3 ms·

The government forcing me to lose my job by shutting everything down and then giving me a little boost in unemployment does not make me greatful. It makes me re

The government forcing me to lose my job by shutting everything down and then giving me a little boost in unemployment does not make me greatful. It makes me resentful that i am forced to rely on them.

afavour 6y ago
I didn't ask if you'd be grateful, I asked if you'd take the expanded unemployment insurance. I suspect a lot of people were grumbling all the way to the direct deposit form but filled it out anyway. And it's not as if governments forced these shutdowns on a whim or because they felt like it. They were the result of scientific examination, and more importantly, the majority of voters were in favour of them (I think 8 out of 10 in the US in April?). In this case the government was just expressing the will of the people, whether it was your personal will or not.
- logifail 6y ago
  > it's not as if governments forced these shutdowns on a whim or because they felt like it. They were the result of scientific examination [Source: a friend of mine who worked in local government disaster & contingency planning] I don't believe that government-mandated lockdowns were ever part of any pre-Covid19 pandemic planning. It was assumed that [for instance] schools might well end up having to close if the spread of disease got so widespread that there wouldn't be enough healthy staff to keep them open, not because government would order them closed.
sofixa 6y ago
What should have they done? Nothing? And what about all the dead piling in the streets and freezer trucks?
- dragontamer 6y ago
  P1 and B.1.351 avoid natural immunity gained from the original COVID19 virus. So if we did nothing, then P1 / B.1.351 would have reinfected the country anyway. Manaus (Brazil) got reinfected and its hospitals are overflowing with P1 infections, even after achieving 76% infection rate last year. I say this because there's a large number of people who actually believe that "do nothing" is the correct response. Now with the hindsight of these new variants, we now know for sure that "doing nothing" is the wrong answer. Not only does "do nothing" fail to prepare against future variants, it CREATES new variants as large masses of the population mutate the virus. ----------- It is increasingly looking like vaccination is our only option. (or really, has always been our only option, and we're only gathering proof today that this is absolutely the case).
  - logifail 6y ago
    > It is increasingly looking like vaccination is our only option For those at high risk, vaccination sounds like an excellent idea. A bit like we do with seasonal flu? Except note that: "Flu viruses are constantly changing, so the vaccine composition is reviewed each year and updated as needed based on which influenza viruses are making people sick, the extent to which those viruses are spreading, and how well the previous season’s vaccine protects against those viruses"[0] What do we do about those who are at low / very low risk from Covid19? [0] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm
    - dragontamer 6y ago
      > What do we do about those who are at low / very low risk from Covid19? We give them the vaccine to stop the spread, once the vaccine is proven safe. After all: the vaccine slows down the spread of the disease (probably at a lesser rate than it prevents hospitalizations, but a slowdown in any case is good). I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate in your post. Since the vaccine has been given to over 30-million Americans, we know it is safe at this point (with issues occurring in literally one-in-a-million allergy issues, which is largely solved by just watching the patients 30-minutes after injection). EDIT: I should note that we should vaccinate the high-risk / high-impact population first. The only reason we don't vaccinate the low-impact / low-risk population yet is because we don't have enough vaccine yet. But as Johnson&Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Novavax release their doses, things will go a lot faster.
      - logifail 6y ago
        > We give them the vaccine to stop the spread [..] Of course people hope that the vaccines actually do reduce transmission, the first study on that being the case for one of the vaccines appears to be less than a week old[sic] and it's not published yet. "the study shows [for] the first time a vaccine has been shown to reduce transmission of the virus" [0] > Since the vaccine has been given to over 30-million Americans, we know it is safe at this point[..] I can think of a few things that were "known" to be safe that later turned out not to be quite as safe at all, let's all hope that isn't the case here. > The only reason we don't vaccinate the low-impact / low-risk population yet is because we don't have enough vaccine yet I'm not sure it's that simple. It's not just that there isn't enough vaccine, none of the vaccines are (yet) licenced for children. (Full disclosure: all three of our kids are up to date on all their regularly scheduled vaccinations...) Do you think some|most|all parents will consent to their children having one or more vaccinations against Covid19 when "the likelihood of children having significant detriment if they catch Covid-19 is very, very low" (quote from UK Health Secretary, Matt Hancock)[1] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55913913 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55913913 [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/55192468 https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/55192468

afavour 6y ago

I didn't ask if you'd be grateful, I asked if you'd take the expanded unemployment insurance. I suspect a lot of people were grumbling all the way to the direct deposit form but filled it out anyway. And it's not as if governments forced these shutdowns on a whim or because they felt like it. They were the result of scientific examination, and more importantly, the majority of voters were in favour of them (I think 8 out of 10 in the US in April?). In this case the government was just expressing the will of the people, whether it was your personal will or not.

logifail 6y ago
> it's not as if governments forced these shutdowns on a whim or because they felt like it. They were the result of scientific examination [Source: a friend of mine who worked in local government disaster & contingency planning] I don't believe that government-mandated lockdowns were ever part of any pre-Covid19 pandemic planning. It was assumed that [for instance] schools might well end up having to close if the spread of disease got so widespread that there wouldn't be enough healthy staff to keep them open, not because government would order them closed.

sofixa 6y ago

What should have they done? Nothing? And what about all the dead piling in the streets and freezer trucks?

dragontamer 6y ago
P1 and B.1.351 avoid natural immunity gained from the original COVID19 virus. So if we did nothing, then P1 / B.1.351 would have reinfected the country anyway. Manaus (Brazil) got reinfected and its hospitals are overflowing with P1 infections, even after achieving 76% infection rate last year. I say this because there's a large number of people who actually believe that "do nothing" is the correct response. Now with the hindsight of these new variants, we now know for sure that "doing nothing" is the wrong answer. Not only does "do nothing" fail to prepare against future variants, it CREATES new variants as large masses of the population mutate the virus. ----------- It is increasingly looking like vaccination is our only option. (or really, has always been our only option, and we're only gathering proof today that this is absolutely the case).
- logifail 6y ago
  > It is increasingly looking like vaccination is our only option For those at high risk, vaccination sounds like an excellent idea. A bit like we do with seasonal flu? Except note that: "Flu viruses are constantly changing, so the vaccine composition is reviewed each year and updated as needed based on which influenza viruses are making people sick, the extent to which those viruses are spreading, and how well the previous season’s vaccine protects against those viruses"[0] What do we do about those who are at low / very low risk from Covid19? [0] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    > What do we do about those who are at low / very low risk from Covid19? We give them the vaccine to stop the spread, once the vaccine is proven safe. After all: the vaccine slows down the spread of the disease (probably at a lesser rate than it prevents hospitalizations, but a slowdown in any case is good). I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate in your post. Since the vaccine has been given to over 30-million Americans, we know it is safe at this point (with issues occurring in literally one-in-a-million allergy issues, which is largely solved by just watching the patients 30-minutes after injection). EDIT: I should note that we should vaccinate the high-risk / high-impact population first. The only reason we don't vaccinate the low-impact / low-risk population yet is because we don't have enough vaccine yet. But as Johnson&Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Novavax release their doses, things will go a lot faster.
    - logifail 6y ago
      > We give them the vaccine to stop the spread [..] Of course people hope that the vaccines actually do reduce transmission, the first study on that being the case for one of the vaccines appears to be less than a week old[sic] and it's not published yet. "the study shows [for] the first time a vaccine has been shown to reduce transmission of the virus" [0] > Since the vaccine has been given to over 30-million Americans, we know it is safe at this point[..] I can think of a few things that were "known" to be safe that later turned out not to be quite as safe at all, let's all hope that isn't the case here. > The only reason we don't vaccinate the low-impact / low-risk population yet is because we don't have enough vaccine yet I'm not sure it's that simple. It's not just that there isn't enough vaccine, none of the vaccines are (yet) licenced for children. (Full disclosure: all three of our kids are up to date on all their regularly scheduled vaccinations...) Do you think some|most|all parents will consent to their children having one or more vaccinations against Covid19 when "the likelihood of children having significant detriment if they catch Covid-19 is very, very low" (quote from UK Health Secretary, Matt Hancock)[1] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55913913 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55913913 [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/55192468 https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/55192468