LogFAQs > #941620553

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Is this fraud?
adjl 07/03/20 1:05:30 PM #68:	Zeus posted... Bulls*. You think Americans have done a good job of following guidelines? You really think that? You had people openly flaunting them in large numbers within a week of stuff shutting down. You have sizable chunks of the country convinced that the virus doesn't even exist, thanks to the guy who's supposed to be running the place. You have people staging armed rebellions over having to cut their own hair. Nobody is surprised by how bad America's numbers look except people who have no idea what's going on. Zeus posted... Which is a laughable suggestion and ridiculous even at a surface level. Not really. There's a clear left/right split on whether or not systemic racism and police brutality are bad things (which is honestly ridiculous, but that's beside the point), and there's a similarly clear left/right split on whether or not to listen to the government when it suggests something for personal/public safety (a split which is inherent in the fundamental political philosophies, in addition to being observable in the current situation). Sure, that's an oversimplification of some pretty complex demographics, but the basic correlation is there. Zeus posted... The infection rates have repeatedly been noted as being highest among low-income Americans, the same group that's very likely to turn out at these protests. Low-income Americans have had the highest infection rates largely because they're the ones that haven't had the option of not working and a considerable majority of "essential" jobs are the entry-level minimum wage ones (which, incidentally, people are awfully fond of insisting are unnecessary and therefore don't deserve a livable minimum wage, but that's none of MY business...) that are filled primarily by lower-income people. Those jobs are still happening. Lower-income people can't afford to protest because that would mean missing work, which is a luxury they don't have at the best of times. The people that are likely to turn out at these protests are the people that are able to afford time off work/are surviving just fine off of unemployment money, which, by extension, is a group that's been able to safely limit their exposure and stay healthy. Zeus posted... And that might be a great excuse if they hadn't been promoting social distance even under those conditions (and even when wearing a mask) which, again, clearly not being observed. Lower risk isn't no risk. Distancing recommendations are still a good idea even while outside. The increase in risk from failing to obey them just isn't as great. I listed that as a factor that mitigates the risk, not nullifies it. Zeus posted... Normal workers aren't going to get near the level of exposure that you would at a protest... Comparing one worker completing one day of work to one day of protesting? That's generally going to be correct. Comparing multiple days, weeks, or months of work over the millions of jobs in the country to one day of protesting? Significantly less so. Most public-facing jobs see hundreds of different people come through on a daily basis, indoors, sometimes for hours at a time, and have to get closer than the recommended distance in order to interact with them (to say nothing of handling cash). Over time, that's a level of exposure that's going to exceed what you'll get from a couple hours of hanging out in a crowd outdoors, even if that crowd is very large and not particularly compliant with recommendations. Reopening stuff is a long-term decision. You've gotta look beyond short-term comparisons like that to assess comparative risks. Of course, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted there. I really don't know why you said what you did, but I'll rebut it anyway. Zeus posted... No, I can look at the guidelines and see that they're not being enforced at all in some contexts which strongly suggests that the guidelines didn't mean s* in the first place because otherwise they would have been consistent. No, that suggests that the extent to which guidelines are enforced depends on more than just the best available public health advice. Which, you know, everyone with half a brain already knew. It has never just been about public health. Politics, economics, and even other aspects of public health (e.g. public sanitation) have always factored into the decision. "Allowing" the protests (not that anything short of full-on bombing the streets could realistically have stopped them, given the scale) does not in any way suggest that there's no benefit in following guidelines, it suggests that "I'm sorry, please wait until the pandemic has resolved to be upset by widespread police brutality and corruption" would be political suicide. Zeus posted... If you're arresting pastors and fining people for stopping in parks, you must view it as serious. However, if protests are being allowed, how seriously could have officially believed in these guidelines? Seriously enough to enforce them when the cost is something relatively trivial or easily replaced with a safer alternative. My own church has been doing services via Zoom since March. Alternatives exist to having people crowd into a physical church building, even if they aren't as nice as actually being there. Alternatives don't exist to publicly protesting a grave injustice. Zeus posted... As it is, we've been locked down waaaaaaaay longer than other nations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0 Not remotely. The US was one of the last major countries to have Covid become enough of a problem to warrant large-scale action, and even then they were still slow to adopt proper lockdown measures. Countries that started fighting well before the US did are just now cautiously starting to reopen. Canada's lockdown period started shortly before the US' (though we didn't close the border to the US until a week or two after stopping other international travel, which was a mistake that I blame mostly on Trump's inability to not take such a closure personally and Trudeau wanting to avoid stepping on his toes), and we're just barely starting to relax restrictions in some places now (mostly the provinces that have been at 0 cases for a couple weeks). The US started later than almost everyone else, was less compliant with protocols and worse about testing than almost everyone else, and now is trying to reopen faster and less cautiously than almost everyone else, and you're wondering why your results aren't as good as anyone else's? The US response compares favourably to Brazil's, but that's about it, and Brazil's run by an insane militaristic dictator who seems to want his country to burn. That's not really good company to keep. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:941620553] in Is this fr... [t:78813354]...</cite> <quote>Zeus posted... </cite> <quote>Bulls*.</quote> You think Americans have done a good job of following guidelines? You really think that? You had people openly flaunting them in large numbers within a week of stuff shutting down. You have sizable chunks of the country convinced that the virus doesn't even exist, thanks to the guy who's supposed to be running the place. You have people staging armed rebellions over having to cut their own hair. Nobody is surprised by how bad America's numbers look except people who have no idea what's going on. Zeus posted... </cite> <quote>Which is a laughable suggestion and ridiculous even at a surface level.</quote> Not really. There's a clear left/right split on whether or not systemic racism and police brutality are bad things (which is honestly ridiculous, but that's beside the point), and there's a similarly clear left/right split on whether or not to listen to the government when it suggests something for personal/public safety (a split which is inherent in the fundamental political philosophies, in addition to being observable in the current situation). Sure, that's an oversimplification of some pretty complex demographics, but the basic correlation is there. Zeus posted... </cite> <quote>The infection rates have repeatedly been noted as being highest among low-income Americans, the same group that's very likely to turn out at these protests.</quote> Low-income Americans have had the highest infection rates largely because they're the ones that haven't had the option of not working and a considerable majority of "essential" jobs are the entry-level minimum wage ones (which, incidentally, people are awfully fond of insisting are unnecessary and therefore don't deserve a livable minimum wage, but that's none of MY business...) that are filled primarily by lower-income people. Those jobs are still happening. Lower-income people can't afford to protest because that would mean missing work, which is a luxury they don't have at the best of times. The people that are likely to turn out at these protests are the people that are able to afford time off work/are surviving just fine off of unemployment money, which, by extension, is a group that's been able to safely limit their exposure and stay healthy. Zeus posted... </cite> <quote>And that might be a great excuse if they hadn't been promoting social distance even under those conditions (and even when wearing a mask) which, again, clearly not being observed.</quote> Lower risk isn't no risk. Distancing recommendations are still a good idea even while outside. The increase in risk from failing to obey them just isn't as great. I listed that as a factor that mitigates the risk, not nullifies it. Zeus posted... </cite> <quote>Normal workers aren't going to get near the level of exposure that you would at a protest...</quote> Comparing one worker completing one day of work to one day of protesting? That's generally going to be correct. Comparing multiple days, weeks, or months of work over the millions of jobs in the country to one day of protesting? Significantly less so. Most public-facing jobs see hundreds of different people come through on a daily basis, indoors, sometimes for hours at a time, and have to get closer than the recommended distance in order to interact with them (to say nothing of handling cash). Over time, that's a level of exposure that's going to exceed what you'll get from a couple hours of hanging out in a crowd outdoors, even if that crowd is very large and not particularly compliant with recommendations. Reopening stuff is a long-term decision. You've gotta look beyond short-term comparisons like that to assess comparative risks. Of course, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted there. I really don't know why you said what you did, but I'll rebut it anyway. Zeus posted... </cite> <quote>No, I can look at the guidelines and see that they're not being enforced at all in some contexts which strongly suggests that the guidelines didn't mean s* in the first place because otherwise they would have been consistent.</quote> No, that suggests that the extent to which guidelines are enforced depends on more than just the best available public health advice. Which, you know, everyone with half a brain already knew. It has never just been about public health. Politics, economics, and even other aspects of public health (e.g. public sanitation) have always factored into the decision. "Allowing" the protests (not that anything short of full-on bombing the streets could realistically have stopped them, given the scale) does not in any way suggest that there's no benefit in following guidelines, it suggests that "I'm sorry, please wait until the pandemic has resolved to be upset by widespread police brutality and corruption" would be political suicide. Zeus posted... </cite> <quote>If you're arresting pastors and fining people for stopping in parks, you must view it as serious. However, if protests are being allowed, how seriously could have officially believed in these guidelines?</quote> Seriously enough to enforce them when the cost is something relatively trivial or easily replaced with a safer alternative. My own church has been doing services via Zoom since March. Alternatives exist to having people crowd into a physical church building, even if they aren't as nice as actually being there. Alternatives don't exist to publicly protesting a grave injustice. Zeus posted... </cite> As it is, we've been locked down waaaaaaaay longer than other nations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0 Not remotely. The US was one of the last major countries to have Covid become enough of a problem to warrant large-scale action, and even then they were still slow to adopt proper lockdown measures. Countries that started fighting well before the US did are just now cautiously starting to reopen. Canada's lockdown period started shortly before the US' (though we didn't close the border to the US until a week or two after stopping other international travel, which was a mistake that I blame mostly on Trump's inability to not take such a closure personally and Trudeau wanting to avoid stepping on his toes), and we're just barely starting to relax restrictions in some places now (mostly the provinces that have been at 0 cases for a couple weeks). The US started later than almost everyone else, was less compliant with protocols and worse about testing than almost everyone else, and now is trying to reopen faster and less cautiously than almost everyone else, and you're wondering why your results aren't as good as anyone else's? The US response compares favourably to Brazil's, but that's about it, and Brazil's run by an insane militaristic dictator who seems to want his country to burn. That's not really good company to keep. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1