowly plebs were not allowed to do that regularly. Now it's the norm.
I wish it were that obvious. No, it is actually a deeper seated psychological need than that.
Most of the leaders and executives I have worked with are "driver/Blue/Controller" personality types. When you strip all the other thinking style stuff away, their core need is to Control. That is what has made them successful, controlling the inputs to get the desired outputs. WFH strips away that control, they can not just "see" what is actually happening and therefore can no longer "control" the inputs. This makes them deeply uneasy. So uneasy that they will do a lot of mental gymnastics to justify why WFH will not and is not working.
I have seen it up close many, many times. I just ran into it today!
I was thrilled to hear the progress made towards a vaccine over the past few days. Yes it’s still too early to tell if they’ll ultimately be successful but it feels like a definite step in the right direction. Fingers crossed.
I wasn't saying "screw you everyone who isn't an office worker." My equation was more like this.
City centre businesses such as coffee bars have a 10% profit margin. They've lost 75% of their trade because all the offices have closed. If 80% of office workers go back to normal working, those coffee bars are still going to fold. There will also be effects on the bus companies and the car parks.
There's a plus side to this. The roads will be emptier for delivery drivers. There's increased demand for coffee shops in small town centres.
Those don't seem like massive advantages, to be fair. My position is that we've screwed the pooch. We'll never recover.
I don't think most sectors won't recover, although it's very possible demand could shift - i.e. Blockbuster giving way to Netflix. Sucks for a lot of folks caught in the middle of any transition like that employment-wise, obviously
I think coffee shops and the like will be fine for the long term, though. Things like that are in large part popular due to the social aspect, and outside of the pandemic that won't have changed. And folks who work from home also like to head to coffee shops (although obviously different ones since they're no longer in town, as you point out).
What will be interesting if that as certain industries and companies struggle, others will start to benefit and you'll probably get new ones emerging.
This goes beyond the obvious need for more delivery drivers and companies (I would say they are at least 50% of traffic now on roads near me), but I wonder if this will also speed up automated delivery services (drone deliveries etc.)
You can imagine mobile coffee-shops moving from town centres to densely populated residential areas etc.
I'd also read about drive-in cinemas making a come back, it will be interesting to see how the market will start to adapt to the new environment.
RiTides wrote: I don't think most sectors won't recover, although it's very possible demand could shift - i.e. Blockbuster giving way to Netflix. Sucks for a lot of folks caught in the middle of any transition like that employment-wise, obviously
I dont wanna sound rude or dismissive....but this is always happens.
Old gives way to new and people are always cought up when it. When farm life gave way to factory. And some adapt and some dont.
RiTides wrote: I don't think most sectors won't recover, although it's very possible demand could shift - i.e. Blockbuster giving way to Netflix. Sucks for a lot of folks caught in the middle of any transition like that employment-wise, obviously
I dont wanna sound rude or dismissive....but this is always happens.
Old gives way to new and people are always cought up when it. When farm life gave way to factory. And some adapt and some dont.
Farm life is still the reality for roughly a third of the planet.
Even here the number of farms in operation is not small- around 2 million, down from the peak of 7 million in 1935.
I guess what i mean is that, before for quite a few people, farminng was the only job thqaat there was, which gave way to factory, whiich then gave way to office, while there still there, it was not a way ofr life for many many people like it once was.
Im not disparaging farming.
reds8n wrote: "UK secures deal for 90 million COVID-19 vaccine doses
The UK has become the first country to sign a deal with a number of pharmaceutical companies for early access to COVID-19 vaccines. The first is with BioNTech and Pfizer, for 30 million doses. The second deal, for 60 million doses, is with French firm Valneva. These are in addition to the 100 million doses of the Oxford University vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca"
It makes sense - they have to start manufacturing them so that once approved they can be distributed immediately. By buying some of each they're increasing the chances that they will have at least one effective vaccine.
There have also been some really good developments on drugs to help reduce symptoms and either keep people off of ventilators, or help them recover more quickly once they are on them (freeing them up for other patients).
People grossly underestimate the manufacturing and distribution challenges we're going to have after one or more of these vax candidates are approved.
Yep. Especially in the US. Most of 'our' pharmaceutical manufacturing is actually overseas- I'm personally envious of Germany and Switzerland on this score.
Of course, once it starts rolling, there's going to be prioritization and availability issues. It also doesn't help that politicians and journalists have been hopelessly optimistic on the arrival of a viable candidate, and don't seem to grasp that manufacturing meaningful quantities, let alone shifting those quantities to distribution centers and then to local areas are all going to take time.
The vaccine candidates are different, also. They're testing a number of different approaches. Some will be easier to mass produce than others. Some will be easier to transport than others. Etcetera.
The vaccine candidates are different, also. They're testing a number of different approaches. Some will be easier to mass produce than others. Some will be easier to transport than others. Etcetera.
Yeah. Today made that weird, as well.
A deal was signed with Pfizer, they get $2 billion, the US gets 100 million units of... well, basically whichever of their four vaccine candidates gets approval by the FDA. At some point. Assuming one does. To be distributed at no additional charge (in theory, unless providers want to charge for administering the vaccine, ie the actual injection).
How we get the other 250+ million units (assuming a single dose vaccine) for the rest of the population and what that will cost gets a blank stare and a shrug at this point. Other than that the gov't 'could' acquire up to 500 million more.
part of Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration's push to have a coronavirus vaccine widely available by January.
That name doesn't strike me as ominous and corner-cutting _at all_
Hopefully, optimistically, they'll have one that actually works and is safe to use, but no mention of that. Other than they haven't vetted or published their results yet, and safety and efficacy studies haven't even begun, but they're aiming for approval by October. >.>
So after Operation Warp Speed they're going to have Operation Indentured Servitude as they force to you to pay off the no doubt ludicrous cost of the vaccine.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I guess what i mean is that, before for quite a few people, farminng was the only job thqaat there was, which gave way to factory, whiich then gave way to office, while there still there, it was not a way ofr life for many many people like it once was.
Im not disparaging farming.
In the same way, there's not a blacksmith in every village any more. And back when there *was* a blacksmith in every village, no-one made any money as a social media influencer... Work changes.
RiTides wrote: I don't think most sectors won't recover, although it's very possible demand could shift - i.e. Blockbuster giving way to Netflix. Sucks for a lot of folks caught in the middle of any transition like that employment-wise, obviously
I dont wanna sound rude or dismissive....but this is always happens.
Old gives way to new and people are always cought up when it. When farm life gave way to factory. And some adapt and some dont.
And while this was happening, the government eventually stepped in and started spending vast amounts of money to alleviate the pain of farmers suffering from the switch and the disasters of the time. I mean, this was a core part of the New Deal.
That's the issue. You don't just go "Well it sucks to be them, guess they should starve to death in the streets". You help them adapt, and catch those that simply can't.
This has actually happened a number of times. Also, there's always a racial dynamic to who gets saved and the people left behind to suffer the most.
Sums up well why situation is worse in us compared to canada
The boat is limited to 50% capacity - not great but they're doing something. Except almost everyone on that boat is on the top deck, using 50% of the boat. Can someone do the maths for me on how the social distancing compares with a boat at 100% capacity using 100% of the boat.
Sums up well why situation is worse in us compared to canada
The boat is limited to 50% capacity - not great but they're doing something. Except almost everyone on that boat is on the top deck, using 50% of the boat. Can someone do the maths for me on how the social distancing compares with a boat at 100% capacity using 100% of the boat.
I've run the numbers, and it seems that the current situation is directly equivalent to being at 100% capacity, Henry. Additional hardware is being brought online to compute other factors, but initial readouts are all pointing to a strong 'laughingstock of the first world' output.
Although I'd also say that it's hard to believe that the Canadian boat can be making money with six people on a boat that size. Each trip almost has to be a money loser, unless they're being subsidized somehow. Where the American boat may not be. Not making excuses for the lack of distancing on the American boat, mind you.
RiTides wrote: I don't think most sectors won't recover, although it's very possible demand could shift - i.e. Blockbuster giving way to Netflix. Sucks for a lot of folks caught in the middle of any transition like that employment-wise, obviously
I dont wanna sound rude or dismissive....but this is always happens.
Old gives way to new and people are always cought up when it. When farm life gave way to factory. And some adapt and some dont.
And while this was happening, the government eventually stepped in and started spending vast amounts of money to alleviate the pain of farmers suffering from the switch and the disasters of the time. I mean, this was a core part of the New Deal.
That's the issue. You don't just go "Well it sucks to be them, guess they should starve to death in the streets". You help them adapt, and catch those that simply can't.
This has actually happened a number of times. Also, there's always a racial dynamic to who gets saved and the people left behind to suffer the most.
See our govt thinks the opposite now, they work on saving failing industries rather than help those people who are caught up in the change to adapt and change in the new industry
For example congress ordering more tanks they did not need nor the army wanted to keep factories open.
Im not saying dont help peoplle., im saying dont prop up dying industries(Like oil and gas should be dying at this point, but it keeps getting propped up by the govt)
Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.
Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.
gorgon wrote: Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.
Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.
Stuff like this almost makes you wish there was a federal housing guarantee, so that you're not tethered to a dying industry in a dying town until you die as well.
gorgon wrote: Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.
Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.
I think we’re past the point where retraining alone is viable. People need financial assistance, and it makes more economic sense to help pay them to move where the jobs (and assistance infrastructure) are than to pay them the same amount or more to survive in that dying town. It means sacrificing a lot of their way of life, so it should be a choice rather than compulsory. But that’s really the only hope I see for improving their situation.
gorgon wrote: Although I'd also say that it's hard to believe that the Canadian boat can be making money with six people on a boat that size. Each trip almost has to be a money loser, unless they're being subsidized somehow. Where the American boat may not be. Not making excuses for the lack of distancing on the American boat, mind you.
The article quotes the manager of the Canadian boat company saying they've changed the ticket to be more of a VIP experience with a meal thrown in and other incentives and also upped the price to $70 per passenger. Probably still not making a profit at just over $400 per boat but it does show there are ways companies can adapt.
I mean, surely this is the perfect time to try and invest in local production of the various goods that are outsourced? Create new jobs that would strengthen industry, improve production methods and such. There's already complaints about struggling to buy whitegoods in Australia due to the current rising tensions with China, who's main selling point is it's massive production through the exploitation of it's people.
The only real reason not to is because some very powerful people with lots of money would lose some of that income. Oh no, I weep tears for them. If the govs wasn't run almost purely by businessmen it would have already happened I bet.
gorgon wrote: Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.
Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.
Yes its tough, but why should we continue to prop up something that is no longer needed just because of jobs? Not to mention there can be replacements, maybe replace to coal with a better newer industry in that town Like Nuclear or other forms of industry that are not on their way out rather than keeping an industry that is only surviving because the govt refuses it.
cody.d. wrote: I mean, surely this is the perfect time to try and invest in local production of the various goods that are outsourced? Create new jobs that would strengthen industry, improve production methods and such. There's already complaints about struggling to buy whitegoods in Australia due to the current rising tensions with China, who's main selling point is it's massive production through the exploitation of it's people.
The only real reason not to is because some very powerful people with lots of money would lose some of that income. Oh no, I weep tears for them. If the govs wasn't run almost purely by businessmen it would have already happened I bet.
I think this was referenced up thread already, but decentralising manufacturing is expensive and that cost only gets passed on.
So you'd end up with a situation where people can get a new washing machine, they just can't afford it.
Cody-d, sorry if I quote this incorrectly, this is my first go at quotes...
The only real reason not to is because some very powerful people with lots of money would lose some of that income. Oh no, I weep tears for them. If the govs wasn't run almost purely by businessmen it would have already happened I bet.
While your not wholly wrong, I actually wish western governments were run by businessmen and women, preferably those with small to mid-size businesses. Business folks of that stripe tend to be imminently rational, who realize their success rests on the success of others. They are the risk takers that have been the greatest builders of the middle class in history. Hence CV19 response would have likely been more rational, measured and targeted to those most vulnerable, not the one size fits all "hide in the basement" we got that closed those very businesses (which employ millions) and left open only the mega-corporations and government.
Unfortunately, unless you consider lawyers, whose services involve the multiplication of bureaucracy and the redistribution of rights and properties from one aggrieved party to another, our governments are not run by businessmen and women. They are run by career lawyers (influence peddlers) and career bureaucrats whose contribution to society consists of libraries of minutia used to entrap citizens in mindless legality whose only purpose is to strengthen the power of said government. They are backed and financed by a few crony capitalist mega-corporations who spend much of their time attempting to deny others the access to the very free-market that made them so successful.
Oh that I wish middling business people had a greater voice in government during the time of Covid 19.
gorgon wrote: Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.
Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.
Yes its tough, but why should we continue to prop up something that is no longer needed just because of jobs? Not to mention there can be replacements, maybe replace to coal with a better newer industry in that town Like Nuclear or other forms of industry that are not on their way out rather than keeping an industry that is only surviving because the govt refuses it.
I believe coal still generates something close to a quarter of US energy. So while it's dying, it's hardly dead and 'propped up'. And how do you just 'replace' an industry in a rural area? Maybe you can get a distribution warehouse or something if you're lucky.
Saying 'well it's tough but' is being completely dismissive of people's livelihoods and families. What do you get when whole swathes of people lose jobs? You get desperate, bitter folks who are angry at the system and ready to vote in someone who promises to burn it down, even if said person displays bad and autocratic tendencies. Throw in some blame toward a certain segment or two of the populace and now you have some real rocket fuel. It's a simple formula that repeats itself around the world in different eras.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
1/325AIR wrote: While your not wholly wrong, I actually wish western governments were run by businessmen and women, preferably those with small to mid-size businesses. Business folks of that stripe tend to be imminently rational, who realize their success rests on the success of others. They are the risk takers that have been the greatest builders of the middle class in history. Hence CV19 response would have likely been more rational, measured and targeted to those most vulnerable, not the one size fits all "hide in the basement" we got that closed those very businesses (which employ millions) and left open only the mega-corporations and government.
Unfortunately, unless you consider lawyers, whose services involve the multiplication of bureaucracy and the redistribution of rights and properties from one aggrieved party to another, our governments are not run by businessmen and women. They are run by career lawyers (influence peddlers) and career bureaucrats whose contribution to society consists of libraries of minutia used to entrap citizens in mindless legality whose only purpose is to strengthen the power of said government. They are backed and financed by a few crony capitalist mega-corporations who spend much of their time attempting to deny others the access to the very free-market that made them so successful.
Oh that I wish middling business people had a greater voice in government during the time of Covid 19.
I don't really agree with this. Good governing is about negotiation and compromise and the greater good, and small business people in my experience like being the regents of their domain no matter how small it is.
gorgon wrote: Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.
Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.
Yes its tough, but why should we continue to prop up something that is no longer needed just because of jobs? Not to mention there can be replacements, maybe replace to coal with a better newer industry in that town Like Nuclear or other forms of industry that are not on their way out rather than keeping an industry that is only surviving because the govt refuses it.
I believe coal still generates something close to a quarter of US energy. So while it's dying, it's hardly dead and 'propped up'. And how do you just 'replace' an industry in a rural area? Maybe you can get a distribution warehouse or something if you're lucky.
Saying 'well it's tough but' is being completely dismissive of people's livelihoods and families. What do you get when whole swathes of people lose jobs? You get desperate, bitter folks who are angry at the system and ready to vote in someone who promises to burn it down, even if said person displays bad and autocratic tendencies. Throw in some blame toward a certain segment or two of the populace and now you have some real rocket fuel. It's a simple formula that repeats itself around the world in different eras.
So what? do you think we should just continue to operate these thing in perpetuity or else? And rural areas are a big problem with the US because well, they cost us money because we continue to operate them in fear of industry leaving them. Like it or not, the time of rural towns supported by one industry is going away and we cant just keep them there. The world goes on, jobs come and go as the technology improves(There is no such thing as a milkman anymore)
The government shouldnt be keeping some industries alive that have long outlived their usefullness(Yes, i believe coal is one, there is numerous other forms of every that can be provided from nuclear, to geothermal to wind). They should be training and retraining people to take over with these new jobs. As one of my professors said "Jobs never disappear, they change" Coal miner could become worker at a nuclear plant.
cody.d. wrote: I mean, surely this is the perfect time to try and invest in local production of the various goods that are outsourced? Create new jobs that would strengthen industry, improve production methods and such. There's already complaints about struggling to buy whitegoods in Australia due to the current rising tensions with China, who's main selling point is it's massive production through the exploitation of it's people.
The only real reason not to is because some very powerful people with lots of money would lose some of that income. Oh no, I weep tears for them. If the govs wasn't run almost purely by businessmen it would have already happened I bet.
I think this was referenced up thread already, but decentralising manufacturing is expensive and that cost only gets passed on.
So you'd end up with a situation where people can get a new washing machine, they just can't afford it.
I mean, there are quite a few industrial districts that could be beefed up to fulfill those requirements. In Australia at least (I'm assuming in America as well, Europe can't say) The savings on overseas distribution would go some way to abate the increased costs, as would using modern manufacturing techniques (A lot of the massproduction in Asia still uses fairly basic methods from their days of expansion in the industrial era) Not saying it would be cheap, but it would certainly be more ethical and provide more to the countries themselves (And also weaken the economic strangehold China has on the world right now.
Cody-d, sorry if I quote this incorrectly, this is my first go at quotes...
The only real reason not to is because some very powerful people with lots of money would lose some of that income. Oh no, I weep tears for them. If the govs wasn't run almost purely by businessmen it would have already happened I bet.
While your not wholly wrong, I actually wish western governments were run by businessmen and women, preferably those with small to mid-size businesses. Business folks of that stripe tend to be imminently rational, who realize their success rests on the success of others. They are the risk takers that have been the greatest builders of the middle class in history. Hence CV19 response would have likely been more rational, measured and targeted to those most vulnerable, not the one size fits all "hide in the basement" we got that closed those very businesses (which employ millions) and left open only the mega-corporations and government.
Unfortunately, unless you consider lawyers, whose services involve the multiplication of bureaucracy and the redistribution of rights and properties from one aggrieved party to another, our governments are not run by businessmen and women. They are run by career lawyers (influence peddlers) and career bureaucrats whose contribution to society consists of libraries of minutia used to entrap citizens in mindless legality whose only purpose is to strengthen the power of said government. They are backed and financed by a few crony capitalist mega-corporations who spend much of their time attempting to deny others the access to the very free-market that made them so successful.
Oh that I wish middling business people had a greater voice in government during the time of Covid 19.
Hmm, fair point. Perhaps it's Trump's administration that gave me that impression. But he's more of a realestate magnate isn't it? Not that much difference from an influence peddler as you put it is there?
He is a (repeatedly) failed businessman. Which, to tie this back to the pandemic, really does illuminate the situation. Imagine a business run into the ground by poor management who failed to navigate a crisis. You know the crisis can be successfully managed because the other businesses in town all did so. But this one formerly successful business goes down the tubes in short order because it has recently come under new management who does not know what to do and staunchly refuses to listen or accept help.
Well, 'murca has reached 4 million cases, and nearly 150,000 deaths.
The death rat seems to be ~3.7%. Some people who want to defend the way covid is handled will sneer that's fake news as it doesn't count the people who had it and never even got sick.
Others will say it's false as those handling the covid situation are under reporting covid deaths and concealing data.
Since no one will agree on a number because reality has been reduced to irrelevancy by political and social bias, i'm going with the numbers i have.
Covid's death rate is nearly double the "2%" rate we were told it would be.
When AIDS came along the administration ignored it at first. It wasn't until rock hudson, a personal friend of president reagan and her husband, got it that they began to respond.
The fact is diseases are now political issues as the response to an epidemic is now completely controlled by politics.
Well, 'murca has reached 4 million cases, and nearly 150,000 deaths.
The death rat seems to be ~3.7%. Some people who want to defend the way covid is handled will sneer that's fake news as it doesn't count the people who had it and never even got sick.
Others will say it's false as those handling the covid situation are under reporting covid deaths and concealing data.
Since no one will agree on a number because reality has been reduced to irrelevancy by political and social bias, i'm going with the numbers i have.
Covid's death rate is nearly double the "2%" rate we were told it would be.
When AIDS came along the administration ignored it at first. It wasn't until rock hudson, a personal friend of president reagan and her husband, got it that they began to respond.
The fact is diseases are now political issues as the response to an epidemic is now completely controlled by politics.
I wouldn't focus on just the death rate. Getting Covid-19 isn't a binary option of you either die or you 100% recover. There are several longterm problems you can suffer from, and those can be just as bad for the world. It's bad enough to lose 1% of the population to a disease, but it's also very bad to have 10% of your population suffer a permanent disability from this disease if it runs unchecked.
edit: those numbers are examples only, I don't know the actual percentages.
So now trump is going to withold cash from schools that don't reopen and that money goes to private schools. In particular religious ones. No extortion at all there nooo!
gorgon wrote: Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.
Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.
Yes its tough, but why should we continue to prop up something that is no longer needed just because of jobs? Not to mention there can be replacements, maybe replace to coal with a better newer industry in that town Like Nuclear or other forms of industry that are not on their way out rather than keeping an industry that is only surviving because the govt refuses it.
I believe coal still generates something close to a quarter of US energy. So while it's dying, it's hardly dead and 'propped up'. And how do you just 'replace' an industry in a rural area? Maybe you can get a distribution warehouse or something if you're lucky.
Saying 'well it's tough but' is being completely dismissive of people's livelihoods and families. What do you get when whole swathes of people lose jobs? You get desperate, bitter folks who are angry at the system and ready to vote in someone who promises to burn it down, even if said person displays bad and autocratic tendencies. Throw in some blame toward a certain segment or two of the populace and now you have some real rocket fuel. It's a simple formula that repeats itself around the world in different eras.
So what? do you think we should just continue to operate these thing in perpetuity or else? And rural areas are a big problem with the US because well, they cost us money because we continue to operate them in fear of industry leaving them. Like it or not, the time of rural towns supported by one industry is going away and we cant just keep them there. The world goes on, jobs come and go as the technology improves(There is no such thing as a milkman anymore)
The government shouldnt be keeping some industries alive that have long outlived their usefullness(Yes, i believe coal is one, there is numerous other forms of every that can be provided from nuclear, to geothermal to wind). They should be training and retraining people to take over with these new jobs. As one of my professors said "Jobs never disappear, they change" Coal miner could become worker at a nuclear plant.
You seem to think the situation is something other than what it really is, so I don't know how we can have a conversation about it. Everything isn't handwavium.
Except it isnt.
People are saying that this virus could cause a work from home revolution.
But that this could hurt businesses that live off of offices and business centers(Like coffee shops, sandwich shops and other such things) to collapse.
So some people are saying that we should head back because of those places. But why should we continue to work with an outdated model, just because we are afraid of jobs moving away or leaving? my whole point is fear of progress because loss of jobs is insanity.
tneva82 wrote: Sainsbury and asda not going to enforce masks. Profits over safety eh?
That's some spectacular mental gymnastics on display. How, exactly, do you think that not asking their staff to get involved in law enforcement with people who, by dint of the fact they're not wearing masks when we've known we were being asked to wear them from today for weeks, are already displaying a higher than baseline chance if being a belligerent donkey-cave translates into more profit?
If anything, they're increasing the chance that the "reasonable middle" will shop in stores that are enforcing the mask rule over concerns for their own personal safety and will reduce their income.
Wla-mart recently started a Mask Policy on the 20th. I had to go their for some stuff on the 22nd, and it was less than half as busy at it normally is.
Part of it is the implosion of our normal tourist economy this time of year, but part of it was the mask restrictions.
All the major grocery stores in my area now have them.
Guys, understand this now: I am not a follower of Ayn Rhand. I find her repugnant and repellent, I disagree with her views to the extreme and i am in no way endorsing anything she believed or preached.
That established, I must state she said one thing that's true and relevant to our situation: "You can choose to ignore reality. You cannot choose to ignore the consequences of ignoring reality."
The situation in 'murca today is absolute proof that is true. Not just leaders but their followers in the millions choose to ignore the facts and reality of covid, but the consequences of doing so come into effect regardless.
tneva82 wrote: Sainsbury and asda not going to enforce masks. Profits over safety eh?
That's some spectacular mental gymnastics on display. How, exactly, do you think that not asking their staff to get involved in law enforcement with people who, by dint of the fact they're not wearing masks when we've known we were being asked to wear them from today for weeks, are already displaying a higher than baseline chance if being a belligerent donkey-cave translates into more profit?
If anything, they're increasing the chance that the "reasonable middle" will shop in stores that are enforcing the mask rule over concerns for their own personal safety and will reduce their income.
If they don't let people without mask into store that means those customers aren't bringing in that money to that store and go elsewhere. Can't let money go elsewhere. Have to get it to store. Money first. Don't want to drive away customers.
It isn't the job of shop staff to enforce the law. They are being responsible by not allowing their staff to get into potential confrontations, which will happen.
JamesY wrote: It isn't the job of shop staff to enforce the law. They are being responsible by not allowing their staff to get into potential confrontations, which will happen.
At the same time where does that stop? If someone's obnoxious enough do they get to skip the 'no shirt' rule too? Or commit other health and safety violations?
Unfortunately here in the US we're far past of the point of irony that the same folks who claim to care about 'law and order' are the ones deliberately flouting the law.
My local supermarket now has a couple of sercurity guards for the first time I can remember and whilst they arent exactly scary I suspect far less likely for entitled funts to kick up a fuss with than the middle aged or very young ladies that consist the majority of the staff who have been on the end of all manner of stupid
JamesY wrote: It isn't the job of shop staff to enforce the law. They are being responsible by not allowing their staff to get into potential confrontations, which will happen.
They are being more irresponsible to their staff by allowing no masks.
You put a mask on or you dont get in, its simple. if they refuse, call the Authrorities.
Authorities around here often choose politics over enforcement. In OC, many police departments have made it very clear they will not enforce mask compliance.
At my job our company policy is from today to refuse entry to non mask wearers unless they are exempt. Shopfront staff are also expected to wear suitable face coverings(we have our own stash) to set an example.
Turned away about a dozen people today for not wearing a face covering. I'd say a third of those came back later with a mask on. There were a few sulky faces but thankfully no real tantrums. Had two people who said they could not use them due to breathing problems, and I left it at that. No need to get all =][= on them. Had one semi regular customer who is physically disabled(its something that effects her motor skills and speech, I've never pried into what exactly) and bless her she tried to make an effort but the mask didn't really stay on. Pretty sure she would be exempt anyway so that was no problem. And we had a young couple with hearing difficulties who were both wearing masks. But when we realised(they were signing each other) we let them know it was ok to pull them down and when they were being served we had our masks down as well. High point was probably the chap who had a knitted knights helm, complete with adjustable visor Biggest was a tie between the guy who thought holding the corner of his high vis jacket over his mouth and nose counted as a face covering, and the the one who tried the same thing with a handkerchief
Overall no way near as bad as I was fearing, but tomorrow is a Saturday so...
Shop staff have already had to deal with anger threats and violence and that was just telling people to stand in line 2m apart and to not shop in groups. They also don't get risk pay. Like many essential public services the staff are likely way more stressed out than normal.
Police forces might also already be stretched thin and thus not able to provide instant response.
I am sure the staff will encourage and store in some area will get security to help enforce at the entrance, but it is hard. Especialy with the backlash that masks have from some groups. Even in the UK where we have far less of a political issue with them than say the USA. Heck we've already had all that daft 5g tower burning
JamesY wrote: It isn't the job of shop staff to enforce the law. They are being responsible by not allowing their staff to get into potential confrontations, which will happen.
They are being more irresponsible to their staff by allowing no masks.
You put a mask on or you dont get in, its simple. if they refuse, call the Authrorities.
No they aren't; as long as the staff maintain distance and are themselves in masks, the risks are minimal. Also, calling the authorities only works on principle. In reality, our police services are already stretched, and are hardly likely to be able to respond to even a fraction of the calls they'd get if that was happening. Security guards are a different matter, I'll agree, they should be challenging people over it at the door, if they have any.
Future War Cultist wrote: I know of a coworker who in one year has beaten both COVID and cancer! Made my day to hear that.
Whilest he should be carefull still, that is one impressive constitution.
He’s aged about 20 years but yeah it’s impressive.
let's hope he got out of it unscathed, lungs and heart check ups should happen regardless, considering that's the most sideeffects of getting it.
Yeah let’s hope. I think he’s going to have effects for a while, possibly forever. Still, early 50s isn’t over the hill just yet so maybe he can cope.
Azreal13 wrote: That only works if it doesn't induce other customers to stay away. This behaviour will quite possibly cause more to stay away than it allows.
Show how that maths works for profit, please.
I wouldn’t engage it in conversation if I was you. Only ever argues in bad faith.
Masks will be enforced by social pressure more than any sort of legal or institutional action.
I'm not keen on wearing them, but I will. I'll also be quite comfortable taking any opportunities that present themselves to educate the ignorant.
Sadly it looks as though most supermarkets have relaxed their one way systems in favour of requesting maintenance of social distancing before I could sort out my "If you can read this, I'm about to run you over" T shirt.
I wouldn’t engage it in conversation if I was you. Only ever argues in bad faith.
I'm aware, not looking to change hearts and minds, just highlight the total lack of foundation for the argument for other onlookers.
My area has a poor track record for masks if I’m honest. Only some of the elderly and the likes of myself and a handful of others seem to bother with them. Already had a minor incident with one arsehole over them too.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm aware, not looking to change hearts and minds, just highlight the total lack of foundation for the argument for other onlookers.
Your best option is if both wear masks. Allowing (many) customer without mask to come close to your employees just because you don't want to anger them is a bad idea. Sure those employees have a somewhat lower chance of getting infected because they are wearing a mask but it's still an overall dangerous policy. For months now the consensus seems to be that wearing a mask helps with both: With not getting infected and with spreading the infection less but it's use in protecting you is limited because a mask doesn't cover your eyes and ears. A normal mask's main feature is that it prevents you from spreading the virus relatively well.
That's why they generally want masks to be mandatory and why you want to combine that with distancing (at least 2 metres, more's even better). Not one or the other, and not just one person and not the other. Everybody, all the time, if outside and possible. That shouldn't be a big deal for most people when they go shopping.
Your best option is if both wear masks. Allowing (many) customer without mask to come close to your employees just because you don't want to anger them is a bad idea. Sure those employees have a somewhat lower chance of getting infected because they are wearing a mask but it's still an overall dangerous policy. For months now the consensus seems to be that wearing a mask helps with both: With not getting infected and with spreading the infection less but it's use in protecting you is limited because a mask doesn't cover your eyes and ears. A normal mask's main feature is that it prevents you from spreading the virus relatively well.
That's why they generally want masks to be mandatory and why you want to combine that with distancing (at least 2 metres, more's even better). Not one or the other, and not just one person and not the other. Everybody, all the time, if outside and possible. That shouldn't be a big deal for most people when they go shopping.
I'm not in disagreement with you at all. What I do disagree with is the notion that it should be the duty of shop staff to enforce the law in this regard. A 17yr old kid or middle aged woman (and these groups form a significant proportion of supermarket staff) shouldn't have to worry about approaching someone who clearly isn't interested in the well-being of themselves or anyone else. No one in that role should. If they are acting like that in the first place, I doubt they'd be all to civil if approached about it.
RiTides wrote: I don't think most sectors won't recover, although it's very possible demand could shift - i.e. Blockbuster giving way to Netflix. Sucks for a lot of folks caught in the middle of any transition like that employment-wise, obviously
I dont wanna sound rude or dismissive....but this is always happens.
Old gives way to new and people are always cought up when it. When farm life gave way to factory. And some adapt and some dont.
And while this was happening, the government eventually stepped in and started spending vast amounts of money to alleviate the pain of farmers suffering from the switch and the disasters of the time. I mean, this was a core part of the New Deal.
That's the issue. You don't just go "Well it sucks to be them, guess they should starve to death in the streets". You help them adapt, and catch those that simply can't.
This has actually happened a number of times. Also, there's always a racial dynamic to who gets saved and the people left behind to suffer the most.
See our govt thinks the opposite now, they work on saving failing industries rather than help those people who are caught up in the change to adapt and change in the new industry
For example congress ordering more tanks they did not need nor the army wanted to keep factories open.
Im not saying dont help peoplle., im saying dont prop up dying industries(Like oil and gas should be dying at this point, but it keeps getting propped up by the govt)
The government has always saved industries too. And sometimes this is the right thing to do as well
I mean, farming is, what, the single most subsidized industry in the country? Heck, the world?
Now the issue is that one entire party has forgotten that demand side economics even exists, and believe the only answer is supply side, even when proven concretely that offering capital funds leads to them.... often just investing all those funds in stocks and not retention of the workforce.
gorgon wrote: Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.
Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.
Here's an easy answer.
Give them money. Just give them money. Hand them fat stacks of cash, enough to live on plus enough for some level of entertainment.
gorgon wrote: Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.
Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.
I think we’re past the point where retraining alone is viable. People need financial assistance, and it makes more economic sense to help pay them to move where the jobs (and assistance infrastructure) are than to pay them the same amount or more to survive in that dying town. It means sacrificing a lot of their way of life, so it should be a choice rather than compulsory. But that’s really the only hope I see for improving their situation.
There's an actual population drain from these regions anyways, people are picking up and moving. But many simply can't afford to, and only a scant handful are absolutely unwilling to even consider changing.
cody.d. wrote: I mean, surely this is the perfect time to try and invest in local production of the various goods that are outsourced? Create new jobs that would strengthen industry, improve production methods and such. There's already complaints about struggling to buy whitegoods in Australia due to the current rising tensions with China, who's main selling point is it's massive production through the exploitation of it's people.
The only real reason not to is because some very powerful people with lots of money would lose some of that income. Oh no, I weep tears for them. If the govs wasn't run almost purely by businessmen it would have already happened I bet.
The cost of everything would rocket through the roof and the economy would collapse anyways and we'd either have to abandon this, or accept the same payment conditions of sweatshops in east asia and africa. A collapse in globalization merely impoverishes everyone faster. I mean the end result is that automation will come to replace human labor anyways and a large proportion of the population will be rendered jobless anyways. Provided we don't all die in nuclear fire brought on by the stress of trying to absorb hundreds upon hundreds of millions of climate refugees in the not so distant future.
gorgon wrote: Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.
Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.
Yes its tough, but why should we continue to prop up something that is no longer needed just because of jobs? Not to mention there can be replacements, maybe replace to coal with a better newer industry in that town Like Nuclear or other forms of industry that are not on their way out rather than keeping an industry that is only surviving because the govt refuses it.
I believe coal still generates something close to a quarter of US energy. So while it's dying, it's hardly dead and 'propped up'. And how do you just 'replace' an industry in a rural area? Maybe you can get a distribution warehouse or something if you're lucky.
Saying 'well it's tough but' is being completely dismissive of people's livelihoods and families. What do you get when whole swathes of people lose jobs? You get desperate, bitter folks who are angry at the system and ready to vote in someone who promises to burn it down, even if said person displays bad and autocratic tendencies. Throw in some blame toward a certain segment or two of the populace and now you have some real rocket fuel. It's a simple formula that repeats itself around the world in different eras.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
1/325AIR wrote: While your not wholly wrong, I actually wish western governments were run by businessmen and women, preferably those with small to mid-size businesses. Business folks of that stripe tend to be imminently rational, who realize their success rests on the success of others. They are the risk takers that have been the greatest builders of the middle class in history. Hence CV19 response would have likely been more rational, measured and targeted to those most vulnerable, not the one size fits all "hide in the basement" we got that closed those very businesses (which employ millions) and left open only the mega-corporations and government.
Unfortunately, unless you consider lawyers, whose services involve the multiplication of bureaucracy and the redistribution of rights and properties from one aggrieved party to another, our governments are not run by businessmen and women. They are run by career lawyers (influence peddlers) and career bureaucrats whose contribution to society consists of libraries of minutia used to entrap citizens in mindless legality whose only purpose is to strengthen the power of said government. They are backed and financed by a few crony capitalist mega-corporations who spend much of their time attempting to deny others the access to the very free-market that made them so successful.
Oh that I wish middling business people had a greater voice in government during the time of Covid 19.
I don't really agree with this. Good governing is about negotiation and compromise and the greater good, and small business people in my experience like being the regents of their domain no matter how small it is.
Mate, that's the propping up. Coal isn't cheaper, and is much nastier, than alternatives, but the government, especially the right now current government, is super invested in it, handing out big ol' subsidies and slashing regulations
RiTides wrote: Guys, I'm trying to give as much leeway as I can here...
But there are plenty of places to discuss Trump's past failed business ventures, etc... and those really are only very tangentially related to the topic of the pandemic.
Let's try to stay on topic, so we don't have to close the thread. Thanks everyone
Look, it's deeply worrying to me that a mod actively invested in a discussion is also the one moderating said discussion.
Can we get a mod not involved in the argument to moderate the thread?
RiTides wrote: I think (or would hope) they're just saying they're not going to ask their staff to physically stop violators.
Stores with security often even ask their security not to physically engage shoplifters. It's a liability and just not worth it...
So anyway, I'd guess that is all there is to it. Every store should want customers to wear masks, as it's better for everyone.
I have a feeling that the stores telling staff to not engage with maskless people are the same stores that expect security to follow a shoplifter to their house and try and retrieve the shoplifted item by force. No joke, this is gak I've seen people deal with.
Also, the cops are less likely to shoot a maskless old white person, which is the majority of the demographic that seems to insist of not wearing masks. So, might be alright to call them. Iunno, gotta be careful, they might just shoot someone else.
Your best option is if both wear masks. Allowing (many) customer without mask to come close to your employees just because you don't want to anger them is a bad idea. Sure those employees have a somewhat lower chance of getting infected because they are wearing a mask but it's still an overall dangerous policy. For months now the consensus seems to be that wearing a mask helps with both: With not getting infected and with spreading the infection less but it's use in protecting you is limited because a mask doesn't cover your eyes and ears. A normal mask's main feature is that it prevents you from spreading the virus relatively well.
That's why they generally want masks to be mandatory and why you want to combine that with distancing (at least 2 metres, more's even better). Not one or the other, and not just one person and not the other. Everybody, all the time, if outside and possible. That shouldn't be a big deal for most people when they go shopping.
I'm not in disagreement with you at all. What I do disagree with is the notion that it should be the duty of shop staff to enforce the law in this regard. A 17yr old kid or middle aged woman (and these groups form a significant proportion of supermarket staff) shouldn't have to worry about approaching someone who clearly isn't interested in the well-being of themselves or anyone else. No one in that role should. If they are acting like that in the first place, I doubt they'd be all to civil if approached about it.
It's not actually a law though. There's precious few places in this country where masks were made a law. So staff is required to request someone leave first to generate a legal reason for them to not be there if you theoretically want to involve law enforcement, who will largely not care anyways. And if they do, then you've run the risk of getting someone shot, and not necessarily the maskless person.
It's not actually a law though. There's precious few places in this country where masks were made a law.
No, it is a law, one enforceable with a financial penalty. I daresay continued refusal would come under the auspices of the various public order powers the police force already has and could then result in a short custodial sentence, or at least detention for processing.
You need to remember not everyone here is in the US and that we have different laws.
In England, you must wear a face covering by law in the following settings:
public transport
indoor transport hubs (airports, rail and tram stations and terminals, maritime ports and terminals, bus and coach stations and terminals)
shops and supermarkets (places which are open to the public and that wholly or mainly offer goods or services for retail sale or hire)
indoor shopping centres
banks, building societies, and post offices (including credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs and money service businesses)
Look, it's deeply worrying to me that a mod actively invested in a discussion is also the one moderating said discussion.
Can we get a mod not involved in the argument to moderate the thread?.
I think you're going to have a difficult if not impossible locating a single mod on this forum who won't agree agree that several parts of that last page were clearly off topic, because it unambiguously was - how many bankruptcies Trump has had, his history as a real estate developer, and so on. None of those tangents dovetail into this conversation in relation to Covid in any meaningful way. Any of those threads followed very far will wind up with the thread being locked.
Generally speaking they have been pretty good in this thread about allowing for limited political discourse because the topic is in some ways intertwined with government in inextricable ways: it's hard to talk about the covid response in the United States without also pointing out that it's been pretty incompetent at most levels of government, and there's been a pretty bad dearth of leadership. However those really were starting to stray pretty far afield I think.
The idea that mods can have a bias that somehow prevents them from being objective and thus required to recuse themselves is kind of a wrong-footed legalistic way of looking at things. For one, there is no requirement for the mods on a private forum to be fair or even handed. For another, the goal isn't to make binding and consistent rulings, it is to allow for productive conversation to continue while removing non-productive, off topic discussion. There is no punitive aspect to being asked politely in-thread to confirm to the rules of this forum.
You should start a thread in the Nuts & Bolts section if you'd like to discuss that idea further. I'm not trying to dismiss your concerns, but it has come up before, and the answer I gave you gave is typically along the lines what the responses have historically been. Manchu had a really good response about legalistic thinking that I tried finding for about 20 minutes but could not.
All the supermarkets, and most large shops, literally have someone on the door refusing entry if the shop is too crowded.
Not sure its too big a leap for that person to remind people of store policy.
We are expecting people in pubs and restaurants to collect contact details before servixe. This is the supermarkets copping out.
For what its worth I checked out my local pub on July 4h. After a few hours, someone came in and would not give his address. The landlord said he would not be served so he left in a strop. The rest of the pub jeered at him for being a duck as he left.
This pandemic has forced my favourite restaurant to permanently close. I’m friends with some of the staff and as you can imagine it’s tearing them apart. The place was doing so well too, always busy, well regarded. Then this came along and that was that.
Future War Cultist wrote: This pandemic has forced my favourite restaurant to permanently close. I’m friends with some of the staff and as you can imagine it’s tearing them apart. The place was doing so well too, always busy, well regarded. Then this came along and that was that.
That's a huge shame. Hopefully they find some way of reviving it later or, if that isn't possible, finding work at different restaurants.
Thankfully my favourites seem to have survived so far. Was bit worried for a smallish italian restaurant in the city centre but it seems to still be alive. Would be a huge shame if it had closed as it is a family run restaurant which has been there for over 30 years.
Future War Cultist wrote: This pandemic has forced my favourite restaurant to permanently close. I’m friends with some of the staff and as you can imagine it’s tearing them apart. The place was doing so well too, always busy, well regarded. Then this came along and that was that.
That's a huge shame. Hopefully they find some way of reviving it later or, if that isn't possible, finding work at different restaurants.
Thankfully my favourites seem to have survived so far. Was bit worried for a smallish italian restaurant in the city centre but it seems to still be alive. Would be a huge shame if it had closed as it is a family run restaurant which has been there for over 30 years.
Thankfully in my area, all of our favorite small time eateries were able to VERY quickly make the switch to take-out and delivery services. One we haven't gone to during this time because frankly, their takeout menu (most of the places are creating limited/special takeout menus) contains absolutely nothing that the family likes/wants to eat, which is a shame. The places around me that, so far, have been hit the hardest, are those that no one truly misses. . . Chains like Red Robin or Dennys are simply closing up unprofitable stores (or those that were generally unprofitable before Corona) and the few people who are missing it (maybe), are those who once worked there.
Where I live, our governor has issued a mask mandate under a form of executive order that makes it essentially law, and is fully enforceable as a law. . . So far, I've only "had" to enforce it once, and the clown was complaining about "you make enough to care about that?" . . . In my head im thinking, "no dude, I don't make enough to ignore it and lose my job over it, so feth off"
Well I tried using public transport for the first time today since the lockdown as I just couldn't face the 6 mile walk back from town in the rain having already walked in
and the first bus I had to turn round and get off because it had a bunch of teenagers with no mask wandering between seats and a driver not at all interested doing anything about it
the second to arrive was much better, not many on it and all wearing masks except a could of young kids, and all the windows open, and a driver politely asking all who boarded to keep their masks on
so at least some folk are behaving well, but to many are not
I went into town this afternoon and I swear, if the police had been patrolling the shopping centre, they could have issued enough fines to pay for a new police car. Very depressing.
Those exception can't than be accommodated by people staying outside and having their stuff delivered to them outside the store.
Not by them just walking around willy Milly.
Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.
Azreal13 wrote: Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.
They do when the vulnerable people come to the store on the days especially set aside for serving vulnerable customers. Do they not have those there?
JamesY wrote:I'm not in disagreement with you at all. What I do disagree with is the notion that it should be the duty of shop staff to enforce the law in this regard. A 17yr old kid or middle aged woman (and these groups form a significant proportion of supermarket staff) shouldn't have to worry about approaching someone who clearly isn't interested in the well-being of themselves or anyone else. No one in that role should. If they are acting like that in the first place, I doubt they'd be all to civil if approached about it.
I don't know. Generally, when something minor happens, store staff tends to deal with it all the time. It's kinda part of the job. In this case it simply means telling people that they are not allowed to enter the store unless they are wearing a mask. That's just like informing customers about any other store rules they didn't know about.
You don't need the police for that. That's been the most normal thing over here. Who else should say it if customers "forgets" to wear a mask (or whatever their excuse is)? They don't need to hug the anti-maskers, just tell them from a distance that they need a mask. If somebody's really overreacting to this then I'd not want them in a store anyways and you can call the police (or whatever store policy is at that point).
Azreal13 wrote:Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.
Yes because you usually don't have a dozen people who have "good reasons" to not wear a mask. Most people with asthma and even other respiratory issues can wear masks. There are very few who really can't do it and those shouldn't be a problem to handle and they would be safer at home/in the hospital with somebody else doing the shopping for them. Why are they exposing themselves to this risk anyways? Are they suicidal? Staff helps people all the time with all kinds of issues. Occasionally helping somebody as a personal shopper shouldn't be a problem if you filter out all the fake ones.
If your store has a dozen people who can't wear a mask at the same time then you most probably have close to a dozen liars. Or you are living in extremely peculiar circumstances.
In our block we have an old lady who has to cart around an oxygen tank and take long breaks on her walks and she manages to wear a mask. I don't know how bad it has to be for somebody to be unable to wear a mask but I'm relatively confident that it's not a problem that affects many people. There may be a lot of donkey-caves who want to fake a medical condition as an excuse but that's a different issue.
Azreal13 wrote: Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.
They do when the vulnerable people come to the store on the days especially set aside for serving vulnerable customers. Do they not have those there?
No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.
At no point did we have people stood outside the store while staff collected their food shouting "no! The blue one! THE BLUE ONE!!"
Azreal13 wrote: Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.
If I had a good reason not to use a mask I would get someone who could to do my shopping. Be it a friend, relative, delivery service, or just hiring some person from the neighborhood. I would consider it pretty dam selfish to put a bunch of people's health at risk just to do my shopping *myself*. Would it suck? Absolutely. But people are losing their dam lives, this is not the time to put personal convenience first.
I mean, there have been shown that there are actual very little reasons to not wear a mask, that much of the "exceptions" are not at all exceptions and just excuses for people to not minorly inconvience themselves
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, there have been shown that there are actual very little reasons to not wear a mask, that much of the "exceptions" are not at all exceptions and just excuses for people to not minorly inconvience themselves
I'd argue that it really is purely down to the minor inconvenience. . . I'm seeing more and more "official statements" being issued by Dr. So-and-so, MD, Virologist, and Chair of X medical school saying to the effect of, "to date, there have been zero medical conditions discovered or noted where the wearing of a face covering would impair the wearers health to a degree where they would be unable to wear a face covering." Or in layman terms: "there are no medical conditions out there that would grant any kind of exception to wearing a mask, so wear a fething mask"
Humorously, we were chillin' with the next door neighbor (we have given up some distancing with them because if push comes to shove, they are watching my kids), and she was telling us of an experience in the grocery store last week. So, as I think I mentioned above, I live in a place that has mask mandates that carry the force of law. . . So, no one is allowed to shop in an establishment without a face covering (the official verbage is carefully crafted to ensure masks/coverings do cover the nose/mouth area), so neighbor was picking up one of the carts (buggies if you're in The South in the US, trolleys?? in the UK) and hears behind her, the employee with a basket of masks and the job of enforcement says, "sir, you cannot shop with no mask on". . He replies, "what am I wearing?" . . . so, at this point, intrigued, my neighbor turns around, and this melon farmer is wearing a fething Zorro mask!! At which point the employee was essentially like, "touche, this time"
young children under the age of 11 (Public Health England do not recommended face coverings for children under the age of 3 for health and safety reasons)
not being able to put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability
if putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause you severe distress
if you are travelling with or providing assistance to someone who relies on lip reading to communicate
to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to yourself or others
to avoid injury, or to escape a risk of harm, and you do not have a face covering with you
to eat or drink if reasonably necessary
in order to take medication
if a police officer or other official requests you remove your face covering
So kids, people with one ear or no fingers, anxiety, to communicate non verbally, if you are about to be hit by a truck, to put things in your mouth or confirm identity.
Doesn't strike me as being particularly unreasonable.
So then those people need to make the right choice and not enter stores and do shopping online/curbside pickup
its no rocket Science.
the ADA says you have to make resonable accomodations for disabilities, not let them ignore things wholesale.
So curbside pickup is an option, car delivery is an option.
There are options where people who cannot(Or more likely, willl not) wear a mask can still get what they need without being a danger to others.
The UK is not the USA, a handful of people not wearing masks will not usher in the apocalypse, but it's reasonable to ask those who can to do so. The law only came into effect from Friday, our infection, hospitalisation and death rates have been steadily falling for weeks without them.
People showing symptoms are still expected to isolate until they're tested and cleared at the very least, so those not wearing a mask legitimately and being infectious asymptomatically will comprise a tiny fraction of the population, the odds of them transmitting the disease in a socially distanced environment while nearly everyone else is wearing a mask is microscopic.
That they should be expected to stay at home is ludicrous for the minute extra risk they pose.
Any risk comes from the ignorant cocks who should be wearing masks and refuse, as given that mindset who knows what other high risk behaviour they're engaging in.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, there have been shown that there are actual very little reasons to not wear a mask, that much of the "exceptions" are not at all exceptions and just excuses for people to not minorly inconvience themselves
I agree, was further elaborating that even IF there was a good reason not to wear one, that would still not be a good reason to go out in public without one.
Azreal13 wrote: Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.
They do when the vulnerable people come to the store on the days especially set aside for serving vulnerable customers. Do they not have those there?
No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.
Surprised to hear that. Every supermarket local to me here still has reserved timeframes for the elderly, immunocompromised, and other high risk shoppers - usually the first 2 hours.
Azreal13 wrote: Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.
They do when the vulnerable people come to the store on the days especially set aside for serving vulnerable customers. Do they not have those there?
No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.
At no point did we have people stood outside the store while staff collected their food shouting "no! The blue one! THE BLUE ONE!!"
Huh. We have Curbside pickup at most grocery, craft and hardware stores. There are also hours or days (depending on location) exclusively for the elderly and at risk, and if they can’t wear a mask the curbside pickup staff handle their orders. At least that is my understanding, since that is what my aunt does..or says she does.
Azreal13 wrote: Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.
They do when the vulnerable people come to the store on the days especially set aside for serving vulnerable customers. Do they not have those there?
No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.
Surprised to hear that. Every supermarket local to me here still has reserved timeframes for the elderly, immunocompromised, and other high risk shoppers - usually the first 2 hours.
I support and commend these efforts, but to be honest I'm surprised some ASOLs haven't filed a lawsuit against stores doing this claiming it discriminates against them and violates their rights. Honestly the way are in " 'murca " now I'm surprised that hasn't happened. Yet.
Azreal13 wrote: Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.
They do when the vulnerable people come to the store on the days especially set aside for serving vulnerable customers. Do they not have those there?
No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.
Surprised to hear that. Every supermarket local to me here still has reserved timeframes for the elderly, immunocompromised, and other high risk shoppers - usually the first 2 hours.
England is down to an average of 66 deaths a day in the past week, my county is down to 15 cases in the last week and I think something like 3 weeks since the last fatality.
The situation is very different now, and behaviours are more prevention of a recurrence than prevention of transmission.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: [
We have Curbside pickup at most grocery, craft and hardware stores.
You have drive through pharmacy and ATMs too.
Your culture is different, we have grocery collection, but that generally has to be ordered 24 hours ahead at least, no good if your need something urgently or unexpectedly, they also carry a minimum order way in excess of what a few key items will run to.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Some people have exemptions. Maybe a little less judgement could be in order.
A good half of the people I saw in town weren't wearing masks at all, and some of those that were just had them under their chins. Call me judgey if you want, but there aren't that many exemptions.
Any risk comes from the ignorant cocks who should be wearing masks and refuse, as given that mindset who knows what other high risk behaviour they're engaging in.
This is my concern. After 16 years in retail myself, with over 6 of those in a supermarket, I've seen enough to know that 'reasonable' doesn't exist for some in the face of 'what I want.' I have been threatened with violence for the store having run out of lettuce at 8pm on a hot Saturday that also had a huge sporting event on. I saw a woman assaulted quite badly when she asked a child very politely to stop poking his fingers through the cellophane packaging on mushroom packs and his mother didn't like her interfering with him having fun. They are just the first two incidents that come to mind. Some people go looking for confrontations or to grind an axe, and asking idiots to do what some of them will deliberately not be doing isn't always going to end well.
A guy stabbed me with a syringe and told me he had AIDS for asking him not to try on t shirts on the shop floor when I worked in a Virgin Megastore so I find it easy to believe many teenage supermarket workers might be disinclined to challenge people on their mask-wearing.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I mean, if you haven’t received any death threats because an item was out of stock, have you even worked in retail?
But yeah, front line employees are going to get beaten or killed for asking “customers” to wear masks.
So, by your exaggeration, are you saying that the abuse, threats and intimidation that many would actually receive is acceptable?
Take it with the dose of salt it was meant to be taken with.
Retail staff put up with a shocking level of abuse and physical harm in the best of times...the idiot threat level is raised even higher because of lock-down and restrictions. Lets not even talk about the US retail environment.
In short its not acceptable but there is certainly some dark humour to be had by wearers of 'here to help' name badges.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Some people have exemptions. Maybe a little less judgement could be in order.
A good half of the people I saw in town weren't wearing masks at all, and some of those that were just had them under their chins. Call me judgey if you want, but there aren't that many exemptions.
regardless, you dont know their situation. also, they are not required when outside. (yet)
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Some people have exemptions. Maybe a little less judgement could be in order.
A good half of the people I saw in town weren't wearing masks at all, and some of those that were just had them under their chins. Call me judgey if you want, but there aren't that many exemptions.
regardless, you dont know their situation. also, they are not required when outside. (yet)
TBF if you are that daft to not even wear the mask propperly, then yes, judgement shall be rendered upon them.
Well, I've got my mask on order from S&M orginals, so its not going anywhere, although I may die from auto erotic asphyxiation in the middle of the super market.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I mean, if you haven’t received any death threats because an item was out of stock, have you even worked in retail?
But yeah, front line employees are going to get beaten or killed for asking “customers” to wear masks.
So, by your exaggeration, are you saying that the abuse, threats and intimidation that many would actually receive is acceptable?
I don't see anything in what he said to even hint at your interpretation; just an observation that retail employees have historically received abuse, and that these heightened circumstances only are exacerbating what is functionally a pre-existing condition.
On a sort of tangent, one of the good things about the corona virus is contactless food delivery. I don't know if I can go back to normal food delivery (with the required human interaction) after experiencing the joys of the pizza lady coming up the loading dock, leaving my pizza at the door, texting me "it's here", and then leaving like she was leaving it next to a manhole for the ninja turtles. I won't even get into the obvious awesomeness of no longer trudging around the supermarket for an hour.
Azreal13 wrote: Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.
They do when the vulnerable people come to the store on the days especially set aside for serving vulnerable customers. Do they not have those there?
No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.
Surprised to hear that. Every supermarket local to me here still has reserved timeframes for the elderly, immunocompromised, and other high risk shoppers - usually the first 2 hours.
Important Information
Between 8am and 9am on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the store will be prioritising access to serving elderly and disabled customers. Between 7.30am and 8.00am Monday to Saturday, the store will prioritise access to NHS and Social Care workers with a relevant pass or ID.
IIRC some branches -- especially some of the smaller ones might not be able to don't.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I mean, if you haven’t received any death threats because an item was out of stock, have you even worked in retail?
But yeah, front line employees are going to get beaten or killed for asking “customers” to wear masks.
So, by your exaggeration, are you saying that the abuse, threats and intimidation that many would actually receive is acceptable?
I don't see anything in what he said to even hint at your interpretation; just an observation that retail employees have historically received abuse, and that these heightened circumstances only are exacerbating what is functionally a pre-existing condition.
If I've misread Bob's intentions then fair enough, but normally exaggerating a point to an absurd end point (i.e. threats to being beaten or killed) is done to try and make the initial problem seem trivial, which is how I read it. I know first hand about the normal treatment of retail staff, which is why I am not cynical about some retailers making the choice not to add to it.
For whatever it's worth, I do think that shifting the onus on mask enforcement to retail employees is a pathetic abdication of leadership from government... but about par for how all of this has unfolded, honestly. If I worked at a supermarket I would not feel particular comfortable asking the unmasked to mask up or leave - as we've noted, there have been violent confrontations. If you dont? You risk your employment, potentially headed into a depression - or risk getting sick from said unmasked person. It's not fair to ask someone making minimum wage bagging groceries to enforce social standards during a deadly pandemic.
Yes the whole handling of the crisis has been terrible on this side too. We didn't need masks when 15,000 a day were contracting it, but do now, nursing homes being blamed for not following guidelines that they were never given. Leaders doing what they want with no recrimination. Been a hell of a year to witness.
Government got to try and alleviate that same government induced fear now they want people back out again. Seems like something of a self inflicted wound though. Folks who don't want to wear masks just won't go out and won't go into the small shops they usually would.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Me? I’m turning my choice in mask into what passes for a fashion statement.
Got four new ones on order.
“Save Ferris”
“Spaceballs, The Facemask”
“What A Time To Be Alive”
and finally?
One with a Mandalorian helmet’s lower half and “This Is The Way”.
Take it, run with it. Be extra fabulous whilst being sensible
Oh I will. Despite it being a worthless, authoritarian diktat, I will take the opportunity to wear my new rhinophallic BDSM mask in a supermarket. Never let an opportunity for expression go to waste.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Me? I’m turning my choice in mask into what passes for a fashion statement.
Got four new ones on order.
“Save Ferris”
“Spaceballs, The Facemask”
“What A Time To Be Alive”
and finally?
One with a Mandalorian helmet’s lower half and “This Is The Way”.
Take it, run with it. Be extra fabulous whilst being sensible
Oh I will. Despite it being a worthless, authoritarian diktat, I will take the opportunity to wear my new rhinophallic BDSM mask in a supermarket. Never let an opportunity for expression go to waste.
And now, as potentially mentally scaring as it could be, we need photos of you in this mask!
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I mean, if you haven’t received any death threats because an item was out of stock, have you even worked in retail?
But yeah, front line employees are going to get beaten or killed for asking “customers” to wear masks.
So, by your exaggeration, are you saying that the abuse, threats and intimidation that many would actually receive is acceptable?
Quite the opposite. Retail staff are treated terribly, and their employers (and police) almost never attempt to protect them. This pandemic is not only putting them in danger from the virus, but from an apparent deluge of abusive, even violent customers who’ve finally found their perfect excuse. It’s shameful that our society has decided to throw retail and service employees under the bus on such a scale.
PS: I was not exaggerating at all. People have attacked me or said they would get me in the parking lot because a book or Cd was out of stock. One guy chased me to the break room door and tried to batter his way through when he couldn’t get it open.
Oh I will. Despite it being a worthless, authoritarian diktat, I will take the opportunity to wear my new rhinophallic BDSM mask in a supermarket. Never let an opportunity for expression go to waste.
*shrug* As long as it stays on your face without you having to hold it there, I wouldn't turn you away. It cant be any worse that dealing with people who think flipflops and socks are suitable footwear in the the north of England*shudder*
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I mean, if you haven’t received any death threats because an item was out of stock, have you even worked in retail?
But yeah, front line employees are going to get beaten or killed for asking “customers” to wear masks.
So, by your exaggeration, are you saying that the abuse, threats and intimidation that many would actually receive is acceptable?
Quite the opposite. Retail staff are treated terribly, and their employers (and police) almost never attempt to protect them. This pandemic is not only putting them in danger from the virus, but from an apparent deluge of abusive, even violent customers who’ve finally found their perfect excuse. It’s shameful that our society has decided to throw retail and service employees under the bus on such a scale.
PS: I was not exaggerating at all. People have attacked me or said they would get me in the parking lot because a book or Cd was out of stock. One guy chased me to the break room door and tried to batter his way through when he couldn’t get it open.
Seems that I missed the tone of your previous post, I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic. Apologies. Luckily nothing as extreme as that ever happened to me, and I hope that they are no longer happening to you.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Me? I’m turning my choice in mask into what passes for a fashion statement.
Got four new ones on order.
“Save Ferris”
“Spaceballs, The Facemask”
“What A Time To Be Alive”
and finally?
One with a Mandalorian helmet’s lower half and “This Is The Way”.
Take it, run with it. Be extra fabulous whilst being sensible
So far I have only stenciled "I'm Doing My Part" on my cloth mask. My new mission is to put slogans on my masks that piss off all the anti-mask old folks that keep calling me a "snowflake" despite being 38 years old. I think it's funny when they act all oppressed by my mocking. My next one was going to be "It's Really Quite Easy", but "This Is The Way" is better.
Contenders were also:
"Darth Responsible"
"Help, I'm Being Oppressed!"
"I Believe In Science"
"Because I'm An Adult"
Ouze wrote: For whatever it's worth, I do think that shifting the onus on mask enforcement to retail employees is a pathetic abdication of leadership from government... but about par for how all of this has unfolded, honestly. If I worked at a supermarket I would not feel particular comfortable asking the unmasked to mask up or leave - as we've noted, there have been violent confrontations. If you dont? You risk your employment, potentially headed into a depression - or risk getting sick from said unmasked person. It's not fair to ask someone making minimum wage bagging groceries to enforce social standards during a deadly pandemic.
The worst timeline continues apace.
The worst jobs should have the worst pay, just as the best jobs have the best pay. It makes sense if you don't think about it!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Me? I’m turning my choice in mask into what passes for a fashion statement.
Got four new ones on order.
“Save Ferris”
“Spaceballs, The Facemask”
“What A Time To Be Alive”
and finally?
One with a Mandalorian helmet’s lower half and “This Is The Way”.
Take it, run with it. Be extra fabulous whilst being sensible
So far I have only stenciled "I'm Doing My Part" on my cloth mask. My new mission is to put slogans on my masks that piss off all the anti-mask old folks that keep calling me a "snowflake" despite being 38 years old. I think it's funny when they act all oppressed by my mocking. My next one was going to be "It's Really Quite Easy", but "This Is The Way" is better.
Contenders were also:
"Darth Responsible"
"Help, I'm Being Oppressed!"
"I Believe In Science"
"Because I'm An Adult"
Power to you sir, I hope you trigger many irresponsible citizens. Try not to enjoy it too much eh?
Look, it's deeply worrying to me that a mod actively invested in a discussion is also the one moderating said discussion.
Can we get a mod not involved in the argument to moderate the thread?.
I think you're going to have a difficult if not impossible locating a single mod on this forum who won't agree agree that several parts of that last page were clearly off topic, because it unambiguously was - how many bankruptcies Trump has had, his history as a real estate developer, and so on. None of those tangents dovetail into this conversation in relation to Covid in any meaningful way. Any of those threads followed very far will wind up with the thread being locked.
Generally speaking they have been pretty good in this thread about allowing for limited political discourse because the topic is in some ways intertwined with government in inextricable ways: it's hard to talk about the covid response in the United States without also pointing out that it's been pretty incompetent at most levels of government, and there's been a pretty bad dearth of leadership. However those really were starting to stray pretty far afield I think.
The idea that mods can have a bias that somehow prevents them from being objective and thus required to recuse themselves is kind of a wrong-footed legalistic way of looking at things. For one, there is no requirement for the mods on a private forum to be fair or even handed. For another, the goal isn't to make binding and consistent rulings, it is to allow for productive conversation to continue while removing non-productive, off topic discussion. There is no punitive aspect to being asked politely in-thread to confirm to the rules of this forum.
You should start a thread in the Nuts & Bolts section if you'd like to discuss that idea further. I'm not trying to dismiss your concerns, but it has come up before, and the answer I gave you gave is typically along the lines what the responses have historically been. Manchu had a really good response about legalistic thinking that I tried finding for about 20 minutes but could not.
I don't particularly care about what mods will think of a discussion being on and off topic verse the incentive for a mod to use their power to win an argument they are having. A mod not involved in the argument has less incentive. There will always be biases, but it is bad form to moderate a contentious discussion that you are a part of and have a clear perspective. It's just adding more pressure to act in your own interest that isn't needed for good moderation. The point is to have less incentive to act badly, and winning an argument is strong incentive.
JamesY wrote:I'm not in disagreement with you at all. What I do disagree with is the notion that it should be the duty of shop staff to enforce the law in this regard. A 17yr old kid or middle aged woman (and these groups form a significant proportion of supermarket staff) shouldn't have to worry about approaching someone who clearly isn't interested in the well-being of themselves or anyone else. No one in that role should. If they are acting like that in the first place, I doubt they'd be all to civil if approached about it.
I don't know. Generally, when something minor happens, store staff tends to deal with it all the time. It's kinda part of the job. In this case it simply means telling people that they are not allowed to enter the store unless they are wearing a mask. That's just like informing customers about any other store rules they didn't know about.
You don't need the police for that. That's been the most normal thing over here. Who else should say it if customers "forgets" to wear a mask (or whatever their excuse is)? They don't need to hug the anti-maskers, just tell them from a distance that they need a mask. If somebody's really overreacting to this then I'd not want them in a store anyways and you can call the police (or whatever store policy is at that point).
Azreal13 wrote:Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.
Yes because you usually don't have a dozen people who have "good reasons" to not wear a mask. Most people with asthma and even other respiratory issues can wear masks. There are very few who really can't do it and those shouldn't be a problem to handle and they would be safer at home/in the hospital with somebody else doing the shopping for them. Why are they exposing themselves to this risk anyways? Are they suicidal? Staff helps people all the time with all kinds of issues. Occasionally helping somebody as a personal shopper shouldn't be a problem if you filter out all the fake ones.
If your store has a dozen people who can't wear a mask at the same time then you most probably have close to a dozen liars. Or you are living in extremely peculiar circumstances.
In our block we have an old lady who has to cart around an oxygen tank and take long breaks on her walks and she manages to wear a mask. I don't know how bad it has to be for somebody to be unable to wear a mask but I'm relatively confident that it's not a problem that affects many people. There may be a lot of donkey-caves who want to fake a medical condition as an excuse but that's a different issue.
Most people not wearing a mask are also not hyper militant about it and will, with a bit of public shaming, comply or leave, which is in the best interest of everyone.
It's the handful of non maskers whose response to being asked to wear a mask is to get violent and abusive, up to even shooting store staff, that is a huge issue though. And it's not exactly easy to tell. Though I'd be more wary if they were in, say, trump paraphernalia.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Well, I've got my mask on order from S&M orginals, so its not going anywhere, although I may die from auto erotic asphyxiation in the middle of the super market.
If you are wearing a mask that's at risk of choking you randomly as you go about your day, you are doing BDSM wrong and should probably stop and spend some time educating yourself on safe ways to practice masochism.
I've done two missions in a mask. One to Aldi, and a shorter mission to Waitrose to get the stuff Aldi was out of.
I'm using disposable sterile surgical masks manufactured in the UK by a company set up by dentists, FWIW.
The bad news is that even fitted correctly, the mask fogs my glasses, and because I've got a big head it's quite stretched to cover my face properly. Also it's a bit humid to wear.
The good news is that there is nearly 100% compliance with face covering in the shops, and mask wearing in the open has increased as well.
If you are wearing a mask that's at risk of choking you randomly as you go about your day, you are doing BDSM wrong and should probably stop and spend some time educating yourself on safe ways to practice masochism.
*Shrug* I'm not into any of that fetish stuff. I bought it to mock the new law.
Worth people checking out anti fog spray. Had trouble with my eye pro fogging up while wearing a goggles and mask for air soft. Gets pretty warm running around all day but later switched to a better pair a glasses that don’t fog.
One tip is to rub a bit of washing up liquid on both sides of your lens. Let it dry then polish of with a soft tissue, may take a while to buff it off but it’s worked for me in the past.
Stratigo - I just wanted to say, for what it's worth I mostly share your view regarding moderating topics I am (personally) involved in. That's why I stated the note as I did, because I was involved in the discussion but it was just getting really far off topic.
As Ouze noted, if you want to discuss site moderation you can always start up a thread in N&B to discuss further.
Not enough people in my area are wearing masks but I haven’t encountered many people being outright dicks about it. There was one, I can only describe him as a stereotypical boomer, but he was shamed into silence with little effort.
See this is the worst part about this mask nonsense. The busybodying. Everyone has to be up in everyone elses grill about what they are or aren't doing... If you're so scared of the Corona I definitely have, why are you coming up to me asking why I'm not wearing a mask? Just f off and leave me alone. It began with the lockdown curtain twitchers, but the mask stasi are up a new level.
I remember when we as a nation used to just leave folks to their business. I fear we'll never return to that.
This isn't about public safety, it's about signalling their compliance, and forcing those who don't want any part of it to bend to their will.
I think there was a misunderstanding there. I was referring to the aforementioned boomer out in my area, not QAR. That’s...actually quite funny now that I think of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: See this is the worst part about this mask nonsense. The busybodying. Everyone has to be up in everyone elses grill about what they are or aren't doing... If you're so scared of the Corona I definitely have, why are you coming up to me asking why I'm not wearing a mask? Just f off and leave me alone.
I remember when we as a nation used to just leave folks to their business. I fear we'll never return to that.
This isn't about public safety, it's about signalling your compliance, and forcing those who don't want any part of it to bend to your will.
But little goatee fat mouth was the one who was annoying other people about their wearing of masks. That was until he bothered the wrong person and was not so subtly warned to be quiet.
All mouth (and money) but no trousers. It was actually funny imo.
Despite my post above, basic site rules still apply in this thread, as they do everywhere on the site. If you can't discuss a topic politely without name calling, then you simply can't discuss it on Dakka.
Again, this is all in the interest of being able to keep this thread open so we can continue discussing this important topic. Further posts using insults or that are extremely off topic will simply be deleted.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Fair enough. I don't care if people want to wear masks. All I expect is the same in return for the fact I don't.
I don't care if people want to drive drunk, they should just leave me alone while I drive drunk.
That is a good analogy, seriously. It gets straight to the 'not a guarantee but a risk' element. If masks were about protecting oneself from getting it I imagine many people would be happy to let others go without them. But it is not. It is about the safety of people around you, and a person has no right to put others in danger just because they can't be arsed to wear a mask.
Sidenote; supporters of stand your ground laws should point out how approaching someone without a mask on very much is a threat to their life. Yet somehow I don't think they will be.
I will totally busybody people who refuse to wear masks
you are not only putting yourself in danger, but others as well, with the ability of this virus to transfer even if you are not showing symptons, you should be conscious off the fact that you could be caring it and now now..
If you refuse to wear a mask, or are incapable of wearing one and try to carryon as normal and demand stores let you in, you are a danger to the public and public health. I dont care if "you have a condition" you have to be willing to think about more than yourself
Glasses fogging issue - granted, I only wear sunglasses, but the masks my wife makes have pipecleaner built into the nose area to make it more form fitting. This helps with the glasses fogging up as the warm exhaled air doesn't go up.
So, i have an adjacent issue/topic i kinda wanna discuss.
Quarantine/SIP is still very much in effect for my county and im still sheltered inside. Work is kinda staggered, ill log one for like a hour and half, log off for 3 hours then log on for 30min and so forth.
I am incredibly bored with my hobbies, Mostly Video games and Miniatures building/Painting. Anyone got any ideas on HOW i can eleviate that? I have been thinking of switching gears and trying to build terrain. I have been thinking about a marvel crisis board. Been picking up reading more before bed and cooking(Well, more involved recipes and stuff, i have been perfecting sheetpan dinners lately.)
Building terrain is a fun hobby. You can do a lot with relatively cheap materials such as plywood or foamcore board, and even recycle stuff like toiletry containers, which have got a lot of interesting shapes.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, i have an adjacent issue/topic i kinda wanna discuss.
Quarantine/SIP is still very much in effect for my county and im still sheltered inside. Work is kinda staggered, ill log one for like a hour and half, log off for 3 hours then log on for 30min and so forth.
I am incredibly bored with my hobbies, Mostly Video games and Miniatures building/Painting. Anyone got any ideas on HOW i can eleviate that? I have been thinking of switching gears and trying to build terrain. I have been thinking about a marvel crisis board. Been picking up reading more before bed and cooking(Well, more involved recipes and stuff, i have been perfecting sheetpan dinners lately.)
You could flesh out your miniatures backstory if you are in to that or build a diorama to showcase their glory.
Or pick up knitting, that is big right now for some reason.
skyth wrote: Glasses fogging issue - granted, I only wear sunglasses, but the masks my wife makes have pipecleaner built into the nose area to make it more form fitting. This helps with the glasses fogging up as the warm exhaled air doesn't go up.
You just wear a mask that sits high enough on your nose so that your specs sit on top of it and press it down around your nose. 'I can't wear a mask because my glasses steam up' is another invented problem.
For the steamy glasses issue, you need a way for the air to escape.
Has anyone tried to fashion a snorkel, to allow the air out?
Stick a Land Rover logo on it, maybe
Bran Dawri wrote: Try something different for a change? Read a book or two.
Also don't forget everyday workout. There's a lot of useful "no equipment-workout at home" videos on YT.
Apart from obvious health advantages and being another passtime it will also improve your mood and energy - an important thing for someone under lockdown.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Fair enough. I don't care if people want to wear masks. All I expect is the same in return for the fact I don't.
I don't care if people want to drive drunk, they should just leave me alone while I drive drunk.
That is a good analogy, seriously. It gets straight to the 'not a guarantee but a risk' element. If masks were about protecting oneself from getting it I imagine many people would be happy to let others go without them. But it is not. It is about the safety of people around you, and a person has no right to put others in danger just because they can't be arsed to wear a mask.
Sidenote; supporters of stand your ground laws should point out how approaching someone without a mask on very much is a threat to their life. Yet somehow I don't think they will be.
Ah yes, the old 'its not to stop you getting it, it's to stop it if you have it'.. because a piece of old t shirt stretched over your mouth will let virus in, but not out... I see everyone conveniently ignored my pointing out of Spain's new rise in cases, despite masks being mandatory in all public spaces, including outside.
Seems more like a convenient way of forcing everyone to comply. Make out like everyone is a biohazard, and turn the judging eye onto those who see masks as pointless.
All this while a whopping 0.05 % of the population are estimated to have the virus at any one time, and deaths continue to fall, yet only now masks are imperative for public health, 4 Months after our peak.
Hotsauceman - I think terrain is a great idea, personally! You can turn almost anything on-hand into some type of terrain
QAR - It's true that deaths are on the decline (Florida just passed New York for total number of cases to date, but has only 1/6 of the deaths). This is a pretty hopeful figure, since you'd think the state population would be at higher risk of death. I think it is largely due to improving treatments.
However, that's no reason not to show common solidarity / decency and mask it up in indoor public spaces. It's such a small thing, and if we all did it, really helps reduce transmission rates (by up to 50% I have read, and that's just huge).
Masks should have been made mandatory months ago, not arguing with you there. If I remember correctly, and being very charitable to those in charge; I think there were concerns over the supply of masks, and they weren't mandated to the public at the time to ensure adequate supplies to frontline staff.
Personally, we've had mandatory mask wearing at work for about 2 months now. Yes they're a pain in the backside. Yes my glasses fog up. Yes I struggle with understanding people, as I have a slight hearing loss and partially lipread to fill in the gaps. Yes it makes the skin round my nose greasy. Still wear it though.
Can you please explain the alternative view? How does the government benefit by making people wear masks unnecessarily? Given that enough people voted Tory to give them a massive majority already, including a lot of the previously bright-red North, I think the indoctrination job is already done...
Nipped to Sainsbury’s this morning, as I needed to buy some lunch foods (bread, quiche, falafel etc as I’m still watching how much I’m eating) and happy to report the vast majority were wearing masks.
Very oddly, the only people that weren’t were kids - who’s parents were wearing masks? My guess is they’re struggling to find child sized masks.
Also got my tattoo done on Saturday, wore my mask throughout, as did my artists - and her face shield.
On a sort of tangent, one of the good things about the corona virus is contactless food delivery. I don't know if I can go back to normal food delivery (with the required human interaction) after experiencing the joys of the pizza lady coming up the loading dock, leaving my pizza at the door, texting me "it's here", and then leaving like she was leaving it next to a manhole for the ninja turtles. I won't even get into the obvious awesomeness of no longer trudging around the supermarket for an hour.
Haha, definitely - along with cleaner air, less commuting etc I think getting used to home deliveries and click-collect. Definitely not going back to the supermarket -one of my most hated chores - after all this is over!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Me? I’m turning my choice in mask into what passes for a fashion statement.
Got four new ones on order.“Save Ferris”“Spaceballs, The Facemask”“What A Time To Be Alive”
and finally?
One with a Mandalorian helmet’s lower half and “This Is The Way”.
Take it, run with it. Be extra fabulous whilst being sensible
Brilliant. I've noticed quite a few stores doing these now - Society6 has hundreds on there with all kinds of designs if anyone is after something a bit different.
Ouze wrote: For whatever it's worth, I do think that shifting the onus on mask enforcement to retail employees is a pathetic abdication of leadership from government... but about par for how all of this has unfolded, honestly. If I worked at a supermarket I would not feel particular comfortable asking the unmasked to mask up or leave - as we've noted, there have been violent confrontations. If you dont? You risk your employment, potentially headed into a depression - or risk getting sick from said unmasked person. It's not fair to ask someone making minimum wage bagging groceries to enforce social standards during a deadly pandemic.
The worst timeline continues apace.
Agree 100%. A definite absolution of responsibility, although I am glad at least in the UK they have brought in the law (it's late, but better late than never) it's unreasonable to ask shop staff to enforce it so I can completely understand Asda etc. not mandating it.
Think the gov needs to try various 'soft' pressures. Perhaps some video commericals, along the lines of the old anti-smoking and road safety adverts, with some shocking video of someone dying on a ventilator and their family not being with them. It would be disturbing by design and not pleasant, but I think it would be useful to help penetrate through to the people that either aren't educated about the effects of Covid or else nonchalant about it.
RiTides wrote: Regarding the exchange further up this page:
Despite my post above, basic site rules still apply in this thread, as they do everywhere on the site. If you can't discuss a topic politely without name calling, then you simply can't discuss it on Dakka.
Again, this is all in the interest of being able to keep this thread open so we can continue discussing this important topic. Further posts using insults or that are extremely off topic will simply be deleted.
Thanks for your help everyone
There seems to be one person doing their damndest to get the thread closed - either purposefully or not, it's a shame if this does happen for the sake of one person as this thread is a good outlet and I think is probably helping a lot of people.
ï honestly think you missunderstand QAR's position pacific.
it's less about the enforcement and more about the principle, which indeed , does set a rather dangerous precedent in behavoural patterns, including a predisposed obedience without room for questioning.
Now do i agree with him on his perspecive about corona, no, not really, and i do find his rebuttal torwards the car analogy a bit curious, considering we have such laws for good reasons.
I do also wonder if pointing at spain, a country highly dependant on flooding of tourists for it's economy and claiming masks don't work making sense aswell.
That doesn't detract from the principle though that central government generally should not interfere with the people as much as possible and if it does so, also be able to be held accountable and legitimate. Both of which are things one can argue in a state of emergency are not there.
The car analogy is false because a drunk driver is highly likely to kill or injure themself or another person. Not at all comparible to the tiny chance that you're catching corona,(with its incredibly high survivability rate, and now incredibly low infected per capita rate already covered),from some random in the supermarket.
This situation is nowhere near grounds enough for the government to be mandating things at such a micro level, with threat of financial punishment for dissenters. 'you must follow our diktats, or not be allowed to provide for your family'
As for the folks who say 'its just a mask' 'its just a minor inconvenience' I say, well 4 Months ago it was 'its just a few weeks of lockdown' 'its just fines for folks who don't obey' 'its just a few more weeks' 'just until we get the R rate down' 'just mandatory masks on public transport' 'just mandatory masks in all shops'... Where does it stop? At the start it was flatten the curve. Well how damn flat does it need to be? The goalposts keep moving. The restrictions keep creeping.
And all the while no good news is ever shown on TV. The low infection rate, the low death rate. The fact that the NHS never got anywhere near being overwhelmed, the fact that at peak there were about 4000 people on ventilators, and now there are sub 200. And still no recovered rates, despite being promised by beginning of June, and if anything slightly positive can't avoid being shown, they immediately follow it with the obligatory banging of the 'second wave' drum. Well where is this second wave? We've had at least 4, 5 events that the doomsayers claimed would herald it...
Also, it turns out that to PHE, you can never recover from Corona, as their death tolls have been including those who had it, recovered, then died of something else.
So yeah, I'm a sceptic. And that's my logic as to why.
Really, only pointing to the chance Corona will kill you is a dishonest argument. People who 'survive' and 'recover' often have serious permanent ailments, especially in lung capacity.
They are no longer able to work at full capacity and will often be dependent on government disability benefits to survive.
skyth wrote: Really, only pointing to the chance Corona will kill you is a dishonest argument. People who 'survive' and 'recover' often have serious permanent ailments, especially in lung capacity.
They are no longer able to work at full capacity and will often be dependent on government disability benefits to survive.
what was that, for 1 dead, 19 need ventilators, 18 with permanent damage to lung and heart.
I don't know where you're getting those numbers, but UK peak ventilators for covid patients was just over 3k. It's now down to about 190.
Following your numbers, for our 40k deaths would mean 720000 plus on ventilators.
And the damage (it's too early to tell if it's permanent) is 1/10 people affected max. It's unfortunate but it's still not near enough to justify these measures.
Yeah, and whilst not being familiar with us numbers, I'd be doubting the validity of a claim like that.
I'm not disputing that there's negative reactions in some people. That's going to be the case with any new disease. As I said, it's not good and those who are suffering have my sympathy, but I still don't think it warrants this huge overreaction that we insist on continuing to flog. It's a sunk cost at this point. And the government are now trapped.
Consider that in the UK, we're in the third consecutive week of below average deaths for the year. This suggests that those who would normally have died at this point probably had it brought forward by a few weeks or couple of months by the virus.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Yeah, and whilst not being familiar with us numbers, I'd be doubting the validity of a claim like that.
I'm not disputing that there's negative reactions in some people. That's going to be the case with any new disease. As I said, it's not good and those who are suffering have my sympathy, but I still don't think it warrants this huge overreaction that we insist on continuing to flog. It's a sunk cost at this point. And the government are now trapped.
Consider that in the UK, we're in the third consecutive week of below average deaths for the year. This suggests that those who would normally have died at this point probably had it brought forward by a few weeks or couple of months by the virus.
vice versa in switzerland covid has beaten the general flue within 1 month in deadlyness.
And considering that due to mers and sars we can gather that about a 3rd of the survivors will carry away permanent lungdamage, and that in china a study found 77% of people suffering from such grey patches, i rekon that we will have a lot more people suffering from longterm effects this time around .
Consider that in the UK, we're in the third consecutive week of below average deaths for the year. This suggests that those who would normally have died at this point probably had it brought forward by a few weeks or couple of months by the virus.
Currently England and Wales are just over 6% below the 5 year average overall. Top of my head maths, but I think they'd need to stay at that for several years to offset the CV deaths.
They also remain above the five year average for deaths in private dwellings.
This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.
QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Yeah, and whilst not being familiar with us numbers, I'd be doubting the validity of a claim like that.
I'm not disputing that there's negative reactions in some people. That's going to be the case with any new disease. As I said, it's not good and those who are suffering have my sympathy, but I still don't think it warrants this huge overreaction that we insist on continuing to flog. It's a sunk cost at this point. And the government are now trapped.
Consider that in the UK, we're in the third consecutive week of below average deaths for the year. This suggests that those who would normally have died at this point probably had it brought forward by a few weeks or couple of months by the virus.
Not sure your conclusion is entirely safe there, as it doesn’t take into account the changes we’ve seen in society. Yes it’s pretty much certain that someone in already poor health contracting the virus is less likely to survive it. But....
With fewer people travelling, there’s fewer road traffic accidents. With reduced foot traffic, especially at night, fewer muggings etc. Quieter roads also affect Paramedic response times. When every minute saved increases chances of survival (such as Stroke or Heart Attack), we can in turn expect higher survival rates.
Do I have solid figures for you? Nope. But there’ll be out there, somewhere.
The UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer has confirmed that the virus responsible for COVID-19 has been detected in a pet cat in the UK.
The infection was confirmed following tests at the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) laboratory in Weybridge on Wednesday 22 July.
Although this is the first confirmed case of an animal infection with the coronavirus strain in the UK, there is no evidence to suggest that the animal was involved in transmission of the disease to its owners or that pets or other domestic animals are able to transmit the virus to people.
The advice from Public Health England is for people to wash their hands regularly, including before and after contact with animals.
All available evidence suggests that the cat contracted the coronavirus from its owners who had previously tested positive for COVID-19. The cat and its owners have since made a full recovery and there was no transmission to other animals or people in the household.
Tests conducted by the Animal and Plant Health Agency have confirmed that the virus responsible for COVID-19 has been detected in a pet cat in England.
This is a very rare event with infected animals detected to date only showing mild clinical signs and recovering within in a few days.
There is no evidence to suggest that pets directly transmit the virus to humans. We will continue to monitor this situation closely and will update our guidance to pet owners should the situation change.
Yvonne Doyle, Medical Director at Public Health England, said:
This is the first case of a domestic cat testing positive for COVID-19 in the UK but should not be a cause for alarm.
The investigation into this case suggest that the infection was spread from humans to animal, and not the other way round. At this time, there is no evidence that pets can transmit the disease to humans.
In line with the general advice on fighting coronavirus, you should wash your hands regularly, including before and after contact with animals.
The pet cat was initially diagnosed by a private vet with feline herpes virus, a common cat respiratory infection, but the sample was also tested for SARS-CoV-2 as part of a research programme. Follow-up samples tested at the APHA laboratory in Weybridge confirmed the cat was also co-infected with SARS-CoV2 which is the virus known to cause COVID-19 in humans.
Pet owners can access the latest government guidance on how to continue to care for their animals during the coronavirus pandemic.
The case has been reported to the World Organisation for Animal Health in line with international commitments. There have been a very small number of confirmed cases in pets in other countries in Europe, North America and Asia.
During the Blitz, were people really pissed and refusing to follow the 'Lights out" policy? How about food rationing?
yes.
People were nowhere near as well behaved the mythology of the era would have one believe.
Yep. I often listen to old radio shows, and a lot of the wartime shows would often have a small bit explaining how important rationing and other wartime inconveniences are. Some would often do a whole story with a main character complaining and fighting against some wartime-caused inconvenience, with the story having him learn all about the reasons and accepting it by the end of the show.
A lot of people live in their own safety bubble. They haven't gotten sick, nobody they know has gotten sick, almost nobody in their little town has gotten sick, therefore there is no threat so why they should act like there is one? Because, you know, loose lips sink ships, and it just takes one infected individual to start the spread in a whole group of careless/unprotected people. That's why there is so much messaging about the problem. As soon as you let up, as soon as you give people even the slightest chance to think everything is ok, then there are people who will through the gates wide open and rush to be back to normal, with no forethought or precautions.
Easy E wrote: This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.
QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?
And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.
I was out in town today and the extent of the damage done to local businesses is starting to show. The Mace around the corner from my usual parking spot, the Belfast themed coffee shop across the road from that, my favourite restaurant, several designer clothes shops and so on. A local chain, Easons (like a better Irish version of WHSmith) has packed up and left too. The high street is fethed.
The highstreet was messed up before between rent rates and tax raising costs and online stealing sales its been an area many retailers were struggling with. Corona hasn't caused this on its own, it has accellerated what was already going on.
That said I expect to see a burn and replace approach with
restaurants and other food outlets. Ergo a stready loss until restrictions fully lift and then a rebirth in some areas.
We are still well in the danger zone and it won't be until a vaccine or massifevtrack and trace efforts so thatvwe remove the threat, untilvwe properly come out. Bonus is that once the threat is gone in theory, recovery should be at a good pace
Easy E wrote: This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.
QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?
And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.
LoL, the GOVT tells you what to do all the time. cant urinate or defecate in public places, cant go around naked, cant drive without aa license, can t do X, cant do Y.
Its a poor excuse and your know it.
Easy E wrote: This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.
QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?
And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.
LoL, the GOVT tells you what to do all the time. cant urinate or defecate in public places, cant go around naked, cant drive without aa license, can t do X, cant do Y.
Its a poor excuse and your know it.
Yeah I think you are missing the point here. These are things decent people do because of societal norms. The government didn't make these rules - society did - the people did. There probably was 0 opposition to laws about needed to be clothed in public. The government is implementing these procedures at will is the issue (there was no vote on the issue) - especially if it violates your rights like in the case of forcing people to not leave their houses ect. There is a lot of opposition on that.
I mean, we vote in people to implement these things so we are not required to vote on every single thing.
So we voted in people who instigated this thing soooo, yes we did have a say.
Xenomancers, are you suggesting that wearing a mask—a slight inconvenience that literally saves lives and helps society control a pandemic—isn’t something decent people do because of societal norms?
It sure looks like it to me. And people who refuse to wear masks are fairly equivalent to people who commit negligent manslaughter or defecate in public, both things decent people don’t do, things are against societal norms.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Yeah, and whilst not being familiar with us numbers, I'd be doubting the validity of a claim like that.
I'm not disputing that there's negative reactions in some people. That's going to be the case with any new disease. As I said, it's not good and those who are suffering have my sympathy, but I still don't think it warrants this huge overreaction that we insist on continuing to flog. It's a sunk cost at this point. And the government are now trapped.
Consider that in the UK, we're in the third consecutive week of below average deaths for the year. This suggests that those who would normally have died at this point probably had it brought forward by a few weeks or couple of months by the virus.
vice versa in switzerland covid has beaten the general flue within 1 month in deadlyness.
And considering that due to mers and sars we can gather that about a 3rd of the survivors will carry away permanent lungdamage, and that in china a study found 77% of people suffering from such grey patches, i rekon that we will have a lot more people suffering from longterm effects this time around .
In the same article...
"it's estimated as few as 5% and as many as 80% of Covid-19-positive patients are asymptomatic or have mild cases of the illness that take days or weeks for symptoms to emerge—and many have no symptoms after two weeks,"
Wow...that is quite a range for the estimated asymptomatic cases.
Easy E wrote: This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.
QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?
And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.
LoL, the GOVT tells you what to do all the time. cant urinate or defecate in public places, cant go around naked, cant drive without aa license, can t do X, cant do Y.
Its a poor excuse and your know it.
No the government tells me what I must not do, in order that I don't violate the natural rights of another, or break any social contracts. They are not there to tell me what I MUST do.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Ah yes, the old 'its not to stop you getting it, it's to stop it if you have it'.. because a piece of old t shirt stretched over your mouth will let virus in, but not out... I see everyone conveniently ignored my pointing out of Spain's new rise in cases, despite masks being mandatory in all public spaces, including outside.
That piece of cloth reduces the range of how far you expelled breath can go quickly. That means infected microdroplets in the air your exhaled have a lower chance of infecting others. It's lowers the chance of infections and can't solve the problem completely. It why you don't cough into people's faces but for breathing in general. It doesn't stop the virus but it slows down its transport layer, so to speak.
Not Online!!! wrote:it's less about the enforcement and more about the principle, which indeed , does set a rather dangerous precedent in behavoural patterns, including a predisposed obedience without room for questioning.
And I'd say that type of reasoning about behavioural patterns and obedience is removed from reality when it comes to wearing simple cloth masks in public. It's not like they are forcing citizens to drag non-mask-wearers off the streets or establish an surveillance state. It's a simple need to help reduce infections. I really wonder how people who worry about that being some governmental scheme even live their regular lives when you consider all the other laws and restrictions that apply every day in civilised society? I imagine that as an adult one can distinguish the difference between the government asking for something simple—like wearing masks—and an actual slide into authoritarianism. And also where one's fundamental ideals in regard to personal freedoms and everybody's (hopefully short term) practical needs intersect when it comes to cloth masks and how that simply shouldn't be a big deal for a functioning adult human being.
But I also wonder why people with that type of conspiratorial adjacent thinking don't jump on the chance to wear a mask? After all they actually help against facial recognition tech. And wouldn't that be useful to actually escape that type of real surveillance tech that's being used in practice? One doesn't even need to imagine something about it in the potential future. Surveillance cameras are actually being used around us in everyday life.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:As for the folks who say 'its just a mask' 'its just a minor inconvenience' I say, well 4 Months ago it was 'its just a few weeks of lockdown' 'its just fines for folks who don't obey' 'its just a few more weeks' 'just until we get the R rate down' 'just mandatory masks on public transport' 'just mandatory masks in all shops'... Where does it stop? At the start it was flatten the curve. Well how damn flat does it need to be? The goalposts keep moving. The restrictions keep creeping.
Because four months ago people didn't take it seriously and a lot of places got a bunch of people infected. If people were wearing masks, kept a distance of 2 to 3 metres, and kept clean then things would have been better four months ago but they didn't and thus we got the situation we had. Look at the stats for daily new cases:
Stuff's looking really good because measures were implemented (or as you call it: the government restricting your rights) that seemed to have worked. And if things keep going that way then at some point it will be possible to safely ease restrictions. If people don't take it seriously now and start getting lazy about it then the numbers might increase again and you end up needing to implement harsher restrictions again. Look at the curve of the Chech Republic as an example:
After they mandates face coverings the numbers started to fall, and once they lifted restrictions numbers started to rise again (kinda with about a month of delay after policy changes in either direction):
You don't want to relax restrictions when it looks safer but when it looks safe enough. There's a difference. That's why restrictions keep on being extended. People are being idiots and "feel safe enough" because some numbers fall a bit and they think that's all that needed.
And all the while no good news is ever shown on TV. The low infection rate, the low death rate. The fact that the NHS never got anywhere near being overwhelmed, the fact that at peak there were about 4000 people on ventilators, and now there are sub 200. And still no recovered rates, despite being promised by beginning of June, and if anything slightly positive can't avoid being shown, they immediately follow it with the obligatory banging of the 'second wave' drum. Well where is this second wave? We've had at least 4, 5 events that the doomsayers claimed would herald it...
All the good news you listed happened because people were doing their part. Once that stops the good news will start to turn into bad news again and you get a whole cycle of where you need to increase restrictions because people started partying too early.
Reasoning like yours is mind bending. Like an impatient kid who's wants that cookie, eats the too hot cookie, burns their mouth, and then complains that eating cooled cookies now hurts and and how waiting until their mouth heals is a restriction of their rights. Then by the time they are healed, there's a new batch of hot cookies and everything repeats :/
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Xenomancers, are you suggesting that wearing a mask—a slight inconvenience that literally saves lives and helps society control a pandemic—isn’t something decent people do because of societal norms?
It sure looks like it to me. And people who refuse to wear masks are fairly equivalent to people who commit negligent manslaughter or defecate in public, both things decent people don’t do, things are against societal norms.
What absolute nonsense. You clearly dont know what literally means. Masks don't 'save lives.' their usefulness is unclear at best.
And that second part is such a ridiculous analogy, there's nothing else that really needs said on it
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Ah yes, the old 'its not to stop you getting it, it's to stop it if you have it'.. because a piece of old t shirt stretched over your mouth will let virus in, but not out... I see everyone conveniently ignored my pointing out of Spain's new rise in cases, despite masks being mandatory in all public spaces, including outside.
That piece of cloth reduces the range of how far you expelled breath can go quickly. That means infected microdroplets in the air your exhaled have a lower chance of infecting others. It's lowers the chance of infections and can't solve the problem completely. It why you don't cough into people's faces but for breathing in general. It doesn't stop the virus but it slows down its transport layer, so to speak.
Not Online!!! wrote:it's less about the enforcement and more about the principle, which indeed , does set a rather dangerous precedent in behavoural patterns, including a predisposed obedience without room for questioning.
And I'd say that type of reasoning about behavioural patterns and obedience is removed from reality when it comes to wearing simple cloth masks in public. It's not like they are forcing citizens to drag non-mask-wearers off the streets or establish an surveillance state. It's a simple need to help reduce infections. I really wonder how people who worry about that being some governmental scheme even live their regular lives when you consider all the other laws and restrictions that apply every day in civilised society? I imagine that as an adult one can distinguish the difference between the government asking for something simple—like wearing masks—and an actual slide into authoritarianism. And also where one's fundamental ideals in regard to personal freedoms and everybody's (hopefully short term) practical needs intersect when it comes to cloth masks and how that simply shouldn't be a big deal for a functioning adult human being.
But I also wonder why people with that type of conspiratorial adjacent thinking don't jump on the chance to wear a mask? After all they actually help against facial recognition tech. And wouldn't that be useful to actually escape that type of real surveillance tech that's being used in practice? One doesn't even need to imagine something about it in the potential future. Surveillance cameras are actually being used around us in everyday life.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:As for the folks who say 'its just a mask' 'its just a minor inconvenience' I say, well 4 Months ago it was 'its just a few weeks of lockdown' 'its just fines for folks who don't obey' 'its just a few more weeks' 'just until we get the R rate down' 'just mandatory masks on public transport' 'just mandatory masks in all shops'... Where does it stop? At the start it was flatten the curve. Well how damn flat does it need to be? The goalposts keep moving. The restrictions keep creeping.
Because four months ago people didn't take it seriously and a lot of places got a bunch of people infected. If people were wearing masks, kept a distance of 2 to 3 metres, and kept clean then things would have been better four months ago but they didn't and thus we got the situation we had. Look at the stats for daily new cases:
Stuff's looking really good because measures were implemented (or as you call it: the government restricting your rights) that seemed to have worked. And if things keep going that way then at some point it will be possible to safely ease restrictions. If people don't take it seriously now and start getting lazy about it then the numbers might increase again and you end up needing to implement harsher restrictions again. Look at the curve of the Chech Republic as an example:
After they mandates face coverings the numbers started to fall, and once they lifted restrictions numbers started to rise again (kinda with about a month of delay after policy changes in either direction):
You don't want to relax restrictions when it looks safer but when it looks safe enough. There's a difference. That's why restrictions keep on being extended. People are being idiots and "feel safe enough" because some numbers fall a bit and they think that's all that needed.
And all the while no good news is ever shown on TV. The low infection rate, the low death rate. The fact that the NHS never got anywhere near being overwhelmed, the fact that at peak there were about 4000 people on ventilators, and now there are sub 200. And still no recovered rates, despite being promised by beginning of June, and if anything slightly positive can't avoid being shown, they immediately follow it with the obligatory banging of the 'second wave' drum. Well where is this second wave? We've had at least 4, 5 events that the doomsayers claimed would herald it...
All the good news you listed happened because people were doing their part. Once that stops the good news will start to turn into bad news again and you get a whole cycle of where you need to increase restrictions because people started partying too early.
Reasoning like yours is mind bending. Like an impatient kid who's wants that cookie, eats the too hot cookie, burns their mouth, and then complains that eating cooled cookies now hurts and and how waiting until their mouth heals is a restriction of their rights. Then by the time they are healed, there's a new batch of hot cookies and everything repeats :/
We started easing restrictions almost 2 months ago. No increase in cases. Masks were made mandatory in shops 3 days ago. Correlation between mask mandates and case numbers does not prove causation in any way.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, we vote in people to implement these things so we are not required to vote on every single thing.
So we voted in people who instigated this thing soooo, yes we did have a say.
Not Online!!! wrote:it's less about the enforcement and more about the principle, which indeed , does set a rather dangerous precedent in behavoural patterns, including a predisposed obedience without room for questioning.
And I'd say that type of reasoning about behavioural patterns and obedience is removed from reality when it comes to wearing simple cloth masks in public. It's not like they are forcing citizens to drag non-mask-wearers off the streets or establish an surveillance state. It's a simple need to help reduce infections. I really wonder how people who worry about that being some governmental scheme even live their regular lives when you consider all the other laws and restrictions that apply every day in civilised society? I imagine that as an adult one can distinguish the difference between the government asking for something simple—like wearing masks—and an actual slide into authoritarianism. And also where one's fundamental ideals in regard to personal freedoms and everybody's (hopefully short term) practical needs intersect when it comes to cloth masks and how that simply shouldn't be a big deal for a functioning adult human being.
But I also wonder why people with that type of conspiratorial adjacent thinking don't jump on the chance to wear a mask? After all they actually help against facial recognition tech. And wouldn't that be useful to actually escape that type of real surveillance tech that's being used in practice? One doesn't even need to imagine something about it in the potential future. Surveillance cameras are actually being used around us in everyday life.
I will ignore the rather condesecending tone and chalk up the rather instantanious skip from General scepticism of government to instantly
putting people into the conspiracysphere on cultural difference.
News Flash: there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is. These put the onus into the capability of their citizens to Act themselves and the lower regional Levels.
The only question then is the question of legitimate implementation respectively if the Central authorithy has a right to Act at that instance and that entirely depends how entrenched that specific culture is and how the decision process worked and therefore was legitimate enough in it's execution. And nothing, absolutely nothing with conspiracy nutjobery.
Easy E wrote: This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.
QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?
And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no. Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.
LoL, the GOVT tells you what to do all the time. cant urinate or defecate in public places, cant go around naked, cant drive without aa license, can t do X, cant do Y. Its a poor excuse and your know it.
"
No the government tells me what I must not do, in order that I don't violate the natural rights of another, or break any social contracts. They are not there to tell me what I MUST do.
No its not, by not wearing a mask, when its known you can be a carrier with not symptoms and still transmit, you are violating the rights of another person tooo.....live. People should wear masks because its the right thing to do for your fellow countryman, anything else is beyond selfish, its "feth you, got mine
skyth wrote: Just remember that the government telling you you must wear clothes in public or that you have to stop at a stop sign is a huge government overreach
Quite sure that the government generally doesn't have to Step in when local people solve the issue themselves.
No I'm not. We don't just assume everyone is a biohazard. In a pandemic, the sick are quarantined. The healthy are not. Regardless of whether asymptomatic carriers are a possobility. By that logic, anyone with who goes out with a cold or the flu should be required to mask too, lest they violate someones rights. which I wouldn't be at all surprised if that were to be an outcome of this bs. Grotty face masks in public: the new normal.
Being an unknowing asymptomatic carrier and infecting someone else, while unfortunate, is not you violating their rights. Violations occur through malice or negligence, that being knowing acts of the person. Anything else is an accident.
It is though, you are violating their right to go out and be safe and be healthy
It is again just like drunk driving, you are, with your gakky, selfish decision, putting other people in danger because you dont want to inconvenience your own damnself
I'm fairly sure I've already covered why that analogy is rubbish, but hey ho.. drunk driving is a conscious decision..you are both negligent and malicious when doing so.
Going out while being an asymptomatic carrier is neither of those things.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm fairly sure I've already covered why that analogy is rubbish, but hey ho.. drunk driving is a conscious decision..you are both negligent and malicious when doing so.
Going out while being an asymptomatic carrier is neither of those things.
Depends, if you are knowingly doing it then yes even if you are asympthomatic you still are responsible, if not then , have you taken the necessary prcaussions ?
That is the question legally.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm fairly sure I've already covered why that analogy is rubbish, but hey ho.. drunk driving is a conscious decision..you are both negligent and malicious when doing so.
Going out while being an asymptomatic carrier is neither of those things.
Yes it is, if you know that there is a possibility you have it(which is all of us, we can all have it and not know), and have not done the necessary precautions, you are violating someone's rights.
Wear a mask, it isn't hard to do.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm fairly sure I've already covered why that analogy is rubbish, but hey ho.. drunk driving is a conscious decision..you are both negligent and malicious when doing so.
Going out while being an asymptomatic carrier is neither of those things.
Yes it is, if you know that there is a possibility you have it(which is all of us, we can all have it and not know), and have not done the necessary precautions, you are violating someone's rights.
Wear a mask, it isn't hard to do.
We could also (statistically more likely seeing as 99.95% of the UK population doesn't have it..) not have it..
What does it's difficulty have to do with anything?
For something to be a violation, a person has to consciously and knowingly perform an action. If they don't know they have the virus, they can't knowingly violate someone else's rights.
Again that is not as clear in the Face of the issue beeing dependant upon responsibility meaning that you can get your backside validly handed to you for neglect
The logical end point of that does not allow the premise to stand, unless of course you're going to mandate everyone masking up to stop the flu next winter, which I an now no longer loathe to put past this sham of a government.
The degree to which the disease is lethal or not is irrelevant.
You are still potentially violating someone's right to be 'safe and healthy' by your own definition.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The degree to which the disease is lethal or not is irrelevant.
You are still potentially violating someone's right to be 'safe and healthy' by your own definition.
Indeed. And we definitely haven't applied it correctly here.
By the by. There's not much I can do. My government has taken us on this course, shambolic as it has been. They have used a sledgehammer to crack the coronavirus nut, and continue to bludgeon it despite a scalpel now clearly being required.
For the scalpel to be used you'd need to understand the anatomy first though meaning track and trace as disgusting as that Pill is aswell as testing Rates including high Risk workers to be Testes mandatorily, etc would lend itself to such an approach.
Comparatively to that mandatory Mask wearing is however harmless.
The Czech Republic is a case study on the effect of practical use of masks. That is, the mask use since the mandate included face coverings that were available when masks weren't (eg. DIY cloth masks, scarves), as well as mask use that may have been less than ideal, as well as not everyone in the population wearing a mask. The mandate was from mid-March thorugh late May, about four months. After the mandate was lifted, cases rose again, and the mandate will be reinstated. AFAIK, CR has made no other changes.
"Through March, April and most of May, only a small minority, perhaps 10-15%, could be seen without face coverings in the streets of Prague. Within two weeks of the government’s mandatory face mask order in mid-March, the daily number of new coronavirus cases dropped throughout the Czech Republic. In Prague, which had been the initial epicenter of the country’s virus outbreak, daily new infections fell into the double digits (and often the single digits) in April. .. None of the other emergency measures adopted by the Czech government at the outset of the crisis — stay-at-home orders, business lockdowns, border closures and recommendations that citizens practice social distancing — had anywhere near the impact of the face mask requirement. .. Even the coronavirus testing and contact tracing efforts here were lackluster."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/czech-republic-has-lifesaving-covid-19-lesson-for-america-wear-a-face-mask/ar-BB16IauB
"Starting at midnight on July 25, Czechs are again obliged to wear masks at indoor events with more than 100 people across the country, according to the new emergency anit-coronavirus (COVID-19) measures introduced by the health ministry on July 23. The number of daily new cases in the Czech Republic exceeded 200 last week. There are now more than 5,000 active cases of coronavirus for the first time since the pandemic started. ... “We will not introduce any measures that would restrict the economy or the free movement of people,” he stressed. "
https://www.intellinews.com/czech-republic-introduced-new-emergency-anti-covid-measures-188263/
Easy E wrote: This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.
QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?
And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.
LoL, the GOVT tells you what to do all the time. cant urinate or defecate in public places, cant go around naked, cant drive without aa license, can t do X, cant do Y.
Its a poor excuse and your know it.
Yeah I think you are missing the point here.
No, we aren't. They are complaining about the government mandating things. The Government mandates a lot of things they can and cannot do. Do not try to dumb this down with bad arguments.
I see the problem now! This is why we need Mandatory Medical Training. Because that training states that everyone is a biohazard, there is no possible way of knowing what another person has or does not have, play it safe. It is really not a hard concept and it is universally used by, as far as I know, every healthcare professional in the world.
Well that is another page of wasted discussion. Seriously guys, QAR is not arguing in good faith, ignore and move on to members who want to talk with you and not at you. The logic and science has been explained repeatedly, QAR refuses it for reasons we all know are political. That behavior is what led to politics being banned and I would really hate to see this thread go the same way for the same reason.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well that is another page of wasted discussion. Seriously guys, QAR is not arguing in good faith, ignore and move on to members who want to talk with you and not at you. The logic and science has been explained repeatedly, QAR refuses it for reasons we all know are political. That behavior is what led to politics being banned and I would really hate to see this thread go the same way for the same reason.
Quoted for truth.
To be honest, as far as conspiracy theories go I am less likely to believe that 'totalitarian' EU governments are rubbing their hands together with glee that their scheme to make people wear masks increased their power by 21,4%. What I find more likely (still in the absurd conspiracy theory category ofc ) is that there are groups interested in spreading harmful nonsense and misinformation to help the virus spread and kill as many people as possible. Apocalyptic religious death cults, radical eco-terrorists, great culling advocates - we know such freaks exist for real, so why not on the internet, why not on this site?
(on a side note, as a person born in Poland in 1979 I find quite a few things some of you - spoiled westerners - call communist or authoritarian or totalitarian, pretty laughable )
I’d also question exactly how long people are wearing their masks for,
Me? Well, I’m working from home, so most of the day it’s just me, in front of my screen [strike]posting on Dakka and watching YouTube[/strike] getting on with my job.
I’ll usually nip round to Sainsbury’s (a five minute walk) every other day to get munchies and drinkies. I’ll be in the shop maybe 20 or so minutes.
As I have my own car, I’m not reliant on public transport at all, so there’s no need for a mask there (unless I’m giving someone a lift, in which case I’ll happily mask up)
My tattoo last Saturday (it’s a Quintesson, but with different Beavis faces, it’s called The Three Faces of Stupid)? Yep, was masked up for the duration, which was around four hours. And that’s the longest I’ve worn one.
So any discomfort (I can breathe just fine, but it is nice to get it off when I’m home) is minimal.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’d also question exactly how long people are wearing their masks for,
Me? Well, I’m working from home, so most of the day it’s just me, in front of my screen [strike]posting on Dakka and watching YouTube[/strike] getting on with my job.
When I'm out, I wear it when going into a building, until I'm out. If I'm between buildings, and the walk is short, it stays on.
If I'm at my desk, it comes off when there's no-one about.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well that is another page of wasted discussion. Seriously guys, QAR is not arguing in good faith, ignore and move on to members who want to talk with you and not at you. The logic and science has been explained repeatedly, QAR refuses it for reasons we all know are political. That behavior is what led to politics being banned and I would really hate to see this thread go the same way for the same reason.
it may surprise you to learn that someone disagreeing with you is not the same as arguing in bad faith. I've laid out the logic behind my argument, and that handy little quip doesn't allow you to just dismiss me simply because I am able to back up that logic in the face of your replies, which generally just consist of 'no' and offer no genuine refutation.
It's also somewhat ironic that you accuse me of arguing in bad faith, whilst being happy to partake of ad hominem, and appealing to the majority in an attempt to have my opinions essentially 'no platformed' in this very post.
but I guess if you cant handle someone presenting a dissenting idea, then yes, by your flawed definition you have wasted your discussion. also, you mispelled 'only talk with users who agree with you'
What I don't get ... even if I thought that masks fulfilled no purpose (I don't think that's the case, but just for the sake of argument) I would understand that not wearing one when indoors would cause consternation to other people.
So, I would wear it just out of sense of common courtesy.
I would view it in the same way as not chatting or looking at my phone in a cinema, not taking photos in a tourist hot-spot cathedral because a sign asked me not to, being polite to the call centre guy who is calling me to sell car insurance even though I don't need it.
There are things we do just out of having manners, being a gentleman or whatever you call it, that allow societies of people to function without it descending into loss of civility.
For me, it's not just an ignorance around information of the use of masks, it's respect for other people (especially in this case - as they could actually save someone else's life) and I think not doing it says a lot about you as a person.
Well for QAR it's just that only thing in the world matters is what is good for HIM. He's the kind that if he gains even little he would sacrifice millions of lives.
He doesn't want to take even slight inconvenience as it's inconveniencing HIM.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’d also question exactly how long people are wearing their masks for,
I work at an automotive dealership, so basically, when i'm on the clock I'm wearing one. . . . Really, theres only 2 main discomforts: my ears where the little straps go, and the combination heat/humidity of my breath being slowed by the mask. The thing that really grinds my gears at work (and those of my department mates), is when someone who spends 95% of their day in a room with AC so cold that they are wearing jackets comes over to my department (we're one of the only ones in the entire 3 dealership company without AC) complaining about how hot the masks are.
For the ear thing, have you seen what I can only term "ear savers." (I'm sure they have a proper name.)
They're basically a strap with a hook at each end, they go around the back of your head and you attach the mask to the hooks, rather than your ears, keeping the mask secure but taking the pressure of your ears. IIRC people were making them at home out of plastic milk bottles in the early days for the NHS over here, there were pictures everywhere.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’d also question exactly how long people are wearing their masks for,
I work alternate weeks in the office and at home. Masks are mandatory in the office, so I wear it continuously from 9 to 5.30 aside from when I'm eating my lunch.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Really, theres only 2 main discomforts: my ears where the little straps go
If you don't know someone who can printout the ear savers listed below, send me a PM, I think I have a little bit of PetG left and can run off a few more and mail you them. I must have printed a thousand of those by now to donate out around here.
Barring that, you can substitute out a large safety pin if your straps are long enough.
I work at an automotive dealership, so basically, when i'm on the clock I'm wearing one. . . . Really, theres only 2 main discomforts: my ears where the little straps go, and the combination heat/humidity of my breath being slowed by the mask. The thing that really grinds my gears at work (and those of my department mates), is when someone who spends 95% of their day in a room with AC so cold that they are wearing jackets comes over to my department (we're one of the only ones in the entire 3 dealership company without AC) complaining about how hot the masks are.
Have you looked into the masks that are made for athletic use? That might help with the heat/breathing aspect.
For the ear straps, I've seen some people wearing masks that use a big velcro strap going around the back of the head. I don't know how comfortable that might be, though.
Haven't had issues with the ears myself, even wearing a mask for multiple hours during work. The heat/humidity is bothersome though, and how my breath gets funneled onto my eyes if I haven't adjusted it right. But I figure part of living is putting up with annoyances and masks are pretty minor.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, now I’ve read about that guy who lost most of his fingers to Covid-19.
Yeah, I’m not treating like t’s just the flu.
Well it is a respiratory virus so it makes perfect sense that it would cause you to lose fingers...There are credible studies that show in rare cases Covid can cause an increased risk of stroke. First time I'm hearing about appendage losses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Haven't had issues with the ears myself, even wearing a mask for multiple hours during work. The heat/humidity is bothersome though, and how my breath gets funneled onto my eyes if I haven't adjusted it right. But I figure part of living is putting up with annoyances and masks are pretty minor.
You get used to wearing it. I have no issue wearing it. I am more concerned about mental health. Distancing / fearing of contact /' covering of faces. This is all bound to cause an already stressed population to deteriorate in mental health. It is very hard to collect data on this too but it can not be ignored.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Well for QAR it's just that only thing in the world matters is what is good for HIM. He's the kind that if he gains even little he would sacrifice millions of lives.
He doesn't want to take even slight inconvenience as it's inconveniencing HIM.
That is an insane accusation. A person wanting to walk freely in public without covering their face is not a selfish act - it is in fact quite normal and has been normal the entirety of human history - unless it was part of some kind of religious requirement (I bet you disagree with that one too). What good do you think it does to shame a person in this way anyways?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, now I’ve read about that guy who lost most of his fingers to Covid-19.
Yeah, I’m not treating like t’s just the flu.
Well it is a respiratory virus so it makes perfect sense that it would cause you to lose fingers...There are credible studies that show in rare cases Covid can cause an increased risk of stroke. First time I'm hearing about appendage losses.
Blood clots are why, it can cause numerous blood clots.
No clear reason why it causes blood clots yet, but its known it does, which can lead to amputation.
Pacific wrote: What I don't get ... even if I thought that masks fulfilled no purpose (I don't think that's the case, but just for the sake of argument) I would understand that not wearing one when indoors would cause consternation to other people.
So, I would wear it just out of sense of common courtesy.
I would view it in the same way as not chatting or looking at my phone in a cinema, not taking photos in a tourist hot-spot cathedral because a sign asked me not to, being polite to the call centre guy who is calling me to sell car insurance even though I don't need it.
There are things we do just out of having manners, being a gentleman or whatever you call it, that allow societies of people to function without it descending into loss of civility.
For me, it's not just an ignorance around information of the use of masks, it's respect for other people (especially in this case - as they could actually save someone else's life) and I think not doing it says a lot about you as a person.
The problem is that a lot of people don't use them correctly or even where they do they don't act in a responsible way. Being pushed past very closely by those wearing masks etc. The risk is that masks and face coverings make people think they are immune and act inappropriately (the UK promotes this position by allowing closer contact with people) and it is madness. The benefit from face coverings come from less particles being transmitted directly in front of that person by 90%. That is 10% of particles (which is still a lot leaking out) and yet we don't know what viral load is needed to be infected. In addition they generate significant jets to the side and rear. See this research:- https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.10720.pdf for example in the conclusion:-
"Conversely, surgical and hand-made masks, and face shields, generate significant leakage jets that have the potential to disperse virus-laden fluid particles by several metres. The different nature of the masks and shields makes the direction of these jets difficult to be predicted, but the directionality of these jets should be a main design consideration for these covers. They all showed an intense backward jet for heavy breathing and coughing conditions. It is important to be aware of this jet, to avoid a false sense of security that may arise when standing to the side of, or behind, a person wearing a surgical, or handmade mask, or shield. For example, if some wearers of surgical masks turn their face to the side when they cough, there is a risk that this side or backward jet is directed closer to a person standing in front of the wearer".
There is even more scary stuff that these may then hit thermal plumes from the body and then lifted back to face height etc. As such reducing social distancing on the basis that masks are the answer is a recipe for the virus to spread even though those masks are being worn because of the psychology of feeling safe. That's not an argument against them but more an argument that they aren't some magic safety net that they are advertised as. Yes there is some anecdotal evidence (e.g. the Prague articles above) but it is difficult to attribute the impact from one such instance and risks misidentifying "cause and effect" (for example the weather might have changed to very hot and dry etc etc). That is why large scale statistical samples need to be taken. Without these then it is easy to point to such an event as the 'cure' but without recognising other factors and then we all stand around wondering why cases are suddenly escalating again as they are doing again in most European countries including the UK (at differing rates). To be honest I'd prefer someone to not wear a mask and stay at least 2m away than have some push past with a mask on (and hence why I recommend avoiding shops and areas where people congregate as much as possible).
Easy E wrote: This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.
QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?
And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.
Edit- Never mind. It is not worth it. It is like discussing RAW vs. RAI. There are no winners. Only losers.
Easy E wrote: This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.
QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?
And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.
Are you opposed to the Government using Dept of Health to force hand washing of employees in the food industry?
I for one am sick of the lack of anarchy, and Polio in this country.
Not Online!!! wrote:I will ignore the rather condesecending tone and chalk up the rather instantanious skip from General scepticism of government to instantly
putting people into the conspiracysphere on cultural difference.
News Flash: there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is. These put the onus into the capability of their citizens to Act themselves and the lower regional Levels.
The only question then is the question of legitimate implementation respectively if the Central authorithy has a right to Act at that instance and that entirely depends how entrenched that specific culture is and how the decision process worked and therefore was legitimate enough in it's execution. And nothing, absolutely nothing with conspiracy nutjobery.
I know that different cultures have different levels of comfort when it comes government authority but one has to be cognisant of what the government is actually asking for (masks). I'd think some degree of proportionality should considered when it comes to one's skepticism instead of absolute scepticism of everything. If one literally has a knee jerk reaction about every government action without evaluating its worth (the "REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is" bit) then it does feel on the conspiratorial side of the spectrum to me.
How do people who are so sceptical of the government and simple cloth masks feel about traffic laws? Do people fight those all the time on principle (those are usually set above the local level) or have they evaluated their worth and identified them as an acceptable trade-off between individual freedom and central control? If one can do that with traffic laws—and be at peace—then one should be able to consider that the government asking for masks while the pandemic is partying it up is also a worthy tradeoff for now.
Or is this simply about the process? Sceptical if the central government does it but okay if done on a lower level and then (automatically) okay?
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Ah yes, the old 'its not to stop you getting it, it's to stop it if you have it'.. because a piece of old t shirt stretched over your mouth will let virus in, but not out... I see everyone conveniently ignored my pointing out of Spain's new rise in cases, despite masks being mandatory in all public spaces, including outside.
That piece of cloth reduces the range of how far you expelled breath can go quickly. That means infected microdroplets in the air your exhaled have a lower chance of infecting others. It's lowers the chance of infections and can't solve the problem completely. It why you don't cough into people's faces but for breathing in general. It doesn't stop the virus but it slows down its transport layer, so to speak.
Not Online!!! wrote:it's less about the enforcement and more about the principle, which indeed , does set a rather dangerous precedent in behavoural patterns, including a predisposed obedience without room for questioning.
And I'd say that type of reasoning about behavioural patterns and obedience is removed from reality when it comes to wearing simple cloth masks in public. It's not like they are forcing citizens to drag non-mask-wearers off the streets or establish an surveillance state. It's a simple need to help reduce infections. I really wonder how people who worry about that being some governmental scheme even live their regular lives when you consider all the other laws and restrictions that apply every day in civilised society? I imagine that as an adult one can distinguish the difference between the government asking for something simple—like wearing masks—and an actual slide into authoritarianism. And also where one's fundamental ideals in regard to personal freedoms and everybody's (hopefully short term) practical needs intersect when it comes to cloth masks and how that simply shouldn't be a big deal for a functioning adult human being.
But I also wonder why people with that type of conspiratorial adjacent thinking don't jump on the chance to wear a mask? After all they actually help against facial recognition tech. And wouldn't that be useful to actually escape that type of real surveillance tech that's being used in practice? One doesn't even need to imagine something about it in the potential future. Surveillance cameras are actually being used around us in everyday life.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:As for the folks who say 'its just a mask' 'its just a minor inconvenience' I say, well 4 Months ago it was 'its just a few weeks of lockdown' 'its just fines for folks who don't obey' 'its just a few more weeks' 'just until we get the R rate down' 'just mandatory masks on public transport' 'just mandatory masks in all shops'... Where does it stop? At the start it was flatten the curve. Well how damn flat does it need to be? The goalposts keep moving. The restrictions keep creeping.
Because four months ago people didn't take it seriously and a lot of places got a bunch of people infected. If people were wearing masks, kept a distance of 2 to 3 metres, and kept clean then things would have been better four months ago but they didn't and thus we got the situation we had. Look at the stats for daily new cases:
Stuff's looking really good because measures were implemented (or as you call it: the government restricting your rights) that seemed to have worked. And if things keep going that way then at some point it will be possible to safely ease restrictions. If people don't take it seriously now and start getting lazy about it then the numbers might increase again and you end up needing to implement harsher restrictions again. Look at the curve of the Chech Republic as an example:
After they mandates face coverings the numbers started to fall, and once they lifted restrictions numbers started to rise again (kinda with about a month of delay after policy changes in either direction):
You don't want to relax restrictions when it looks safer but when it looks safe enough. There's a difference. That's why restrictions keep on being extended. People are being idiots and "feel safe enough" because some numbers fall a bit and they think that's all that needed.
And all the while no good news is ever shown on TV. The low infection rate, the low death rate. The fact that the NHS never got anywhere near being overwhelmed, the fact that at peak there were about 4000 people on ventilators, and now there are sub 200. And still no recovered rates, despite being promised by beginning of June, and if anything slightly positive can't avoid being shown, they immediately follow it with the obligatory banging of the 'second wave' drum. Well where is this second wave? We've had at least 4, 5 events that the doomsayers claimed would herald it...
All the good news you listed happened because people were doing their part. Once that stops the good news will start to turn into bad news again and you get a whole cycle of where you need to increase restrictions because people started partying too early.
Reasoning like yours is mind bending. Like an impatient kid who's wants that cookie, eats the too hot cookie, burns their mouth, and then complains that eating cooled cookies now hurts and and how waiting until their mouth heals is a restriction of their rights. Then by the time they are healed, there's a new batch of hot cookies and everything repeats :/
We started easing restrictions almost 2 months ago. No increase in cases. Masks were made mandatory in shops 3 days ago. Correlation between mask mandates and case numbers does not prove causation in any way.
What restriction were eased two months ago? I don't know how the UK has been handling things. I remember being surprised when somebody from the UK mentioned some changes a while back but I can't remember any details about that.
I would actually be cross with my government if they did not mandate masks--that sort of public-health regulation is exactly what I voted them into office for. If they aren't going to do that, to me they are not doing their jobs. And I AM cross with the White House for its worse-than-inaction for so long on the matter. The situation in the US is undoubtedly far worse than it needed to be, and there are a whole lot of people dead because of it. Hopefully it will be taken as a wake up call and in the future the US will be better prepared to deal with a pandemic.
Not Online!!! wrote:I will ignore the rather condesecending tone and chalk up the rather instantanious skip from General scepticism of government to instantly
putting people into the conspiracysphere on cultural difference.
News Flash: there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is. These put the onus into the capability of their citizens to Act themselves and the lower regional Levels.
The only question then is the question of legitimate implementation respectively if the Central authorithy has a right to Act at that instance and that entirely depends how entrenched that specific culture is and how the decision process worked and therefore was legitimate enough in it's execution. And nothing, absolutely nothing with conspiracy nutjobery.
I know that different cultures have different levels of comfort when it comes government authority but one has to be cognisant of what the government is actually asking for (masks). I'd think some degree of proportionality should considered when it comes to one's skepticism instead of absolute scepticism of everything. If one literally has a knee jerk reaction about every government action without evaluating its worth (the "REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is" bit) then it does feel on the conspiratorial side of the spectrum to me.
Ohh boi, so therefore we swiss are all conspirational nutjobs, because you know, there's a little thing called federalism and subsidiarity, local government local solutions, local law enforcement, local baseline add ons to laws to specifically handle law due to local circumstance. We did so since , well some 700 years, and we don't like someone sitting in bern telling me in Schwyz how i have to run my police,or my firemen, or my building restrictions beyond the most basic baseline, which is only made into legal federal law through extensive voting and compromissial effort.
Emergency state bypasses that, there's just an issue, the process to even form a cohesive federal state is dependant upon this decision making process, else there is a nasty habit called unrest. Which is incidentally why the federal government has massively avoided to interfere with Kantons and is even restricted to it's core competencies by the constitution.
How do people who are so sceptical of the government and simple cloth masks feel about traffic laws? Do people fight those all the time on principle (those are usually set above the local level) or have they evaluated their worth and identified them as an acceptable trade-off between individual freedom and central control? If one can do that with traffic laws—and be at peace—then one should be able to consider that the government asking for masks while the pandemic is partying it up is also a worthy tradeoff for now.
Traffic law is dependant on type of street or infrastructure for us, some beeing the realm of the federal goernment most the realm of Kantons, which organise often seperately from the federal government on baselines and cooperations between Cantons.
And yes, people fight those all the time, locally, in democratic processes with votes on policy making, ranging from Municipal level to kanton to Federal Central government.
Sharing the power is necessary for the stability of my Country, the more local adminstrations can handle the less issues you get .
Or is this simply about the process? Sceptical if the central government does it but okay if done on a lower level and then (automatically) okay?
Process and legitimisation via democratic process, OR if handled technocratically, ergo this crisis, then via as local level as possible in order to avoid upsetting certain Kantons and their population.
There's nothing conspirational the scepticism torwards central authorithy if it takes actions bypassing the process of legitimisation over here, as it would do would the central government declare mandatory mask duty overall.
.... 
