4 ms·

The difference is that those 450 cases at the tesla plant were easily avoidable, if not for the selfish actions of a powerful egomaniac.

sharken 6y ago
You could also call it a calculated risk and it that case it seems like a reasonable action to keep the plant running.
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  A calculated risk on the lives of others? That's a funny way to see it.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    Life is one big calculated risk in our and others lives... have you ever driven a car? With the precautions they have set up (I think the data speaks for itself...) I’d rather a little bit of risk and have my livelihood.
    - pietrovismara 6y ago
      This discussion is surreal, really. Can you see the difference between taking a risk on yourself, by your decision, or being forced to take it by decision of others?
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        every time you drive a car, you are choosing to increase the risk for others. I believe that is the point of the analogy.
      - jjcon 6y ago
        Again though... how is this any different than having to commute to work? The thresholds might be different but this is a matter of degree not principle as your inflammatory language suggest.
        pietrovismara 6y ago
        It would be the same if, when starting my commute, I knew that today there would be a much higher risk of hurting someone with my car. But then, if my car was defective and I knew about it and caused an accident, wouldn't that be criminal behavior?
        jjcon 6y ago
        First you made a principle argument now you are admitting it is a matter of degrees - regardless you are at risk of hurting someone with your car every time you drive. All one can do is take precautions to a reasonable degree and carry on - that is exactly what Tesla did. Nobody was forced to ‘risk their life’, those who wanted to work were allowed to do so.
        leetcrew 6y ago
        maybe. driving around while knowing that, say, your tire lug nuts are not properly tightened would possibly be criminally negligent. but there's always stuff you could have done to make your car safer. a lot of it is stuff people know or should know. how many people do you think actually check their tire pressure at least once a month?
      - JoeyBananas 6y ago
        When you drive a car, you are taking a chance that you will cause an accident that kills another person
    - Turing_Machine 6y ago
      Perhaps even more on point: A certain number of people are going to have a bad reaction to the COVID-19 vaccines and die as a result. Fortunately, this number appears to be quite low, but it's not zero. It's never zero (there are people who are born allergic to breast milk, and who can die from that). Our society has calculated that the risks involved with getting COVID-19 are higher than those involved in getting the vaccine. Therefore we are vaccinating people, even though some are guaranteed to die from that (but once again emphasizing that is going to be a whole lot fewer deaths than if we don't vaccinate). Classic calculated risk.
  - s9w 6y ago
    let's just cease all economic activity on the planet then
1996 6y ago
> The difference is that those 450 cases at the tesla plant were easily avoidable, if not for the selfish actions of a powerful egomaniac Evidence required. Without counterfactual, the plant seem safer than the county : 4.5% vs 5% as mentioned above. For all we know, they got sick while going to work due to the incidence in the county, and would not have been if they could sleep and eat at the plant. Also, the workers may prefer being paid than on the government dole But all the journalist care is making an incendiary article to present as class warfare what is just plain good sense: eventually, plants will be reopened
- temp8964 6y ago
  Counterfactual is really important for comparison. Many people may fail to grasp this concept for a fair comparison. The counterfactual of getting infected while go to work at the tesla, is not, staying home and not getting infected. Staying home, you can still get infected (but not getting paid). There are so many reports just compare what observed to a perfection. I don't think journalists wrote those articles are stupid enough to compare reality to a perfection, because they can immediately show some level of sophistications when defending someone they like. I believe this is just a tactic for intentionally biased reporting. Journalists can always control how many data they want to present in their reports.
  - bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
    Given how many people argue the dumbest things about this article (like that if we include the January 2020 Covid numbers things would be differrent!) I don't think the issue is intentional stupidity. The journalist has a story, and if they asked the questions about context they wouldn't have a story, so they simply ignore those issues.
    - temp8964 6y ago
      But when they targeted Tesla for the story, they already had an agenda.
- pietrovismara 6y ago
jjcon 6y ago
Are you assuming all those cases were contracted at the plant? Given their precautions and the fact that they have less than the general surrounding population... that seems pretty unlikely

sharken 6y ago

You could also call it a calculated risk and it that case it seems like a reasonable action to keep the plant running.

pietrovismara 6y ago
A calculated risk on the lives of others? That's a funny way to see it.
- jjcon 6y ago
  Life is one big calculated risk in our and others lives... have you ever driven a car? With the precautions they have set up (I think the data speaks for itself...) I’d rather a little bit of risk and have my livelihood.
  - pietrovismara 6y ago
    This discussion is surreal, really. Can you see the difference between taking a risk on yourself, by your decision, or being forced to take it by decision of others?
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      every time you drive a car, you are choosing to increase the risk for others. I believe that is the point of the analogy.
    - jjcon 6y ago
      Again though... how is this any different than having to commute to work? The thresholds might be different but this is a matter of degree not principle as your inflammatory language suggest.
      - pietrovismara 6y ago
        It would be the same if, when starting my commute, I knew that today there would be a much higher risk of hurting someone with my car. But then, if my car was defective and I knew about it and caused an accident, wouldn't that be criminal behavior?
        jjcon 6y ago
        First you made a principle argument now you are admitting it is a matter of degrees - regardless you are at risk of hurting someone with your car every time you drive. All one can do is take precautions to a reasonable degree and carry on - that is exactly what Tesla did. Nobody was forced to ‘risk their life’, those who wanted to work were allowed to do so.
        leetcrew 6y ago
        maybe. driving around while knowing that, say, your tire lug nuts are not properly tightened would possibly be criminally negligent. but there's always stuff you could have done to make your car safer. a lot of it is stuff people know or should know. how many people do you think actually check their tire pressure at least once a month?
    - JoeyBananas 6y ago
      When you drive a car, you are taking a chance that you will cause an accident that kills another person
  - Turing_Machine 6y ago
    Perhaps even more on point: A certain number of people are going to have a bad reaction to the COVID-19 vaccines and die as a result. Fortunately, this number appears to be quite low, but it's not zero. It's never zero (there are people who are born allergic to breast milk, and who can die from that). Our society has calculated that the risks involved with getting COVID-19 are higher than those involved in getting the vaccine. Therefore we are vaccinating people, even though some are guaranteed to die from that (but once again emphasizing that is going to be a whole lot fewer deaths than if we don't vaccinate). Classic calculated risk.
- s9w 6y ago
  let's just cease all economic activity on the planet then

1996 6y ago

> The difference is that those 450 cases at the tesla plant were easily avoidable, if not for the selfish actions of a powerful egomaniac Evidence required. Without counterfactual, the plant seem safer than the county : 4.5% vs 5% as mentioned above. For all we know, they got sick while going to work due to the incidence in the county, and would not have been if they could sleep and eat at the plant. Also, the workers may prefer being paid than on the government dole But all the journalist care is making an incendiary article to present as class warfare what is just plain good sense: eventually, plants will be reopened

temp8964 6y ago
Counterfactual is really important for comparison. Many people may fail to grasp this concept for a fair comparison. The counterfactual of getting infected while go to work at the tesla, is not, staying home and not getting infected. Staying home, you can still get infected (but not getting paid). There are so many reports just compare what observed to a perfection. I don't think journalists wrote those articles are stupid enough to compare reality to a perfection, because they can immediately show some level of sophistications when defending someone they like. I believe this is just a tactic for intentionally biased reporting. Journalists can always control how many data they want to present in their reports.
- bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
  Given how many people argue the dumbest things about this article (like that if we include the January 2020 Covid numbers things would be differrent!) I don't think the issue is intentional stupidity. The journalist has a story, and if they asked the questions about context they wouldn't have a story, so they simply ignore those issues.
  - temp8964 6y ago
    But when they targeted Tesla for the story, they already had an agenda.
pietrovismara 6y ago

jjcon 6y ago

Are you assuming all those cases were contracted at the plant? Given their precautions and the fact that they have less than the general surrounding population... that seems pretty unlikely