7 ms·

> N95s are still quite difficult to find here in the US. Yes, our government has been incompetent all around. That's a bad thing. If the country can't gear u

> N95s are still quite difficult to find here in the US. Yes, our government has been incompetent all around. That's a bad thing. If the country can't gear up production of masks to fight a pandemic, why am I supposed to believe we could do anything of meaning competently? I know I'm a lot less impressed with our military's readiness if we ever get into a real war than I was a year ago. We've shown we're very good at throwing money at fraudsters and very little about actually producing things we need ourselves. We also seem to care very little about over a million deaths, if we go with something like a 0.5% fatality rate. Puts the reaction to 9/11 and the whole "how dare you disrespect our troops" racist reaction to athletes protesting into perspective... I don't understand the people who go from "wow, we've handled this badly" to "we might as well never try anything again," though. That should be the motivation to start paying more attention, from local politics all the way up, not give up.

readingnews 6y ago
> We also seem to care very little about over a million deaths, if we go with something like a 0.5% fatality rate. Puts the reaction to 9/11 and the whole "how dare you disrespect our troops" racist reaction to athletes protesting into perspective... That is something to ponder. What does this say about us as a people? "Hey, we must retaliate, they attacked us!!" vs "Hell no I will not do one simple thing to protect others when we are all under attack from a virus." Hrm.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > What does this say about us as a people? Nothing. A large fraction of the population does not feel this way at all.
  - MagnumOpus 6y ago
    A few bad apples spoil the bunch. A society made up of people that tolerate 20% of their own to be antisocial super spreaders is rotten to the core, even if the majority behaves responsibly. There's an analogy to US police forces there, too. And to US politicians.
rootusrootus 6y ago
> Yes, our government has been incompetent all around. I don't agree. This is not incompetence. It is malice. The government absolutely could be responding far better, and doing much of the same things every other western democracy is doing. A popular political position in this country is to prove that we need less gov't by making sure it appears incompetent. Combined with the similar political need to believe the virus is a hoax means we get zero federal response.
- rasputin243 6y ago
  I wouldn't argue with that much when looking at federal government (judicial branch excluded), but state and local governments have been varied in their responses, and most have been far from malice. In Chicago, my local alderman has been reactive to events (including non-covid matters, like storm damage) and informative about public services (especially with testing sites). Helpful and without cynicism. I believe that national politics gets an undue spotlight, and that local government (in particular) does not receive the attention warranted.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>we get zero federal response. Or we are a federalist society where by the states need to ask for assistance and not have the response mandated by the federal government. We are a Union of States, and the states do and should have their own sovereignty from the federal government even in pandemic response. What works in NY may not be the the same as what works in SD as an example so a Federal response is just not needed
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    The federal government doesn't seem to feel that same restraint when it comes to sending federal police into Portland to do community-level police work. And they are certainly more than happy to dictate many other aspects of our lives using whatever levers they have available. So why is it suddenly now that they can't provide any help in a pandemic because it's the States' responsibility?
zo1 6y ago
I find it kind of odd that there appears to be a huge overlap between the following two groups of people: People that say government can or should impose/strongly-suggest/mandate mask wearing to protect overall population. Essentially the pro-mask wearing individuals. Individuals that believe that we need end-to-end encryption, and that we can't have government watching our emails, tracking our movements, doing facial recognition, profiling, etc to stop violence. In both cases, one could argue, the solutions being pushed-back against can effectively stop their respective problems. E.g. large scale big-brother surveillance of all individuals could effectively reduce crime to near zero. Just as 100% large scale government lockdowns/SIP and mask-orders can stop the spread of an epidemic. Obviously I'm generalizing to try draw a comparison and point out the hypocrisy. Both of the problems require a suspension of some set of rights for "the greater good", yet we somehow balk at one (surveillance, facial recognition, centralized DBs, etc) whilst applauding and being offended when people question the other (mask wearing, SIP laws, social distancing, etc). It's probably time that we decide as a society what we want instead of incessantly debating back and forth with contradictory requirements and expectations we impose on our governments.
- Eldt 6y ago
  Mass surveillance has a huge potential for abuse. Mass mask usage has what potential for abuse?
  - zo1 6y ago
    I'll agree it's not a perfect analogy. But if you want to press me on a potential abuse of a government-mandated and punishable order of wearing masks: Abuse of power by corrupt government officials that can use this extra and easily-fakeable "offense" in order to punish individuals that they don't like. Or what about the negative social aspect of creating laws that have neighbors secretly reporting each-other for this? Or the potential for child-traffickers to gag + hide the gag with a mask while they're busy engaging in trafficking? If you sit long enough you can come up with a potential abuse for any government law or idea. Just as is done with mass-surveillance. What we don't do is sit down and come up with extraordinary ways and means for us to use powerful tools/ideas/solutions such as surveillance in a responsible and safeguarded manner that is not exploitable by bad individuals in government, or bad governments themselves.

readingnews 6y ago

> We also seem to care very little about over a million deaths, if we go with something like a 0.5% fatality rate. Puts the reaction to 9/11 and the whole "how dare you disrespect our troops" racist reaction to athletes protesting into perspective... That is something to ponder. What does this say about us as a people? "Hey, we must retaliate, they attacked us!!" vs "Hell no I will not do one simple thing to protect others when we are all under attack from a virus." Hrm.

rootusrootus 6y ago
> What does this say about us as a people? Nothing. A large fraction of the population does not feel this way at all.
- MagnumOpus 6y ago
  A few bad apples spoil the bunch. A society made up of people that tolerate 20% of their own to be antisocial super spreaders is rotten to the core, even if the majority behaves responsibly. There's an analogy to US police forces there, too. And to US politicians.

rootusrootus 6y ago

> Yes, our government has been incompetent all around. I don't agree. This is not incompetence. It is malice. The government absolutely could be responding far better, and doing much of the same things every other western democracy is doing. A popular political position in this country is to prove that we need less gov't by making sure it appears incompetent. Combined with the similar political need to believe the virus is a hoax means we get zero federal response.

rasputin243 6y ago
I wouldn't argue with that much when looking at federal government (judicial branch excluded), but state and local governments have been varied in their responses, and most have been far from malice. In Chicago, my local alderman has been reactive to events (including non-covid matters, like storm damage) and informative about public services (especially with testing sites). Helpful and without cynicism. I believe that national politics gets an undue spotlight, and that local government (in particular) does not receive the attention warranted.
syshum 6y ago
>>we get zero federal response. Or we are a federalist society where by the states need to ask for assistance and not have the response mandated by the federal government. We are a Union of States, and the states do and should have their own sovereignty from the federal government even in pandemic response. What works in NY may not be the the same as what works in SD as an example so a Federal response is just not needed
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  The federal government doesn't seem to feel that same restraint when it comes to sending federal police into Portland to do community-level police work. And they are certainly more than happy to dictate many other aspects of our lives using whatever levers they have available. So why is it suddenly now that they can't provide any help in a pandemic because it's the States' responsibility?

zo1 6y ago

I find it kind of odd that there appears to be a huge overlap between the following two groups of people: People that say government can or should impose/strongly-suggest/mandate mask wearing to protect overall population. Essentially the pro-mask wearing individuals. Individuals that believe that we need end-to-end encryption, and that we can't have government watching our emails, tracking our movements, doing facial recognition, profiling, etc to stop violence. In both cases, one could argue, the solutions being pushed-back against can effectively stop their respective problems. E.g. large scale big-brother surveillance of all individuals could effectively reduce crime to near zero. Just as 100% large scale government lockdowns/SIP and mask-orders can stop the spread of an epidemic. Obviously I'm generalizing to try draw a comparison and point out the hypocrisy. Both of the problems require a suspension of some set of rights for "the greater good", yet we somehow balk at one (surveillance, facial recognition, centralized DBs, etc) whilst applauding and being offended when people question the other (mask wearing, SIP laws, social distancing, etc). It's probably time that we decide as a society what we want instead of incessantly debating back and forth with contradictory requirements and expectations we impose on our governments.

Eldt 6y ago
Mass surveillance has a huge potential for abuse. Mass mask usage has what potential for abuse?
- zo1 6y ago
  I'll agree it's not a perfect analogy. But if you want to press me on a potential abuse of a government-mandated and punishable order of wearing masks: Abuse of power by corrupt government officials that can use this extra and easily-fakeable "offense" in order to punish individuals that they don't like. Or what about the negative social aspect of creating laws that have neighbors secretly reporting each-other for this? Or the potential for child-traffickers to gag + hide the gag with a mask while they're busy engaging in trafficking? If you sit long enough you can come up with a potential abuse for any government law or idea. Just as is done with mass-surveillance. What we don't do is sit down and come up with extraordinary ways and means for us to use powerful tools/ideas/solutions such as surveillance in a responsible and safeguarded manner that is not exploitable by bad individuals in government, or bad governments themselves.