7 ms·

Where I am, the second paragraph of the executive order establishing the "lockdown" explicitly states that victims of domestic violence are exempt and are urged

Where I am, the second paragraph of the executive order establishing the "lockdown" explicitly states that victims of domestic violence are exempt and are urged to leave for a safer location. It makes clear further in the order that services provided are considered essential and should remain open and that transportation is also essential and should remain available. The news media simply does a terrible job of communicating what exactly these "lockdowns" mean. People that had a daily respite because their spouse left for work, or (as the article mentions) the stress of the situation is causing alcoholism and relapses into violence are people that need help and that the system in place most likely doesn't have the capacity to handle. This is where additional resources need to be made available.

empath75 7y ago
My wife works with domestic violence victims. It's extraordinarily difficult to get victims of domestic violence to leave their abusers even in the best of times. There's also not a lot of shelters available for women to stay in for long periods of time.
- OrangeMango 7y ago
  You are absolutely right. It's a very difficult problem to solve, and the current situation makes it far more challenging. But knowing that you are not legally required to stay has to be an improvement.
  - joveian 7y ago
    It is good to have that exception. Here in Portland, Oregon they are saying that the main issue is that finding long term housing, normally in short supply here, is now almost impossible.
lmkg 7y ago
Which do you think matters more to a person in an abusive situation? A. Paragraph two of some legal document somewhere B. "If you leave the house, I'll call the cops and tell them you're breaking quarantine, and then you'll go to jail and I'll be the only person who can get you out." I don't disagree with your last paragraph: There are other related issues and maybe some of them are worse. But how this actually plays out in an abusive situation is a fair bit removed from what the executive order says.
- mathdev 7y ago
  "If you leave the house, I'll call the cops and tell them you're breaking quarantine, and then you'll go to jail and I'll be the only person who can get you out." Funny how those are almost the exact words that parents of my girlfriend used in an attempt to make her stay. She was terrified of spending an extended period of time at home with her father who normally works abroad and visits only for holidays.
- catalogia 7y ago
  Given that lifting quarantines seems infeasible, what do you suppose should be done instead? Same message, just communicated better?
  - kick 7y ago
    When trying to protect people (or, more accurately, trying not to hurt people) in low-information or high-stress situations (both very common for abusive situations), you can't throw something that essential into the second paragraph of a document that few outside of pundits will ever read. The goal would be for the exception to be noticeable-enough that it ended up in most headlines. How to achieve that is an interesting thing to think about, but it's what should have been done.
    - zepto 7y ago
      Realistically, people who stay in abusive relationships were already stuck. The problem wasn’t cause by the lockdown. Only compounded. Changing the presentation of a document won’t change this. What would, is a society that doesn’t tolerate the problem, and provides material support for the abused. We are a long way from that.
      - cies 7y ago
        Someone who cannot leave a relationship in which abuse did not just take place once, but repeated (hence "abusive"); when what should society do that it should not already be doing to everyone? * ensure you have food and shelter * ensure reasonably safe * ensure that children are admitted to some school * ensure you dont sink into deep poverty When a society cannot help on these points, what use is requesting these for the small sub category of marginalized that are so because of an abusive relationship, that they themselves are usually to some extend are continued to be pulled back into?
zabana 7y ago
> The news media simply does a terrible job of communicating what exactly these "lockdowns" mean. The news media have no incentive to rationally analyse facts and put them in perspective. They need panic and confusion so we continue to click on their substance-less articles and videos. In times of confusion like this, go directly to the official sources (WHO, ministry of health, NHS etc) and skip the "journalists" altogether, this will have a significant positive impact on your mental health. Stay safe everyone
- cies 7y ago
  I believe the WHO also presenting in ways to promote panic. For instance the quote "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected." [1] These two number are are total false comparison. Now they may do this for good purposes: a little fear helps people take it serious and thus follow suit. But this I believe it is VERY intellectually dishonest and has me even question their narrative at this point. (No COVID19 denier here, just want to know what the chances of survival and inconveniences are for me + loved ones + world population at large) 3.4% = corona deaths / total cases tested positive >1% = flu deaths / estimated total infected Now these terms contain a lot of grey area but this is true, I did the peer review and made calcs to support what I say here: WHO presents apple-orange data. That's either by accident (I hope not, cuz statistics should be their game), or more likely to make it look more severe (again this could be with good intentions). Another thing to consider is that the "total cases tested positive" likely have a serious selection bias. Sick folk is tested at the moment. Where a population research should test a random sample. I'm just trying to make sense of this whole thing like all of us, but the WHO has put me off as a reputable source of info. Less shitty than the MSM journalists, sure, but not good either. 1: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...
jasonlotito 7y ago
> The news media simply does a terrible job of communicating what exactly these "lockdowns" mean. If you only read the headlines or listen to tweets that butcher what exactly is being talked about. The stories generally go into further detail and provide links to further information if you want to dig into the details. People keep talking about how bad the "news media" is doing, and yet, if you actually read the stories instead of just reading the headlines and pull quotes, they are doing a fairly good job. If you do a simple search, you will see that far from doing bad job, this is getting a lot of attention by "news media" around the world. People whine about the "media" and yet, I can't help but think that they are only looking at headlines and that's it. Here you have an article from the "news media" and it's not even their first article on this specific topic!
- jsight 7y ago
  > If you only read the headlines or listen to tweets that butcher what exactly is being talked about. I'm amazed at how many people do that, even when the headline ends in a question.

empath75 7y ago

My wife works with domestic violence victims. It's extraordinarily difficult to get victims of domestic violence to leave their abusers even in the best of times. There's also not a lot of shelters available for women to stay in for long periods of time.

OrangeMango 7y ago
You are absolutely right. It's a very difficult problem to solve, and the current situation makes it far more challenging. But knowing that you are not legally required to stay has to be an improvement.
- joveian 7y ago
  It is good to have that exception. Here in Portland, Oregon they are saying that the main issue is that finding long term housing, normally in short supply here, is now almost impossible.

lmkg 7y ago

Which do you think matters more to a person in an abusive situation? A. Paragraph two of some legal document somewhere B. "If you leave the house, I'll call the cops and tell them you're breaking quarantine, and then you'll go to jail and I'll be the only person who can get you out." I don't disagree with your last paragraph: There are other related issues and maybe some of them are worse. But how this actually plays out in an abusive situation is a fair bit removed from what the executive order says.

mathdev 7y ago
"If you leave the house, I'll call the cops and tell them you're breaking quarantine, and then you'll go to jail and I'll be the only person who can get you out." Funny how those are almost the exact words that parents of my girlfriend used in an attempt to make her stay. She was terrified of spending an extended period of time at home with her father who normally works abroad and visits only for holidays.
catalogia 7y ago
Given that lifting quarantines seems infeasible, what do you suppose should be done instead? Same message, just communicated better?
- kick 7y ago
  When trying to protect people (or, more accurately, trying not to hurt people) in low-information or high-stress situations (both very common for abusive situations), you can't throw something that essential into the second paragraph of a document that few outside of pundits will ever read. The goal would be for the exception to be noticeable-enough that it ended up in most headlines. How to achieve that is an interesting thing to think about, but it's what should have been done.
  - zepto 7y ago
    Realistically, people who stay in abusive relationships were already stuck. The problem wasn’t cause by the lockdown. Only compounded. Changing the presentation of a document won’t change this. What would, is a society that doesn’t tolerate the problem, and provides material support for the abused. We are a long way from that.
    - cies 7y ago
      Someone who cannot leave a relationship in which abuse did not just take place once, but repeated (hence "abusive"); when what should society do that it should not already be doing to everyone? * ensure you have food and shelter * ensure reasonably safe * ensure that children are admitted to some school * ensure you dont sink into deep poverty When a society cannot help on these points, what use is requesting these for the small sub category of marginalized that are so because of an abusive relationship, that they themselves are usually to some extend are continued to be pulled back into?

zabana 7y ago

> The news media simply does a terrible job of communicating what exactly these "lockdowns" mean. The news media have no incentive to rationally analyse facts and put them in perspective. They need panic and confusion so we continue to click on their substance-less articles and videos. In times of confusion like this, go directly to the official sources (WHO, ministry of health, NHS etc) and skip the "journalists" altogether, this will have a significant positive impact on your mental health. Stay safe everyone

cies 7y ago
I believe the WHO also presenting in ways to promote panic. For instance the quote "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected." [1] These two number are are total false comparison. Now they may do this for good purposes: a little fear helps people take it serious and thus follow suit. But this I believe it is VERY intellectually dishonest and has me even question their narrative at this point. (No COVID19 denier here, just want to know what the chances of survival and inconveniences are for me + loved ones + world population at large) 3.4% = corona deaths / total cases tested positive >1% = flu deaths / estimated total infected Now these terms contain a lot of grey area but this is true, I did the peer review and made calcs to support what I say here: WHO presents apple-orange data. That's either by accident (I hope not, cuz statistics should be their game), or more likely to make it look more severe (again this could be with good intentions). Another thing to consider is that the "total cases tested positive" likely have a serious selection bias. Sick folk is tested at the moment. Where a population research should test a random sample. I'm just trying to make sense of this whole thing like all of us, but the WHO has put me off as a reputable source of info. Less shitty than the MSM journalists, sure, but not good either. 1: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...

jasonlotito 7y ago

> The news media simply does a terrible job of communicating what exactly these "lockdowns" mean. If you only read the headlines or listen to tweets that butcher what exactly is being talked about. The stories generally go into further detail and provide links to further information if you want to dig into the details. People keep talking about how bad the "news media" is doing, and yet, if you actually read the stories instead of just reading the headlines and pull quotes, they are doing a fairly good job. If you do a simple search, you will see that far from doing bad job, this is getting a lot of attention by "news media" around the world. People whine about the "media" and yet, I can't help but think that they are only looking at headlines and that's it. Here you have an article from the "news media" and it's not even their first article on this specific topic!

jsight 7y ago
> If you only read the headlines or listen to tweets that butcher what exactly is being talked about. I'm amazed at how many people do that, even when the headline ends in a question.