Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[Neonmoon 38130]

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

19 minutes ago, mdleast said:

I mean, isn't it amazing that these people we know who have never professed medical expertise or hot medical opinions previously are suddenly "experts" on this one particular issue?  Isn't that peculiar and amazing that they suddenly gained savant like status on just COVID? 

Indeed. Fauci needs to shut up.

[Hate 20166]

You are white knighting for your team.
 
It’s all stupid behavior refusing the Vax. I don’t care if it’s always stupid behavior (hippie dippy types) if it’s stupid behavior based upon something that happened 2-4 generations ago being a point of contention for a community that’s being disproportionately hit by the virus now (Tuskegee) or stupid behavior based upon misguided political fealty to a Cheeto hued God by nitwits it’s all the same result. 

everyone that’s in that group is eligible for the play stupid games and win stupid prizes for 2021. 

as long as we don’t alter when we open society up bc of the misguided belief that we need to protect those refusing the vaccine IDGAF. 
I guess to be fair you have the right to be especially annoyed by whoever you want and cut a break to others for abject stupidity whenever you want, but I’m gently suggesting perhaps it makes sense to apply the same standard of scorn and contempt to be behavioral based, not mitigated by whether or not that person is lined up with you in other issues. 
if we could call balls and strikes impartially and assign contempt
to behavior instead of belief system we might all get along fractionally better. 

You realize where you are posting, right?

[Neonmoon 38130]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Indeed. Fauci needs to shut up.

[Wulaw Horn 19293]

4 minutes ago, Hate said:

You realize where you are posting, right?

Sure. But every now and again someone can plant a seed and maybe it takes and maybe it doesn’t. 

[lmao 178]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

It’s not just the moron MAGA, it’s an overlap with them, distrustful blacks and whacked out crazy hippie liberal types. 
same as all the vaccination things. Same as home school type stuff (minus the blacks in that one). 
It’s a strange bedfellows thing with the anti Vax crowd. 

 

30 minutes ago, mdleast said:

Agreed but at least with those that have been historically distrustful or hippie types against (typically all) vaccinations, there is a consistency in position.  What especially annoys me when I hear/read from any friends, family, Facebook "friends" and people online (including here) who (1) are not medical professionals in any way, shape or form and (2) who I can never recall once before professing any strong opinions or claimed expertise on any prior medical issue and yet they are sudden "experts" on COVD and vaccinations (and in opposition to what the supermajority of true medical professionals/experts are saying).  I mean, isn't it amazing that these people we know who have never professed medical expertise or hot medical opinions previously are suddenly "experts" on this one particular issue?  Isn't that peculiar and amazing that they suddenly gained savant like status on just COVID?  Or, rather, could it be they're just regurgitating the same political hacky bullshit they have heard from others in stupid red hats?

I mean the other groups that are anti-covid vax have probably received your standard vaccinations at one point. This isn't some binary thing you can pin on a political party. The anti-covid vax crowd is pretty damn diverse tbh. 

[TexasGrunt 72]

14 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

I saw a bunch of posts about Florida governor discussing the "covid passport" and actually made the mistake of reading the comments.  Amazing how many people believe this.  They also believe that thousands have died from vaccines, that FDA has not approved and none of them have any valid info to back up their beliefs or they use snippets to support their narrative.  We as a country have way to many people who need to pull their collectives heads out of their ass.   Unfortunately the post I saw was from family.... 

[Guest Lobo]

30 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

Corporate Communism?  

If you consider that Rep. Greene, and others of you that support her and her type, probably get their policy guidance from those refrigerator magnet poetry kits we all had in college...the Covid-is-a-Hoax/Dont-get-Vaccinated stuff starts to make more sense.  Magnet Poetry is the only thing that can explain "Corporate Communism", "Jewish Space Lasers", "Disinfectant Injection", or "Gone by Easter"    Nothing but magnets explains any of this insane shit.  But yeah, while we're all dicking around with Congresswomen and magnets, fuck those guys that studies virology for a half century, fucking queers! 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Lobo

[mdleast 8393]

25 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

You are white knighting for your team.
 

It’s all stupid behavior refusing the Vax. I don’t care if it’s always stupid behavior (hippie dippy types) if it’s stupid behavior based upon something that happened 2-4 generations ago being a point of contention for a community that’s being disproportionately hit by the virus now (Tuskegee) or stupid behavior based upon misguided political fealty to a Cheeto hued God by nitwits it’s all the same result. 

everyone that’s in that group is eligible for the play stupid games and win stupid prizes for 2021. 

as long as we don’t alter when we open society up bc of the misguided belief that we need to protect those refusing the vaccine IDGAF. 
I guess to be fair you have the right to be especially annoyed by whoever you want and cut a break to others for abject stupidity whenever you want, but I’m gently suggesting perhaps it makes sense to apply the same standard of scorn and contempt to be behavioral based, not mitigated by whether or not that person is lined up with you in other issues. 
if we could call balls and strikes impartially and assign contempt

to behavior instead of belief system we might all get along fractionally better. 

I don't have a "team" unless by "team" you mean "those who aren't medical experts who listen to those who are and follow those experts' recommendations." I also agree that any anti-vax behavior is stupid but at least those that have done it historically (though I disagree with it) aren't doing it as part of the mindless Wrestlemania that has become politics these days.  While I think it is misguided (and dangerous) to avoid getting a shot now based on what happened so long ago, I can acknowlege that the Tuskegee mess provides at least some historic basis for at least a kernel of distrust (even if I think that's not a good reason to avoid the shot now and endanger yourself/others).  Likewise, I think those that have been hardcore anti-vaxxers along are (IMO) loons but at least they have been consistently loony.  At the bottom of the list (and, therefore, worthy of the most contempt IMHO) are those now professing sudden medical expertise based on their worship of (non-medical expert) politicians who are advising contrary to what the super-majority of medical experts recommend.

I also agree with you that once we have had the chance to get everyone vaccinated that (correctly) agrees to get it based on the advise of the actual medical experts, I don't think we should then alter opening everything back up for those that misguidedly and/or simply moronically and stubbornly refuse to do so.

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

Is there any science I can grab on the whole "if enough people don't get vaxxed the virus will mutate in the unvaxxed and we'll all be fucked" thing?  Is it "YES, THAT WILL HAPPEN" or "that's something we need to be paying attention to, as it has happened with similar viruses" or "that's a thing that is possible, more so over a 20-30 year period" or "that's something that can happen in theory" level of fear?  

[RollLeft 5053]

First, I'd like to say to all those who lost someone to this insidious disease, my condolences. 

I took a quick walk down memory lane of this thread this morning.  Interesting to say the least.  What started as a simple post that was followed by typical Surly humor, leading to Reddit links, then postings by every quack on twitter, to serious scientific postings sandwiched by twice as many memes/charts, only to be tainted by the common cast of Surly political hacks, followed by the bait taking bleeding hearts with their hasty judgements and overly emotional responses, only to end in division and typical Surly vitriol, made this thread a classic.

I remember sitting at an airport in Asia over a year ago about to board a flight home, with a mask on mind you, when page 1 of this thread was first posted.  Ironically, two months later mid March, some on this thread attempted to lecture me on the need to inform myself regarding what is happening in the world as i didn't "get it", lol.  Then something something quit calling it the "flu" OMG!  Then on the other side those pissed off because the Houston Rodeo was cancelled.  Others mistaked runs of toilet paper my definition of "panic", lulz.  What an absolutely shitastic thread. Someone should do a timeline of the major ebb and flow of it.  Never change Surly.
  

Edited March 30, 2021 by RollLeft

[Brisketexan 105678]

1 minute ago, Liquor and Poker said:

Is there any science I can grab on the whole "if enough people don't get vaxxed the virus will mutate in the unvaxxed and we'll all be fucked" thing?  Is it "YES, THAT WILL HAPPEN" or "that's something we need to be paying attention to, as it has happened with similar viruses" or "that's a thing that is possible, more so over a 20-30 year period" or "that's something that can happen in theory" level of fear?  

It's just basic math, and incremental increase in risk.

In a population where all are vaccinated, the virus will have such low transmission that the chances of mutation are very close to zero (not absolute zero, but close to it).

In a population where none are vaccinated, the virus will have such high transmission that the chances of mutation within a given year are very close to 100%.

The more people you have vaccinated, the closer to that zero you get.  The fewer you have vaccinated, the closer to the 100% you get.  It's all about it being more or less likely.  It is very much in our interest as a species to have as many people vaccinated as we can, to lower the risk of mutation (which may then require a whole new vaccination effort).  There's no "absolute number" that is the "we must hit this or we all die." 

[BabaYaga 15417]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

You are white knighting for your team.

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's just basic math, and incremental increase in risk.

In a population where all are vaccinated, the virus will have such low transmission that the chances of mutation are very close to zero (not absolute zero, but close to it).

In a population where none are vaccinated, the virus will have such high transmission that the chances of mutation within a given year are very close to 100%.

The more people you have vaccinated, the closer to that zero you get.  The fewer you have vaccinated, the closer to the 100% you get.  It's all about it being more or less likely.  It is very much in our interest as a species to have as many people vaccinated as we can, to lower the risk of mutation (which may then require a whole new vaccination effort).  There's no "absolute number" that is the "we must hit this or we all die." 

That's not really my question, it's the background assumption behind it.  My question is more like "Let's say 20% of the population never gets vaccinated.  What are the odds we will have a problem, how soon will it happen and what will the problem be?  Annual flu shots or a renewed pandemic?  Now let's up that to 30%, what changes?"

I get that there are no solid answers to this, but I feel like there's got to be something more concrete than "it's less likely, it's more likely, it's hard to say when, etc."  Is time the big factor (is it more "dangerous" to have 15% unvaxxed for 5 years or 25% unvaxxed for 2 years, etc.)?, how big a difference does each incremental step in the unvaxxed percentage make (is it a fairly nominal curve, or is 30% a lot worse than 25%, 20% a lot better)?  Does it matter if the people who are unvaxxed are clustered geographically vs. spread throughout the country, and does it matter where?  Things like that.  

[GRHorn 105]

We could all use some from time to time. 

[Brisketexan 105678]

1 minute ago, Liquor and Poker said:

That's not really my question, it's the background assumption behind it.  My question is more like "Let's say 20% of the population never gets vaccinated.  What are the odds we will have a problem, how soon will it happen and what will the problem be?  Annual flu shots or a renewed pandemic?  Now let's up that to 30%, what changes?"

I get that there are no solid answers to this, but I feel like there's got to be something more concrete than "it's less likely, it's more likely, it's hard to say when, etc."  Is time the big factor (is it more "dangerous" to have 15% unvaxxed for 5 years or 25% unvaxxed for 2 years, etc.)?, how big a difference does each incremental step in the unvaxxed percentage make (is it a fairly nominal curve, or is 30% a lot worse than 25%, 20% a lot better)?  Does it matter if the people who are unvaxxed are clustered geographically vs. spread throughout the country, and does it matter where?  Things like that.  

Well, I'm pretty damned far from a statistician or epidemiologist, but I DO work with people who do failure analysis of complex systems.  And I suspect they'd say that there's no way to come up with an answer with any real precision at all.  They might be able to come up with some numbers at the high end of each band that are the functional equivalent of 0% chance or 100% chance, but once you get further into the band, there are just too damned many variables and unknowns.  Your observation of density of varying populations is but one of those kajillion factors.

[Armybrat 41032]

43 minutes ago, RollLeft said:

First, I'd like to say to all those who lost someone to this insidious disease, my condolences. 

I took a quick walk down memory lane of this thread this morning.  Interesting to say the least.  What started as a simple post that was followed by typical Surly humor, leading to Reddit links, then postings by every quack on twitter, to serious scientific postings sandwiched by twice as many memes/charts, only to be tainted by the common cast of Surly political hacks, followed by the bait taking bleeding hearts with their hasty judgements and overly emotional responses, only to end in division and typical Surly vitriol, making this thread a classic.

I remember sitting at an airport in Asia over a year ago about to board a flight home, with a mask on mind you, when page 1 of this thread was first posted.  Ironically, two months later mid March, some on this thread attempted to lecture me on the need to inform myself regarding what is happening in the world as i didn't "get it", lol.  Then something something quit calling it the "flu" OMG!  Then on the other side those pissed off because the Houston Rodeo was cancelled.  Others mistaking runs of toilet paper my definition of "panic", lulz.  What a absolutely shitastic thread. Someone should do a timeline of the major ebb and flow of it.  Never change Surly.
  

You used the term “taint”.

That is an excellent description for any thread or forum that contains the word in its title.

[Hate 20166]

Shouldn’t any variants be weaker?

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, I'm pretty damned far from a statistician or epidemiologist, but I DO work with people who do failure analysis of complex systems.  And I suspect they'd say that there's no way to come up with an answer with any real precision at all.  They might be able to come up with some numbers at the high end of each band that are the functional equivalent of 0% chance or 100% chance, but once you get further into the band, there are just too damned many variables and unknowns.  Your observation of density of varying populations is but one of those kajillion factors.

I get it's a bit of chaos theory, but I feel like there might be some data from the flu or the smallpox idiots on the west coast that we could mine.

[Wulaw Horn 19293]

12 minutes ago, Hate said:

Shouldn’t any variants be weaker?

Usually. That’s not the way it worked in 1918 but that’s weird shit related to mobility and fighting readiness during war time. 

[lmao 178]

At this point if someone doesn't want to get vaccinated then that is their choice and they'll have to accept the potential consequences. The rest of us will get vaccinated and the country will move on.

The goal was to prevent hospitals from being flooded and to create a vaccine. We have achieved those goals. This is a good thing. I would have never thought prior to this a certain % of the population would not want a pandemic end. It is so damn bizarre. 

[bolverk 29836]

3 minutes ago, lmao said:

At this point if someone doesn't want to get vaccinated then that is their choice and they'll have to accept the potential consequences. The rest of us will get vaccinated and the country will move on.

The goal was to prevent hospitals from being flooded and to create a vaccine. We have achieved those goals. This is a good thing. I would have never thought prior to this a certain % of the population would not want a pandemic end. It is so damn bizarre. 

Do you mind identifying those individuals who do not want the pandemic to end?

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, lmao said:

At this point if someone doesn't want to get vaccinated then that is their choice and they'll have to accept the potential consequences. The rest of us will get vaccinated and the country will move on.

The goal was to prevent hospitals from being flooded and to create a vaccine. We have achieved those goals. This is a good thing. I would have never thought prior to this a certain % of the population would not want a pandemic end. It is so damn bizarre. 

 

Outside of a very, very tiny portion of the population that is really loud online, nobody doesn't want the pandemic to end. There's like some tiny fraction of a percent of the population that are nerds who see the restrictions as the great leveling. They didn't have a social life prior and neither do you now! But that's some very very infinitesimal portion of the country. 99.9% of the country wants the pandemic to end. Who are you talking about?

[workswithseed 2143]

12 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Do you mind identifying those individuals who do not want the pandemic to end?

I'd say NY's Covid passport will be vestige of the pandemic, like the TSA is our vestige of 9/11, and other agencies and laws that were passed after the aftermath. 

Edited March 30, 2021 by workswithseed

[Kyle 207]

1 hour ago, lmao said:

 

I mean the other groups that are anti-covid vax have probably received your standard vaccinations at one point. This isn't some binary thing you can pin on a political party. The anti-covid vax crowd is pretty damn diverse tbh. 

It's amazing so many educated people (not specific to this board but it has plenty) have adopted such simpleton, binary world views. Especially when such obvious evidence is more accessible than ever, even from partisan sites. People's ability to completely ignore contradictory evidence is astounding.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coronavirus-vaccine-trump-2020-election_n_5f60cc29c5b65fd7b8550ef9

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined over a dozen other Senate Democrats in asking the FDA to commit to a transparent review process for potential vaccines. “We are concerned that the accelerated timeline and intense political pressure around the vaccine development process could have the unintended consequence of undermining public confidence in the safety and quality of an eventual vaccine,” the senators wrote in a letter on Monday."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/anti-vaxxers-feed-off-democrats-skepticism-of-covid-vaccine/ar-BB19KESg

"On September 24, New York governor Andrew Cuomo said the state will independently review all vaccines authorized by the federal government. "Frankly, I'm not going to trust the federal government's opinion and I wouldn't recommend to New Yorkers based on the federal government's opinion," he said in a statement. This lack of trust in the government was picked up on by some anti-vax groups, saying Cuomo was reiterating their own arguments against vaccines generally. Cuomo's spokesman Richard Azzopardi responded to these groups, telling Newsweek "the anti-science crowd should knock it off and stop twisting our words." "What we don't trust is a federal government that has been caught red-handed multiple times circumventing the health experts and ‎making political decisions seemingly to boost the president's re-election chances."

VP Brown anti-vaxx

Edited March 30, 2021 by Kyle

[Incredulity 11722]

While the number people who literally don't want it to end are infinitesimal, the number of decision makers(politicians, health officials) who have literally ZERO appetite for risk and the people affected by those decisions is a huge percentage of the population.

[SamsCorner 395]

21 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Do you mind identifying those individuals who do not want the pandemic to end?

There'll be quit a few who'll miss it.

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

While the number people who literally don't want it to end are infinitesimal, the number of decision makers(politicians, health officials) who have literally ZERO appetite for risk and the people affected by those decisions is a huge percentage of the population.

Not sure that's true.  Lotta money to be made in the pandemic.  Amazon, streaming services, door dash - folks having record years while others languish.

[BradInATX 9208]

19 minutes ago, Kyle said:

It's amazing so many educated people (not specific to this board but it has plenty) have adopted such simpleton, binary world views. Especially when such obvious evidence is more accessible than ever, even from partisan sites. People's ability to completely ignore contradictory evidence is astounding.

 

A call for more nuanced and intellectual thought by surly members, brought to you by the poster who said this:

"Bless your heart. Whataboutism is so cute. I has to intimidate you Betas a hot chick as sharp as her ... hence why a stupid cow like Psaki is more fitting of your Beta bedroom prowess ... all trying to perform while longing to be a ABCDEFG+_*/ affirmation of Betaness."

[Brisketexan 105678]

Just now, Incredulity said:

While the number people who literally don't want it to end are infinitesimal, the number of decision makers(politicians, health officials) who have literally ZERO appetite for risk and the people affected by those decisions is a huge percentage of the population.

What gets me is how they couch -- or fail to couch -- risk.

As I've said here before, some statements and understanding EARLY about balancing risks, and the level of acceptable risk, would have been REALLY helpful.  And we got it from nobody.  I would have been thrilled had some significant leadership said early on that what makes this particular virus a special problem we have to deal with is that it spreads very easily, and has a higher rate of serious illness and death than comparable illnesses, so that it results in us having way too many people seriously ill and hospitalized, as well as dying.  Our goal is to attack this illness with a combination of public health measures (like masks and testing and tracing), developing therapeutics to reduce the severity of the illness when it is contracted, and ultimately, developing vaccines which reduce the frequency and severity of the illness, so that we can turn "deadly and very virulent" COVID into "not more deadly and virulent than other respiratory viruses we have learned to live with, like the seasonal flu."  When we get to that point, then we will have won this battle.  We will likely have to continue to work to make it even less common, and less serious, but that is the work we do in the next phase.  Be patient, and work with us all together, and we can get to that point.

We didn't get it from anywhere.  Instead, we got stupid extremes of risk assessment pushed for myriad reasons -- emotions, irrationality, politics, etc.  The two dominant "risk" themes were 1) "I can do what I want, and judge my own risks, so let me do whatever with no restrictions" (which is asinine because it utterly fails to account for the fact that when you are dealing with a virus, YOUR risk imposes risk on OTHERS), and 2) "any risk is too much!  One death is one death too many!" (which is asinine because it sets an unachievable goal, and condemns us to living in a "state of war" for what will likely be a decade).  Neither one includes any real balancing of public health needs, economic needs and effects, emotional health and safety, etc.  That balanced approach -- or at least any clear and controlling message on it -- has been non-existent.  It fucking blows me away, and makes me pretty ragey.  At everyone.  I've made no secret of the fact that I thought the Trump admin screwed the pooch a hundred different ways.  And while I'm pleased with the logistical and focused approach of the Biden admin in the vaccine rollout...I find the admin's lack of good and hopeful messaging very frustrating.

We need a fucking achievable goal.  Otherwise, people give up, and/or just fight with each other.  Tell the "muh freedoms I get to do what I want!" crowd to fuck off.  Tell the "how dare you let one person be at risk of catching COVID!" crowd to fuck off.  Then craft a sane, balanced approach and tell folks that's how it's gonna be.

[Kyle 207]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

A call for more nuanced and intellectual thought by surly members, brought to you by the poster who said this:

"Bless your heart. Whataboutism is so cute. I has to intimidate you Betas a hot chick as sharp as her ... hence why a stupid cow like Psaki is more fitting of your Beta bedroom prowess ... all trying to perform while longing to be a ABCDEFG+_*/ affirmation of Betaness."

I'm flattered, but I'm married.

Sue me, I can be serious and sarcastic. (that what many of the binary tribals can't figure out) Trying to reason with people that think Circle Back Sake is amazing at her job is like telling Majorie Taylor Green Jewish Space Lazers are not a thing.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Kyle

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, Kyle said:

I'm flattered, but I'm married.

Sue me, I can be serious and sarcastic. (that what many of the binary tribals can't figure out)

Binary tribals.

LMAO. Shut the fuck up you dumb ass hick.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We need a fucking achievable goal.  Otherwise, people give up, and/or just fight with each other.  Tell the "muh freedoms I get to do what I want!" crowd to fuck off.  Tell the "how dare you let one person be at risk of catching COVID!" crowd to fuck off.  Then craft a sane, balanced approach and tell folks that's how it's gonna be.

[Wulaw Horn 19293]

9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Binary tribals.

LMAO. Shut the fuck up you dumb ass hick.

Should have used hillbilly like in Wedding Crashers. Then somebody could post a gif. 

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Should have used hillbilly like in Wedding Crashers. Then somebody could post a gif. 

 

"WHITE TRASH"

"What are you talking about?!"

Edited March 30, 2021 by BradInATX

[Wulaw Horn 19293]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

WHITE TRASH

What are you talking about?!

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/36f9f1e8-ab3a-4d31-9ce8-5caf8243368a/gif

Edited March 30, 2021 by Wulaw Horn

[Kyle 207]

16 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Binary tribals.

LMAO. Shut the fuck up you dumb ass hick.

Clever. You kiss dicks with that mouth?

Edited March 30, 2021 by Kyle

[RollLeft 5053]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What gets me is how they couch -- or fail to couch -- risk.

...

We need a fucking achievable goal.  Otherwise, people give up, and/or just fight with each other.  Tell the "muh freedoms I get to do what I want!" crowd to fuck off.  Tell the "how dare you let one person be at risk of catching COVID!" crowd to fuck off.  Then craft a sane, balanced approach and tell folks that's how it's gonna be.

Agreed.  

[Kyle 207]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What gets me is how they couch -- or fail to couch -- risk.

As I've said here before, some statements and understanding EARLY about balancing risks, and the level of acceptable risk, would have been REALLY helpful.  And we got it from nobody.  I would have been thrilled had some significant leadership said early on that what makes this particular virus a special problem we have to deal with is that it spreads very easily, and has a higher rate of serious illness and death than comparable illnesses, so that it results in us having way too many people seriously ill and hospitalized, as well as dying.  Our goal is to attack this illness with a combination of public health measures (like masks and testing and tracing), developing therapeutics to reduce the severity of the illness when it is contracted, and ultimately, developing vaccines which reduce the frequency and severity of the illness, so that we can turn "deadly and very virulent" COVID into "not more deadly and virulent than other respiratory viruses we have learned to live with, like the seasonal flu."  When we get to that point, then we will have won this battle.  We will likely have to continue to work to make it even less common, and less serious, but that is the work we do in the next phase.  Be patient, and work with us all together, and we can get to that point.

We didn't get it from anywhere.  Instead, we got stupid extremes of risk assessment pushed for myriad reasons -- emotions, irrationality, politics, etc.  The two dominant "risk" themes were 1) "I can do what I want, and judge my own risks, so let me do whatever with no restrictions" (which is asinine because it utterly fails to account for the fact that when you are dealing with a virus, YOUR risk imposes risk on OTHERS), and 2) "any risk is too much!  One death is one death too many!" (which is asinine because it sets an unachievable goal, and condemns us to living in a "state of war" for what will likely be a decade).  Neither one includes any real balancing of public health needs, economic needs and effects, emotional health and safety, etc.  That balanced approach -- or at least any clear and controlling message on it -- has been non-existent.  It fucking blows me away, and makes me pretty ragey.  At everyone.  I've made no secret of the fact that I thought the Trump admin screwed the pooch a hundred different ways.  And while I'm pleased with the logistical and focused approach of the Biden admin in the vaccine rollout...I find the admin's lack of good and hopeful messaging very frustrating.

We need a fucking achievable goal.  Otherwise, people give up, and/or just fight with each other.  Tell the "muh freedoms I get to do what I want!" crowd to fuck off.  Tell the "how dare you let one person be at risk of catching COVID!" crowd to fuck off.  Then craft a sane, balanced approach and tell folks that's how it's gonna be.

100%. Weaponizing public health is a terrible strategy. A binary approach to complexity is a terrible strategy. What frustrated me was the ever changing goalposts, mixed messages, and the subsequent extreme reactions on both sides (if you will, but there really should not be a side on things like this). Looking at the data, one was able to observe pretty obvious trends that should have been the basis of the strategy. There were myriad mistakes to go around. 

[BabaYaga 15417]

Bunch of tough guys on this thread - lol.....

[Brisketexan 105678]

3 minutes ago, Kyle said:

100%. Weaponizing public health is a terrible strategy. A binary approach to complexity is a terrible strategy. What frustrated me was the ever changing goalposts, mixed messages, and the subsequent extreme reactions on both sides (if you will, but there really should not be a side on things like this). Looking at the data, one was able to observe pretty obvious trends that should have been the basis of the strategy. There were myriad mistakes to go around. 

Don't disagree.  This is where we will find much disagreement though -- this is why you need clear and decisive leadership at the top, as well as a system that allows for some autonomy as you move down the chain to deal with local conditions.

Analogously, it should be a like a good general and his entire chain of command downstream.  A good general comes up with a clear, well-communicated overall strategy and goal.  He even comes up with big picture elements of how to achieve that goal (e.g., aerial bombardment followed by paratroopers AND an amphibious landing).  And then.....he gives a good bit of autonomy to individual commanders on the ground to deal with varying situations, all with the primary goal in mind (e.g., to establish a beachhead from which to launch a prolonged assault to force Germany's surrender).  Some officers will find their situation to be a cakewalk, and they can get troops 20 miles inland to set up a secure position to defend.  Others will be fucked from the get go, missing the landing zones and whatnot, and they'll have to improvise.  But if everyone is on board with the SAME GENERAL PLAN AND GOAL, it works.

Again, it's BALANCE.  Strong and decisive leadership at the top, but not micromanaging every detail -- grant autonomy to your officers, who in turn grant some autonomy to their sergeants -- that gets shit done.

Our system failed for sure - I think we see flaws that would be problems regardless of who is in leadership.  But also, many of our individual leaders did, including the most important ones.  And knowing that, now is the time to correct that (actually, starting January 21st was the time to start), and we really haven't done that yet.  And maybe the eggs are so scrambled that they can't be unscrambled.  But we should still fucking try.

[bolverk 29836]

39 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

While the number people who literally don't want it to end are infinitesimal, the number of decision makers(politicians, health officials) who have literally ZERO appetite for risk and the people affected by those decisions is a huge percentage of the population.

You're a Texan, correct? If so, the political and public health decision makers that primarily affect you are at the state and local level, and the only restrictions I'm aware of here are a few local governments require mask wearing in public places or in schools.

Further, federal restrictions - so far as I know - only apply to federally owned land/buildings, mask mandates for air travel, and requirements for Covid testing on international travelers upon arrival. Am I missing anything else aside from what private businesses might do? Because, right now, everything appears to be only general guidance and advice from the CDC that state and local officials can take or leave.

I honestly do not foresee any sort of federally mandated Covid "passport" for Americans in our future other than possibly for air travel, but I think the push-back would be severe. Hopefully, it never comes to that.

[lmao 178]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Do you mind identifying those individuals who do not want the pandemic to end?

From people who have benefited financially or politically to people like my aunt who treat this as a new religion or a reverse Qanon. Not sure what she will do if this ends or things go 100% back to normal. She is having the time of her life. Being able to yell at children & their parents for not social distancing at the park is her Superbowl.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2128]

 

 

[Incredulity 11722]

7 minutes ago, lmao said:

Being able to yell at children & their parents for not social distancing at the park is her Superbowl.

Sorry, I LOL'd.

 

Seen more than a few of these over the last year.  Miserable fucks.

[Guest Lobo]

8 minutes ago, lmao said:

From people who have benefited financially or politically to people like my aunt who treat this as a new religion or a reverse Qanon. Not sure what she will do if this ends or things go 100% back to normal. She is having the time of her life. Being able to yell at children & their parents for not social distancing at the park is her Superbowl.

Oh god, what the fuck is "A reverse Qanon"?  What other horrors await us in 2021?  Is it like a self-aware Karen kind of situation or?  

[Neonmoon 38130]

11 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

 

 

FUCK YES

[Kyle 207]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Don't disagree.  This is where we will find much disagreement though -- this is why you need clear and decisive leadership at the top, as well as a system that allows for some autonomy as you move down the chain to deal with local conditions.

Analogously, it should be a like a good general and his entire chain of command downstream.  A good general comes up with a clear, well-communicated overall strategy and goal.  He even comes up with big picture elements of how to achieve that goal (e.g., aerial bombardment followed by paratroopers AND an amphibious landing).  And then.....he gives a good bit of autonomy to individual commanders on the ground to deal with varying situations, all with the primary goal in mind (e.g., to establish a beachhead from which to launch a prolonged assault to force Germany's surrender).  Some officers will find their situation to be a cakewalk, and they can get troops 20 miles inland to set up a secure position to defend.  Others will be fucked from the get go, missing the landing zones and whatnot, and they'll have to improvise.  But if everyone is on board with the SAME GENERAL PLAN AND GOAL, it works.

Again, it's BALANCE.  Strong and decisive leadership at the top, but not micromanaging every detail -- grant autonomy to your officers, who in turn grant some autonomy to their sergeants -- that gets shit done.

Our system failed for sure - I think we see flaws that would be problems regardless of who is in leadership.  But also, many of our individual leaders did, including the most important ones.  And knowing that, now is the time to correct that (actually, starting January 21st was the time to start), and we really haven't done that yet.  And maybe the eggs are so scrambled that they can't be unscrambled.  But we should still fucking try.

I agree, and I know you will disagree with the following; but I think Trump both not only did a poor job but also would never have been able to do an effective job. The early, initial call to limit travel to/from China as well as the above-noted stupid histrionics around hydroxychloroquine. Unfortunately, our national discussion focused on the horrors of using the term "Wuhan Virus" (the accepted convention) and the simultaneously denial of its severity and encouraging people to attend events in Chinatown. Again, that's not to excuse Trump's missteps, but I have no evidence to believe his clear and decisive leadership would have been met with anything but dismissal and derision. Of course, it does not help that he's a crazy man-child has the maturity of an elementary school bully.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration much better other than saying "wear a mask" and "shots" a lot more. And IMHO Fauci is just terrible. He's a big part of the problem with his mixed messages and love of the spotlight. Hard to take a "public health expert" seriously when he sits for covers of entertainment magazines.

[BabaYaga 15417]

8 minutes ago, lmao said:

From people who have benefited financially or politically to people like my aunt who treat this as a new religion or a reverse Qanon. Not sure what she will do if this ends or things go 100% back to normal. She is having the time of her life. Being able to yell at children & their parents for not social distancing at the park is her Superbowl.

Corporations benefitted from this tremendously.  The social media giants are loving every aspect of this.  They thrive on discord and animosity.  Everyone cooped up losing their shit on their sites if pure gold. Their shares are SOARING right now.  Apple, Google, Twatter, FB, etc.  Profitability has never been higher.  

Then you have ZOOM, all the streaming services, etc.

And the retailers?  Amazon, all the other big box stores & chains - they (being of course "critical") are crushing it.  Much of their competition has been regulated out of existence at the federal, state, and local levels.  Tens of thousands of smaller business will never return.  McDonalds and Starbucks...they're doing great. 

Not saying they are intentionally driving policy and public opinions to stay locked down, but you have to wonder (off the record) that they are not shedding any tears the longer this draws out.  This is a further consolidation of power among a select few that wield more and more influence.  Many are now as "essential" as the banks were back in '07-08 and have conveniently aligned their interests with the interests of the federal government that more and more protects them.

This may well turn out to be the single biggest power grab by public companies in the history of this country.  

 

 

[Kyle 207]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Corporations benefitted from this tremendously.  The social media giants are loving every aspect of this.  They thrive on discord and animosity.  Everyone cooped up losing their shit on their sites if pure gold. Their shares are SOARING right now.  Apple, Google, Twatter, FB, etc.  Profitability has never been higher.  

Then you have ZOOM, all the streaming services, etc.

And the retailers?  Amazon, all the other big box stores & chains - they (being of course "critical") are crushing it.  Much of their competition has been regulated out of existence at the federal, state, and local levels.  Tens of thousands of smaller business will never return.  McDonalds and Starbucks...they're doing great. 

Not saying they are intentionally driving policy and public opinions to stay locked down, but you have to wonder (off the record) that they are not shedding any tears the longer this draws out.  This is a further consolidation of power among a select few that wield more and more influence.  Many are now as "essential" as the banks were back in '07-08 and have conveniently aligned their interests with the interests of the federal government that more and more protects them.

This may well turn out to be the single biggest power grab by public companies in the history of this country.  

It's not a coincidence that my biggest pro-lockdown friend gets his money from Netflix.

Lockdown + $15 minimum wage would be the final destruction of small businesses big corporations want.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Kyle