Lurker > adjl

Reigning_King posted...

I literally bolded the word houses, how did you guys miss that? Giving a homeless person a house doesn't make them suddenly no longer homeless, it just makes them a homeless person with a house.

If somebody has a permanent (until they decide to leave) place to live, that is a home. They're still going to be poor, if that's what you're trying to say, but by definition they stop being homeless when they have a place to call home.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I wouldn't say it's cheating if you genuinely couldn't tell the difference. You believed you were having sex with your girlfriend; the deception is on her twin. Arguably, you should have been able to tell the difference, since identical twins are only identical in appearance, but a credible deception.

Heck, if anything, the twin actually raped you. That's certainly not something you should be blamed for.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Muscles posted...

Fuck snitches

Are you literally 12?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

agesboy posted...

and in general i feel like i've burnt out on most interesting things i'd want to do in the game and i'm still in my first year

Not having played PoOT (... heh), I found this about the first SoS game as well. I think I made it past the first year, but not by much. It didn't take very long to have all the makers I needed to churn out gold linen full-time and completely obviate any other money-making efforts, then nobody was interesting enough for me to feel motivated to wait until I could marry anyone. Having recently come off of RF4, where I played for pretty much a full in-game year before ever seeing any repeated random dialogue (and even then, random events with unique dialogue abounded), seeing repeated dialogue within a week felt very underwhelming.

I liked the variety of farm buildings I could have had, but unlocking so many of them just consisted of playing until a certain point, and I wasn't engaged enough to wait that long.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

wwinterj25 posted...

New User User Since: Jul 2021

Yeah as you're posting here and I'm better than you. You know it's true. Fall in line and know folk will do whatever they want without your pathetic internet shitposting.

It's so cute when kids try karma flexing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Far-Queue posted...

Yeah covid had a definite impact, both positive and negative. Positive in that a lot of people weren't spending and were able to save for a home and now they're ready to buy, and a lot of what's happening now is due to the fact that there's so few new houses being built, and there's such a high demand that when houses go to market there's literally bidding wars for them because there's such little inventory.

I think WFH has also played a large role in that. Not having to live near work has opened up the option of moving for a ton of people, who are moving to places with no regard for the local job market (since they already have a job they'll be doing remotely), many of which were not previously in high demand and therefore didn't have much housing supply already available. That spike in demand in areas with little surplus housing stock coupled with a labour shortage and inflated material prices (both consequences of Covid) has left housing supply scrambling to catch up.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

why should taxes go to rehab centers? they didn't force people to become junkies

Because rehabbing a given junkie is cheaper in the long run than cleaning up after/prosecuting them indefinitely.

You really need to spend less time thinking about whether or not people "deserve" to have government money spent on them and more time considering what actually helps society. Thinking in terms of what people "deserve" rarely accomplishes anything of value.

Reigning_King posted...

It's wild that people think making homelessness more attractive and easier to deal with, to the point of not just giving out free food and stuff but free houses will somehow decrease the number of the homeless instead of the opposite.

Giving homes to homeless people axiomatically decreases the number of homeless people. Even if you want to ignore everything about whatever costs or benefits such a program might offer, that is inescapably what the words mean.

More broadly, having reliable, permanent housing makes it significantly easier for homeless people to get their lives in order and become productive members of society. Simply having reliable access to a shower, laundry, and the ability to store more than one outfit makes it possible to actually find work (as much as every business has "Help Wanted" signs up, I can pretty much guarantee they wouldn't just hire any random homeless person that walked in off the street). Having a fridge means it's possible to store perishable food instead of having to buy every meal individually. It becomes possible to actually store possessions, so there's some incentive to make enough money to have some disposable income (and, in turn, to make enough to upgrade to a less-barebones place), giving motivation to work beyond staving off starvation.

It's far from being a perfect fix, which is why cities that have implemented such programs include further supports once the person is housed (notably, mental health and rehab services) to solve whatever underlying problems led to their homelessness in the first place, but those programs are a whole lot more effective when you have the QoL baseline of being housed to support them (again, it's awfully hard to treat an anxiety disorder in a person that has to stress about where to sleep every night).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Johnny Eagle posted...

.....that's a "high-risk behavior"?

When you're dealing with a virus that lives in mucous membranes, applying the mucous from those membranes to a public surface is a high-risk behaviour, yes. Off-hand, I don't know that any case transmissions have been conclusively linked to public tooth brushing, and toothpaste does have inherent anti-viral properties (mostly those that are inherent in any soap/detergent, especially when it comes to enveloped viruses) that will mitigate that risk to some extent or another, but intuitively, it doesn't seem like a great idea.

Again, that becomes less of an issue if the overall risk is lower.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

Ive literally never seen any shit on any streets in this state. Why are you all so obsessed with the idea of poop being everywhere that you dont like? Anyone that lives on CA can refute that nonsense. Its a bunch of regular ass people just going about their business and working their jobs mostly. Same as anywhere, just more crowded.

Indeed. The fearmongering around street-poop is really rather ridiculous. It happens, certainly, and it's very unpleasant when it does, but I can all but guarantee you see orders of magnitude more neglected dog poop than human poop in any of these areas.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Good thing it's not taken to any extreme, it's taken one step away from the fatal action, in line with making death threats illegal.

Arresting people because they "might" commit a crime (or at least creating laws to make it criminal to be in a position where one might commit an actual crime, which is basically the same thing) is very much an extreme, regardless of how that actually manifests. "Pre-crime" is a thing, and introducing measures that help prevent it from becoming actual crime can be a good idea (depending on the measures), but outright making it illegal is actually pretty dystopian.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Asking people to have s*** on their streets and their homes devalued by free housing. That is a sacrifice necessary to refusing to deal with the homeless setting up shop outside their homes.

Why are you treating this as though there's no middle ground between "let the homeless poop wherever they want" and "arrest people for being homeless within city limits"? These "sacrifices" you're talking about are very much the worst case scenario, not something that is inevitable unless the homeless "menace" is completely flushed out.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

All houses are housing, when people have a very cheap basic option, it drags down the value of all general housing outside luxury properties like summer homes and mansions. The vast majority of people live in normal housing.

Nice theory. Shall we look at how it holds up?

https://blog.remax.ca/strong-gains-reported-in-medicine-hat-real-estate-market/
https://globalnews.ca/news/7914660/medicine-hat-alberta-homelessness/

Medicine Hat is a city that has a housing-first program in place, one which was started about a decade ago and has proven robust enough to completely eliminate chronic homelessness. Looks like their property values are doing just fine, including some very robust growth in apartments (which is the sector that can be expected to be most affected by apartments being given away). How interesting.

Are they growing as explosively as some other Canadian cities? I doubt it (I can't actually be bothered to check), but given that such explosive growth is fuelling crisis levels of homelessness elsewhere and really only stands to benefit a relatively small number of people that already have the capital to take advantage of it (read: people that really can't claim that they need significant amounts of additional money), I'm not too broken up about that. The bottom line, however, is that property values are generally going up, not down, so the whole negative equity problem you've pinned your entire position on kinda falls apart.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

everybody has increased tax to cover the subsidy

Actually, Medicine Hat saved money with this program. It was costing them 2-3 times more per homeless person to police and otherwise manage them while homeless than it is costing to house and support them. There was no need to increase taxes at all, as crazy as that seems.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Normally, no, but I wouldn't do it during Covid unless your local case numbers and vaccination rates are looking good enough that nobody has any reason to be concerned about such high-risk behaviours as spitting in a public sink.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

What? When you don't regulate your social media platform to keep violent extremists from using it to share violent extremism, violent extremists use it to share violent extremism? Who could ever have seen this coming?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

This is clearly a non-harmful restraint

Depends entirely how much the cop weighs. Compression asphyxia is a thing, after all.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

CarefreeDude posted...

I don't have an answer to the homeless problem but I feel a proper program that is able to tend to the individual needs of homeless and get them back in track would be a good start. Although even that solutions comes with lots of questionable human rights actions.

That is basically what Medicine Hat has done. They start by getting permanent shelter for people, since not having that is a huge barrier to solving whatever other problems they've got (it's awfully difficult to treat anxiety, for example, in a person whose primary stressor is not knowing if they'll be arrested or assaulted for where they choose to sleep that night), but from there they provide other resources to help with their individual needs, whether that's addictions therapy, mental health care, or even just help with financial management, and continue to follow up with them even after they graduate from the program. It's a very involved process, but it's managed to completely eliminate chronic homelessness.

Bonus points where - and I really can't stress this enough - they've saved money by doing it. Policing homeless people is really very expensive, while housing them is much cheaper than people seem to realize.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ArvTheGreat posted...

what kinda health concern is it Arvs not buying the mental part because this is what shes been training for all her life

A huge part of gymnastics training is learning where your body is in space and how to keep track of that, even while spinning rapidly in multiple axes (since vision is largely useless for that). Every now and then, though, for reasons nobody completely understand (but it seems to be more common under stress), the brain will just lose that ability (commonly called "the twisties" among gymnasts and divers), reverting to its pre-training state and sometimes requiring months or years of training to recover it. Naturally, this can be extremely dangerous, because not being able to keep track of how much spinning you've done can make the difference between landing on your feet and landing on your head. There are many gymnasts throughout history that have tried to power through twisties, usually for a major competition, and ended up paralyzed for life (which, in several of those cases, meant ~6-10 more minutes after the landing).

In Biles' case, she was 1.5 spins through a 2.5-spin trick she was practicing, and she suddenly lost all sense of where the ground was. She managed to land it safely, but rather than pushing herself to compete in the Olympics (which involves many demanding jumps that would be extremely dangerous to attempt while so impaired), she opted to withdraw for safety's sake.

Ultimately, this should be seen as an injury that's keeping her from being able to compete safely. It's a mental injury, which means it's a lot harder to understand than a physical one, but she should be receiving no more backlash than if she decided not to compete after breaking her leg.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

I guess you are fine with junkies shooting up in your neighborhood and leaving their paraphernalia around then.

I'd prefer them to be shooting up in supervised injection sites with clean needles and readily-available medical help to prevent them from dying of overdoses, or better yet not shooting up at all because they've had access to rehab services and are living in sufficient comfort that they don't feel the need to rely on drugs to not be constantly miserable, but if we're ruling out those options (which most people seem to want to, for some strange reason), I would indeed rather see them shooting up on the streets instead of being thrown in jail. Obviously, I don't like seeing that, but because I'm a decent person, I don't demand that people be thrown in jail purely because I don't want to see them.

Note, however, that ~37% of drug arrests are for marijuana possession*. Generally speaking, people don't "shoot up" with pot, nor does pot use leave behind an appreciable amount of paraphernalia (at worst, you get some litter in the form of baggies or butts, and those are a drop in the ocean as far as general plastic litter and cigarette butts go), so even if we do continue to take the NIMBY-friendly approach of locking up injection drug users, that would still free a significant number of people.

*https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/22/four-in- ten-u-s-drug-arrests-in-2018-were-for-marijuana-offenses-mostly-possession/ (remove space)

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Clench281 posted...

I'm confused because isn't every vote based on your feelings..? You are voting for what the rules of your society should be. Those decisions are based on you weighing the importance of perceived value.

Which is just a more verbose way of saying "voting with your feelings."

Which means "voting with your feelings" is just a dog-whistle for "voting for something I don't want," in a transparent effort to pretend that people that disagree with TC haven't put any thought or consideration into their positions?

On a scale from 1 to HOLY CRAP, I am at least a 4 right now.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

That's perfectly normal to say.

It's *accurate* to say that, but it very much is not perfectly normal. The vast majority of people don't bother making a distinction between being attracted to prepubescent minors and adolescent minors in colloquial speech. Virtually the only time you actually see that term brought up is when somebody's trying to justify being attracted to a teenager.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Side note: How is voting on the basis of "I want higher standards for animal welfare" any more an example of "voting with their feelings" than voting on the basis of "I like bacon"?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reigning_King posted...

I can't help that you guys are unable or unwilling to read and think, that's your own issue.

I will admit that I am unable to read words that have not been written, but I think you're selling yourself short if you think you can't help me work around that problem. Namely, if you write words for me to read, that will give me something that I'm able to read such that that crippling disability won't hold me back anymore.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

While I know that's not what was meant, that is also how I parsed that wording on the first pass. The mental image of some dude pulling hot dogs out of a thermos and throwing them to random children playing on the beach is kind of entertaining.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reigning_King posted...

See here's the thing though, you literally already have the answer to that question you keep repeating ad nausem.

I don't have the answer to that question, and I'm pretty curious. Care to repeat it for those of us that missed the first pass?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

Yes.

Why?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

PMarth2002 posted...

There's like a million ways at least that reality could be worse.

If we subscribe to the infinite multiple realities model, there's a version of reality out there that's completely identical to this one, except that you stub your toe one additional time every single day.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

If it's not practical to raise pigs humanely, should we have bacon?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

It's been on my radar for a while, but I never end up taking the plunge when it's on sale. One of these days, I'll pick it up.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Clench281 posted...

It's very odd to say that heat stroke causes hypovolemia. Hypovolemia is often actually a significant a contributing factor when heat exhaustion is developing towards heat stroke, which is the opposite causality.

Excess sweating and inadequate fluid/electrolyte replacement, when combined with vasodilation in effort to keep cool, result in inability to regulate blood volume. Aldosterone secretion would typically result in retention of sodium and water, increasing blood volume, maintaining healthy blood pressure within the dilated blood vessels. But the salt and water aren't available, blood volume can't be increased, and blood pressure drops low enough to where you are unable to pump blood to the body (hypovolemic shock that isn't due to hemorrhage).

I don't know why you linked to that abstract. The abstract does not say that hypovolemia is a result of heat shock. As explained above, it's a contributing factor that can result in heat shock. Which is why not everyone with elevated unregulated body temperature will also have hypovolemia: because it can happen without dehydration. For example, when the wet bulb temperature is above 35 C the human body is unable to lower body temperature. If you are replacing fluid and electrolyte you will lead to heat-induced death without hypovolemia.

Side note, aside from the abstract (which didn't even support your claim), everything else associated with the citation is in Hebrew so i doubt your corroborating evidence is there.

Thank you everyone for coming to my Ted Talk.

Far as I can tell, the link is simpler than that: If your lungs are borked, your O2 sats start looking a lot worse. What he's trying to suggest is that the guy was already in critical stages of respiratory failure because the heat stroke had killed his lungs, and that's why his O2 saturation was low. That's not entirely unreasonable, except for the part where there's no actual reason to believe that over trusting the medical professionals that blamed his Covid infection for it (to say nothing of subsequent research that turned up no actual evidence of heat stroke to begin with).

That, or he believes that "hypovolemia" means "low blood oxygen" and not "low blood volume," which also wouldn't surprise me.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

driving is a public risk taking behavior

And what happens to people that insist on driving in an unnecessarily risky manner?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reigning_King posted...

Even if you're correct that it was a bad idea, so what? Since when do humans need to act optimally like machines at all times instead of doing what they want to do? Smoking, drinking, overeating, promiscuity, etc. are all "bad ideas" but we don't try to force people not to do them as long as they're adults.

Why do you people insist on equivocating anti-vaxx attitudes (a public risk-taking behaviour) with personal risk-taking behaviours?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Why amp up your breaker when you could just connect directly to the power line?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reigning_King posted...

Is it? Do you just turn a blind eye to it and shrug saying "oh well, humans have been murdering each other since the dawn of time, nothing we can do to stop it entierly"? Well actually there IS a solution to that problem and it isn't the violent ons you bring up here.

Simply not existing would also solve the problem, but absolute nihilism is generally quite worthless outside of thought experiments, so it's not really worth mentioning.

Mead posted...

Has Kyuubi ever once posted on potd and not acted like just a hateful little shit

can anyone recall a single time

Nothing specific, but I've seen the occasional reasonable post from him. Usually just not in any context that involves critiquing harmful aspects of how society is operating.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

There's a big difference between reactive and preventative measures. Banning the s***ting doesn't stop them do it, just gets a penalty, banning setting up so you have to s*** on the street intercepts the person before they commit the act. Deal with problems before they arise and you won't have a problem on your hands.

And in the process, harms a bunch of people who had no intention ever leaving their poop everywhere. Taken to its logical extreme, that approach would support exterminating all of humanity to ensure that nobody ever committed a murder, which is obviously stupid.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Nobody does. Despite all the bluff, right-wingers are more paranoid of these risks, they work hard to mitigate the risk by their own hand to ensure their freedom, rather than hoping the government decides they're worthy of protection.

Nothing about that disputes me saying that they aren't interested in pushing for systemic solutions.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Says just you. Everybody makes the distinction, but some people are more comminity focused than others so while they do care about homelessness, they by far care more about their own family's wellbeing. A notable distinction of right over left is willingness to sacrifice greater society for their own family. Whenever a proposal sacrifices their family's wellbeing for the greater society, the right is always going to be more resistant, not to be callous, but from prioritising their immediate group.

Nobody's being asked to sacrifice anything, though.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They spent personal fortune on something not costing such fortune, they lost that value.

Presumably, the house they worked toward owning is considerably better than the free apartments and therefore does not have its value affected by their existence.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Lots of people work hard and take on great debt to achieve that rudimentary home, of course they're going to feel sleighted.

If people are taking on great debt to afford a crappy bachelor apartment, that's part of the problem that would be fixed with a housing-first approach to fixing homelessness. People that paid for those crappy apartments on their own before being able to move on to something better may feel slighted for that, but really, that's just progress. Were they around to complain, I imagine everyone that died of dysentery on the Oregon Trail would be pretty resentful of how easy it is (pandemic aside) to hop on a plane and make the same trip in a couple hours. People getting uppity that they didn't get to take advantage of modern solutions to problems when they were dealing with problems in the past is not in any way a valid reason to stop coming up with modern solutions. That's just how you make the world better.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Literally all homeowners lose, the price they paid is made vastly over what it's now worth.

Again, giving barebones apartments away for free (to the tenant, that is, since the government would still be paying rent on them and therefore the landlord is going to be getting roughly the same amount of income for their property) does not affect the value of properties that are better than barebones apartments. Absolutely nobody will ever say "you know, I was going to buy this $500,000 house, but if I just become homeless I'll get a bachelor apartment for free, so I don't think I'll bother."

The only properties that do potentially stand to lose value are those below the minimum standard for subsidized housing, since paying to live in a property that's worse than the free one doesn't make much sense, and the government isn't going to pay them to house somebody. Properties that are that bad, however, are that bad because of terrible landlords that are exploiting the fact that the alternative to paying for those is homelessness. They, quite frankly, can go fellate a cactus.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They want to secure their investment, ensure there's clear distinction to potential buyers that their property has value and isn't a government s***hole. Nobody wants negative equity on their house because of perception.

Which brings us back to the point about people not wanting to recognize that the "lower classes" exist and a large suite of policies and practices that enables and encourages such attitudes. The mere presence of people that are paying a more affordable rent (note that these are affordable units, not housing that's being given out for free, so these are tenants that are paying the asking price themselves) should not induce any sort of perception that would affect the value of the property. That it does is because of a bunch of rich snobs that really don't need to exist.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Only a literal psychopath would see literal human feces on the pavement outside their house and go "this is fine". Remember this is LA, the place is completely f***ed this way.

Protip: Pooping on the sidewalk is already illegal. Any new laws introduced under the pretense of addressing poop on the sidewalk are lying to you.

Also, nobody is saying "this is fine." People are just saying "fining homeless people doesn't solve anything, so stop it."

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Do you seriously think people think the only issue with homelessness is aesthetic? Everybody knows the economic burden, and fears the existing systems that make people homeless. There's absolutely tonnes of invisible drive to fix it.

That's the thing: There really isn't. Most people fear homelessness to some extent or another, but so long as it never actually happens to them, they tend to buy into the "if you work hard you'll never have to worry about it" narrative, as well as the "they're all violent druggies that will mug you and rape your dog if left to their own devices" one that keeps them fearful enough to be in favour of ramping up policing initiatives instead of solving the root problems. Pretty much everyone will say "yeah, it'd be nice to have no more homeless people" if asked about it, but in practice, most people don't make a distinction between "there are no more homeless people" and "I don't see any homeless people," nor do they put any thought into what the actual economic burden is and how much any proposed solutions are going to cost.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's real estate investors and homeowners that resist it. Nobody wants to scrap their whole life to own their first home for someone else to get it for free, and investors don't want their investment to suddenly tank in value. What's better for the nation as a whole hurts them personally, and very substantially.

Which is inherently silly. Your first house doesn't lose any value because a homeless person got a crappy bachelor apartment for free. Some people hear "housing first" and imagine a free 3-bedroom house with a white picket fence and 1-acre yard, but the reality is that it's pretty barebones. You're generally not going to be looking at anything more than a one-room apartment with space for a bed, a rudimentary kitchen, and a bathroom. It's enough to qualify as permanent shelter and some semblance of comfort and decency, but there's still ample room for improvement.

Frankly, anyone that loses the ability to enjoy what they have because somebody else was given something significantly inferior needs to get over themselves. The only people that actually stand to lose anything are the slumlords that are currently trying to market apartments that are below even those standards at ridiculously gouged prices, and I'm not going to lose a nanosecond of sleep over people like that going bankrupt. Even then, landlords that own lower-end properties like this (that do at least meet code) will still be getting paid rent for them, since the city/state (whichever level the legislation happens at) will be paying for it.

It is also definitely more than just people who stand to lose money over the issue that resist it. There are countless stories out there of apartment buildings that include government-mandated affordable units, but have a separate entrance and lobby for those units because the richer tenants don't want to have to look at poor people. There is a widespread desire to pretend homelessness doesn't exist, one which inspires no shortage of resentment and on paper, policing them seems like a reasonable way to "take out the trash," as it were.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reigning_King posted...

Hell I went on a cross country trip where I was outside and moving from town to town for a solid month and a half and I don't have (nor will I ever get) the vaccine.

For reasons we've been over exhaustively but you've decided not to care about because you're inexplicably attached to being wrong, that was a bad idea.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Most of his "arguing strategy" seems to consist of "I'm right because I said so and you can't convince me otherwise." It's not particularly healthy, but what can you do?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

They're currently sitting at 57.7% with one dose and 48.9% with two, which is slightly below the national average (58.2%/50.1%). Nothing amazing, but nothing terrible, either (at least, no less terrible than the rest of the country).

Krazy_Kirby posted...

not everyone wants to hide indoors for months

And getting vaccinated is very obviously the most effective way to ensure they don't have to.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

EclairReturns posted...

I don't know why you are so sure of your claim, then.

"I might ___" isn't exactly a definite statement.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

You don't die of heatstroke when you get medical attention right away.

Depends how advanced it is. Even then (from OhhJa's source, actually), suffering heat stroke messes up the body's thermoregulative capabilities to such an extent that if you don't keep their temperature externally controlled for a few days after they seemingly get better, they can end up hyperthermic again and still die. Getting immediate medical attention dramatically improves the prognosis, but it's not a guarantee.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Clench281 posted...

Untrue. Koalas have successfully taken up a role as a cute creature / poster child of animal conservation. Like the panda, humans will never let it go extinct.

Pretty much. In a world where the survival of so many species hinges on direct human intervention, being cute/funny is an extremely advantageous trait, arguably more so than any other trait a species can possess. Humans have near-total power to decide which species live and die; if a species can appeal to their whims, that's a huge boon.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

Oh man, how the goalposts keep shifting

Yeah, I'll admit I approached that with the wrong strategy. That was a mistake. Time for a new one:

https://people.com/health/father-of-5-dies-of-covid-i-should-have-gotten-the-vaccine/

Freedy initially mistook his COVID-19 case for sun poisoning, but tested positive for the virus after experiencing chills, lack of appetite and trouble sleeping. After being sent home from the hospital after his diagnosis, Freedy's condition sharply declined.
In a GoFundMe account created for her late fianc, DuPreez said Freedy was "miserable" after testing positive, was "beside himself" in pain and feeling "scared." When Freedy experienced dizziness and trouble breathing, she brought him back to the hospital, where doctors found pneumonia in his lungs and placed Freedy on oxygen.

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/i-should-have-gotten-the-damn-vaccine-las-vegas-father-of-5-dies-after-contracting-covid-19-in-socal/

When they returned home after spending a couple days in the Southern California city, Freedy developed a painful skin rash, according to DuPreez. Based on his symptoms he was getting chills and couldnt sleep, eat or get comfortable they thought it was a case of sun poisoning.
Freedy went to a hospital where he tested positive for the coronavirus. He was sent home to isolate, DuPreez recounted on a GoFundMe account.
Later, she wrote, Freedy woke her up in the middle of the night, complaining that he couldnt breathe and felt dizzy. They went to the hospital and he was admitted.
Scans showed that Freedy had developed pneumonia in both lungs and he was placed on two oxygen machines.

https://www.businessinsider.com/las-vegas-father-dies-from-covid-wishes-got-vaccine-2021-7

Freedy began feeling unwell following a trip to the beach; they thought he had come down with sun poisoning. After testing positive for COVID-19, he was admitted to the ICU with double pneumonia and placed on a ventilator.

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-covid-vaccine-dad-dies-20210731-f2jblbmtwzfhjoplxxzf6rmgje-story.html

He was getting chills, couldnt eat, couldnt get comfortable, couldnt sleep, du Preez told KLAS. All symptoms of sun poisoning.
Eventually, Freedy tested positive for COVID-19 and developed difficulty breathing with pneumonia in both lungs, du Preez said. His family hoped for the best, but in the end he did not survive the virus.

I'll let you google "Freedy Covid" to find any of the remaining dozens of news outlets reporting on this story if you want to further corroborate what these are saying, but let's look at the common elements:

• "Sun poisoning" (which is a series of symptoms associated with bad sunburns), no mention of actual sun stroke/heat stroke. It would appear that was a duckbear-ism
• Pneumonia, which is distinct from the pulmonary edema seen in lung failure due to heat stroke
• Covid-19 identified as the cause of death in every instance, which has presumably come from medical professionals and not the media
• Symptoms emerged a couple days after heat exposure and worsened from there, which is entirely the opposite of how heat stroke typically manifests (that is, symptoms arise while still being exposed to heat, then improve gradually once the patient is cooled down and kept cool)

And I'm sure you can find a few more commonalities between them if you look, all leading to one pretty solid conclusion: There is no reason to believe that his death was not due to Covid. This leads back to my initial question:

Why are you the way that you are?

You entered this topic pre-assured (for no reason, I might add) of the conclusion that he did not die of Covid, looking for any possible other explanation to cite to prove that belief. When you found one, you presented that not as a possible alternative, but as the real truth "they" were trying to conceal by humiliating this family, a position which you doubled down on when challenged by calling everyone that disagreed with you idiots. Why do you do this? Why do you assume that everyone is lying to you unless they agree with what you've already decided must be true? Why are you so attached to this narrative that Covid death counts are being artificially inflated that you look for contrived explanations that you can use to deflate those counts everywhere you go? Why are you the way that you are?

As an aside: Why would you ever suggest that a confirmed diagnosis of a disease that pretty routinely causes high fevers in its victims was irrelevant to somebody dying of heat stroke? Even without having the actual facts of the case (that is, that he didn't have heat stroke but clearly did die of Covid-related pneumonia), that's a thoroughly ridiculous thing to suggest.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

Heat stroke often causes hypovolemia. I really shouldn't have to find this info for you. It's common sense that heat stroke leads to organ failure.

Duh. That is indeed common knowledge. Why, though, do you believe that nobody involved in this process is capable of telling the difference between respiratory failure induced by heat stroke and that caused by Covid?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

maybe we can have a shape we pin to their clothes, make one color for the shots and one for those who haven't..... that way we know who is better.

I can never decide if I'm amused or disappointed in the people that draw analogies to Nazi Germany every time proof of vaccination is brought up. On one hand, it's kind of hilarious that anyone could possibly be so clueless as to think the two situations are genuinely comparable. On the other, it's really rather sad.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reigning_King posted...

What I don't get is the people who will be out jogging or riding a bike without anyone else anywhere near them and yet they still wear their mask. My best guess would be that it's virtue signaling or some sort of psychological dependency issue but who knows.

Generally, I assume that either means they recently came from or are going to a place where they expect a higher density of people (where a mask would be reasonable), or they simply forgot they had it on and don't really care. The next-most-likely explanation is that they're just being more cautious than is really necessary, which still isn't something to be so judgemental about.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

To dispute what you're saying would the the rough equivalent of trying to give somebody math advice who accidentally wrote the first chapter of Harry Potter when they were trying to do long division. You're just so utterly and incomprehensibly wrong that nobody has any idea where to even start correcting you. Even more so where being so wrong seems to be a deliberate choice that you've explicitly expressed a desire to keep making because you think that somehow makes you smarter than everyone else.

Tell you what: You find me a 2-3 examples of credible medical resources recommending ventilators for treating heat stroke, and maybe I'll humour the possibility that you have a point instead of just blindly grasping at any remotely relevant straw you can find to support your approach of "is there anything in this article that can support my baseless a priori conclusion that he didn't actually die of Covid?".

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

adjl posted...

Why are you the way you are?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Society only stands to gain by doing so, and only stands to lose by not doing so; putting aside all ethical concerns, we waste time, money, and effort s***ting all over these people (cops will often destroy or steal their property, for example; it's a monumental waste) when we could instead prevent their falling of the grid to begin with and keep them contributing to society.

This is the thing that really gets me about the whole issue. If it were actually a money thing, I could kind of understand it. Placing money above human lives and well-being like that would still be a pretty terrible thing to do, but it is a potential justification, and somebody who values lower taxes over humanitarian causes would be logically consistent to oppose it.

But it's not a money thing. Housing people is cheaper than leaving them homeless, thanks to the policing a medical costs associated with homelessness. Housing-first initiatives have the potential to not only dramatically improve the lives of countless homeless people and make it much easier for them to get back on their feet, but also save money. People just fight that because they're so attached to the idea that housing is something people need to "deserve" in order to have that they can't even begin to entertain the idea that giving it away might actually be the most financially sensible option. People are literally fighting to spend extra money just to spite humanitarianism and make a bunch of strangers more miserable for no reason. That's just stupid, even without getting into questions of "evil."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Heck, you don't even really need to work with CO2 often to know that it has a smell. Just sniff a glass of tonic water. It's not a strong smell (because that's not exactly high concentrations), but there's clearly something there beyond the normal water smell.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

They never left here. Vaccination stats are looking quite good, with >75% first doses and >60% second and a 7-day average of 1-2 daily cases province-wide, and businesses are largely reopening as normal, but masks are still required for now (but can be removed for dine-in restaurants), and likely will be until we can say for sure that a 4th wave won't happen.

Decoy77 posted...

Answer is not "no, not yet" its. nope no more bugger off with that BS.

The US is quite undeniably in a fourth wave now. The CDC has already recommended vaccinated people go back to masking indoors (and never stopped recommending it for unvaccinated folks). It's only a matter of time before jurisdictions that aren't blatantly ignoring scientific reality reinstate mandates. Those that don't are blatantly ignoring scientific reality, which is what you should really be considering "BS."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Yesterday's 7-day average for daily cases was 77,275. This is higher than the peaks seen in the first wave (peaked at 31,709 on April 10, 2020), second wave (peaked at 66,784 on July 25, 2020), and the sort of informal fourth wave that nobody recognizes as a wave of its own because it was really just a blip on the way down from the third wave (peaked at 71,397 on April 14, 2021). The last time US daily case numbers rose this quickly was in late October 2020 (hit a 7DA of 77,881 on the 29th), leading into the third wave that ultimately peaked at a 7DA of 259,616 daily cases.

That doesn't necessarily mean this actual fourth wave is going to end up being that bad, but it does mean it's already taking second place and showing no signs of slowing down.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Yup, and in the mean time it doesn't need to make everybody else's life worse.

How does seeing a homeless person make the life of anyone that isn't a complete psychopath worse? "Oh no, I don't like looking at that person, I'd better actively work to profoundly disrupt their miserable existence so I don't have to." That's how goddamn serial killers think. We can all do better than that.

Moreover, yes, it does need to make everybody's life "worse" in the mean time. If it doesn't, there's never going to be any drive to fix the issue. People don't care about problems they don't see, and when a problem requires cohesive political will to solve, that means they're never going to vote for anyone that wants to solve the problem (and in the case of homelessness, will often actively vote against real solutions because their hatred is tolerated and validated by policies that cater to NIMBYs). That means it never gets solved.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.