7 ms·

Just de-boarded and re-boarded an aircraft going to Europe from NY because of this „small“ missing „detail“ in the initial announcement. 4h delay and the people

Just de-boarded and re-boarded an aircraft going to Europe from NY because of this „small“ missing „detail“ in the initial announcement. 4h delay and the people who de-boarded the plane initially, are not re-boarding because they probably left the airport by now, not knowing they had wrong information. Ouch.

jbigelow76 7y ago
4h delay and the people who de-boarded the plane initially, are not re-boarding because they probably left the airport by now, not knowing they had wrong information. For those that live in the US and de-boarded because of this "missing detail", I wouldn't be surprised if in a week or two they don't feel like they dodged a massive bullet.
- MegaButts 7y ago
  > I wouldn't be surprised if in a week or two they don't feel like they dodged a massive bullet. I'm guessing you didn't mean this to be a double negative? In other words: > I would be surprised if in a week or two they feel like they dodged a massive bullet but I suspect you meant the opposite?
  - jbigelow76 7y ago
    Correct; it's an incorrectly worded, flippant, emotional response to my view of my country's (the US) response to the crisis and not a statement that those that are/were travelling to Europe shouldn't.
  - goodside 7y ago
    This is known as “negative concord” and shows up often in colloquial English. While popularly associated with African American and Appalachian dialects, it actually occurs almost everywhere English is spoken. (E.g. Pink Floyd’s chorus, “We don’t need no education / We don’t need no thought control”.) Even in formal writing, double negatives are common using “nor”. Consider the sentence, “He is not satisfied at all with the recommendations of Mr. Trump, nor with those of Mrs. Clinton.” If you change “nor” to “or”, the meaning remains identical. This shows the negative “nor” reiterates rather inverts the prior negation. Note the “nor” version is no less formal or professional in tone because of its double negative. Negative concord even has precedent in Shakespeare: “I never was, nor never will be” from Richard III. Most would suggest avoiding negative concord in a formal writing (excepting “nor”), but colloquially it’s been part of the language for hundreds of years. In a conversational context, the line you quoted is standard English with or without the “don’t”.
    - squiggleblaz 7y ago
      That sounds like a misplaced and ideological canned response, since I've never heard negative concord in this context. Most people would just accept it as getting confused about the number of negatives in a sentence - as indeed did the op. Not everything is simply informal grammar; real fleshy human beings do get confused when they try complicated sentences like double negatives.
      - goodside 7y ago
        > This sounds like a misplaced and ideological canned response, since I’ve never heard negative concord in this context. You have a misplaced trust in your instincts. The following examples of this exact double-negative construction (“...wouldn’t be surprised if ... didn’t...”) are quoted from newspapers and BBC specials: > But the seeds have been sown and I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't try, once she's feeling more confident herself, to persuade him into the deep end. > "I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see there are a couple of days with some good news and very, very positive market news," Houge said, noting potential days of 10 percent spikes. > "I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't lose $157,000 in taxes," Van Tuinen said. > It was late, and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't leave some of his audience back down the road somewhere impaled on point number 10 or 11. Here’s a quote of John F. Kennedy using this construction in a recorded interview: > President Kennedy: That's what I think. I would have been impeached. I think they would have moved to impeach. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't move to impeach right after this election, on the grounds that I said … and didn't do it … and let … I mean, I'd be … I Googled these examples in five seconds. You could have too, but instead you chose to lob insults and embarrass yourself.
cylinder 7y ago
It's so dumb, immediate family members not applicable -- so check-in agents are now going to be in the business of examining birth certificates?
- remarkEon 7y ago
  I'm guessing we're going to get a lot of these sentiments over the next couple weeks (months?), about how these restrictions are interfering with the comforts of modern life. Let it stand as a reminder of how good we have it, and how fragile things actually are. It's a pandemic. There's going to be some bumps.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    I don't know it seems like it might be dumb to make an exception that would be hard to check and thus might be hard to apply and would mean that anyone who didn't want their comforts interfered with could say "I'm an immediate family member!" But I guess the ethical will follow the rules and be uncomfortable, and the unethical won't, as per standard operating procedure. On Edit: Why the downvote?
  - hcknwscommenter 7y ago
    The ridiculous part of this whole travel ban 3.0 is that it is totally unnecessary. If the U.S. had proper testing infrastructure, we could test every single person arriving from abroad and make them wait the 4 hours required to get a read. S. Korea has that type of testing infrastructure. We invented the darn technology. There are no excuses for the deplorable, laughable, incompetent, disgraceful (I could go on) roll out (actually lack thereof) of testing in the U.S. As best I can tell, we now (today) have capacity to test about a 1,000 samples a day? Unbelievable. Give me three water baths, any old microtiter plate fluorometer, and enough tubes and reagents and I can run 1,000 samples a day by hand.
    - mraudiobook_com 7y ago
      Who is running an rtpcr in 4 hours?
miked85 7y ago
The most important detail that was missed, it seems, is that this doesn't go into effect until midnight on Friday 03/13.
- wheelerwj 7y ago
  people aren't worried about leaving, they were worried about coming back.
- tlb 7y ago
  Is that departure time or arrival time?
- chvid 7y ago
  The president says that clearly in his address. However the stuff about cargo being included is really odd. As if he was freestyling rather than reading. Other than that; I fail to see the point of this. There is already community spread in the US and the UK. The ban seems arbitrary and politicized.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - toyg 7y ago
    > As if he was freestyling rather than reading. Or as if he had problems reading, which we know he likely has.
- forkexec 7y ago
  Which timezone?
  - toyg 7y ago
    I expect the natural answer is EDT (Washington DC time) but it's an extremely legitimate question in a country as big as the US and it should have been stated more clearly by the Dyslexic In Chief.
eveningcoffee 7y ago
The people who went home just won the lottery ticket.
- Tepix 7y ago
  They did?
  - eveningcoffee 7y ago
    Depending on to which country they intended to travel exactly but all the western side of Europe is on the brink of COVID-19 explosion. Germany, France and Spain are just 7-10 days behind Italy based on number of corona virus infections. The rest are possibly around 2 weeks behind, I have not run the numbers for every country (disclosure: I am not a medical professional, my estimates are based on simple time series but at this stage of the infection these have been proven to be accurate enough).
    - squiggleblaz 7y ago
      Yay! I'm in Germany! The authorities here don't seem to care). I was trying to buy some food yesterday and there were massive queues hanging outside various apparently crowded social venues. At least I work from home and my wife has been told they have to start wfh tomorrow.
      - majewsky 7y ago
        Fellow German here. It's not that the authorities don't care. They're just putting "avoid panic" as their #1 priority above "contain the outbreak". Large events and gatherings are getting shut down, just not as vigorously as would be prudent.
    - dTal 7y ago
      You're assuming that the USA isn't. Just because nobody's being tested in the US, doesn't mean nobody's infected; there are unquestionably tens of thousands of undiagnosed cases.
dang 7y ago
(This subthread was originally in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22552902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22552902)

jbigelow76 7y ago

4h delay and the people who de-boarded the plane initially, are not re-boarding because they probably left the airport by now, not knowing they had wrong information. For those that live in the US and de-boarded because of this "missing detail", I wouldn't be surprised if in a week or two they don't feel like they dodged a massive bullet.

MegaButts 7y ago
> I wouldn't be surprised if in a week or two they don't feel like they dodged a massive bullet. I'm guessing you didn't mean this to be a double negative? In other words: > I would be surprised if in a week or two they feel like they dodged a massive bullet but I suspect you meant the opposite?
- jbigelow76 7y ago
  Correct; it's an incorrectly worded, flippant, emotional response to my view of my country's (the US) response to the crisis and not a statement that those that are/were travelling to Europe shouldn't.
- goodside 7y ago
  This is known as “negative concord” and shows up often in colloquial English. While popularly associated with African American and Appalachian dialects, it actually occurs almost everywhere English is spoken. (E.g. Pink Floyd’s chorus, “We don’t need no education / We don’t need no thought control”.) Even in formal writing, double negatives are common using “nor”. Consider the sentence, “He is not satisfied at all with the recommendations of Mr. Trump, nor with those of Mrs. Clinton.” If you change “nor” to “or”, the meaning remains identical. This shows the negative “nor” reiterates rather inverts the prior negation. Note the “nor” version is no less formal or professional in tone because of its double negative. Negative concord even has precedent in Shakespeare: “I never was, nor never will be” from Richard III. Most would suggest avoiding negative concord in a formal writing (excepting “nor”), but colloquially it’s been part of the language for hundreds of years. In a conversational context, the line you quoted is standard English with or without the “don’t”.
  - squiggleblaz 7y ago
    That sounds like a misplaced and ideological canned response, since I've never heard negative concord in this context. Most people would just accept it as getting confused about the number of negatives in a sentence - as indeed did the op. Not everything is simply informal grammar; real fleshy human beings do get confused when they try complicated sentences like double negatives.
    - goodside 7y ago
      > This sounds like a misplaced and ideological canned response, since I’ve never heard negative concord in this context. You have a misplaced trust in your instincts. The following examples of this exact double-negative construction (“...wouldn’t be surprised if ... didn’t...”) are quoted from newspapers and BBC specials: > But the seeds have been sown and I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't try, once she's feeling more confident herself, to persuade him into the deep end. > "I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see there are a couple of days with some good news and very, very positive market news," Houge said, noting potential days of 10 percent spikes. > "I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't lose $157,000 in taxes," Van Tuinen said. > It was late, and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't leave some of his audience back down the road somewhere impaled on point number 10 or 11. Here’s a quote of John F. Kennedy using this construction in a recorded interview: > President Kennedy: That's what I think. I would have been impeached. I think they would have moved to impeach. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't move to impeach right after this election, on the grounds that I said … and didn't do it … and let … I mean, I'd be … I Googled these examples in five seconds. You could have too, but instead you chose to lob insults and embarrass yourself.

cylinder 7y ago

It's so dumb, immediate family members not applicable -- so check-in agents are now going to be in the business of examining birth certificates?

remarkEon 7y ago
I'm guessing we're going to get a lot of these sentiments over the next couple weeks (months?), about how these restrictions are interfering with the comforts of modern life. Let it stand as a reminder of how good we have it, and how fragile things actually are. It's a pandemic. There's going to be some bumps.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  I don't know it seems like it might be dumb to make an exception that would be hard to check and thus might be hard to apply and would mean that anyone who didn't want their comforts interfered with could say "I'm an immediate family member!" But I guess the ethical will follow the rules and be uncomfortable, and the unethical won't, as per standard operating procedure. On Edit: Why the downvote?
- hcknwscommenter 7y ago
  The ridiculous part of this whole travel ban 3.0 is that it is totally unnecessary. If the U.S. had proper testing infrastructure, we could test every single person arriving from abroad and make them wait the 4 hours required to get a read. S. Korea has that type of testing infrastructure. We invented the darn technology. There are no excuses for the deplorable, laughable, incompetent, disgraceful (I could go on) roll out (actually lack thereof) of testing in the U.S. As best I can tell, we now (today) have capacity to test about a 1,000 samples a day? Unbelievable. Give me three water baths, any old microtiter plate fluorometer, and enough tubes and reagents and I can run 1,000 samples a day by hand.
  - mraudiobook_com 7y ago
    Who is running an rtpcr in 4 hours?

miked85 7y ago

The most important detail that was missed, it seems, is that this doesn't go into effect until midnight on Friday 03/13.

wheelerwj 7y ago
people aren't worried about leaving, they were worried about coming back.
tlb 7y ago
Is that departure time or arrival time?
chvid 7y ago
The president says that clearly in his address. However the stuff about cargo being included is really odd. As if he was freestyling rather than reading. Other than that; I fail to see the point of this. There is already community spread in the US and the UK. The ban seems arbitrary and politicized.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- toyg 7y ago
  > As if he was freestyling rather than reading. Or as if he had problems reading, which we know he likely has.
forkexec 7y ago
Which timezone?
- toyg 7y ago
  I expect the natural answer is EDT (Washington DC time) but it's an extremely legitimate question in a country as big as the US and it should have been stated more clearly by the Dyslexic In Chief.

eveningcoffee 7y ago

The people who went home just won the lottery ticket.

Tepix 7y ago
They did?
- eveningcoffee 7y ago
  Depending on to which country they intended to travel exactly but all the western side of Europe is on the brink of COVID-19 explosion. Germany, France and Spain are just 7-10 days behind Italy based on number of corona virus infections. The rest are possibly around 2 weeks behind, I have not run the numbers for every country (disclosure: I am not a medical professional, my estimates are based on simple time series but at this stage of the infection these have been proven to be accurate enough).
  - squiggleblaz 7y ago
    Yay! I'm in Germany! The authorities here don't seem to care). I was trying to buy some food yesterday and there were massive queues hanging outside various apparently crowded social venues. At least I work from home and my wife has been told they have to start wfh tomorrow.
    - majewsky 7y ago
      Fellow German here. It's not that the authorities don't care. They're just putting "avoid panic" as their #1 priority above "contain the outbreak". Large events and gatherings are getting shut down, just not as vigorously as would be prudent.
  - dTal 7y ago
    You're assuming that the USA isn't. Just because nobody's being tested in the US, doesn't mean nobody's infected; there are unquestionably tens of thousands of undiagnosed cases.

dang 7y ago

(This subthread was originally in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22552902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22552902)