4 ms·

There is a HUGE difference in accepting a dole because you're shut down for the survival of your species and can't work vs how you see yourself functioning in a

There is a HUGE difference in accepting a dole because you're shut down for the survival of your species and can't work vs how you see yourself functioning in a society where you can work.

KorematsuFred 6y ago
I do acknowledge the difference, what I am trying to highlight that perhaps dole is not what they want. Perhaps the poor people are not interested in staying indoors in return for dole and would rather risk their lives to seek things that value more than dole. It is not the lack of dole that is causing the failure of lockdowns.
- supernovae 5y ago
  It is the lack of dole that caused the failures of lockdowns in combination with a lack of systemic social safety nets to help support people. If you were unemployed, you lost your healthcare, if you lost your healthcare getting sick probably means losing your house/rent or getting behind, if you get behind none of those stimulus checks do anything for those that are behind because the system was never designed to support people through a pandemic. You're trying to highlight something that doesn't exist.
more_corn 6y ago
"Survival of our species" is a bit extreme. Not to diminish the severity of our pandemic but it kills 1%. If we did nothing and just let everyone get it, 1% of us would die (not in any way advocating for that) our species would survive just fine. Perhaps you could just say "responding to a public health emergency"
mikem170 6y ago
> shut down for the survival of your species Do you really believe the survival of our species is at stake? There have been 1754 covid-19 deaths per million people in the USA since the start of the pandemic [0], a seemingly reliable number. That works out to 1 out of 570 people that have died of covid. Mostly older and less healthy folks. Part of the problem may be that not everyone is that scared. Living in democracies we need to respect that. [0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > That works out to 1 out of 570 people that have died of covid. Mostly older and less healthy folks. Your assumption is that what the USA went through, with the shutdowns is the worst-case scenario. I posit that it is not - things could have been far worse in terms of death, as well as second- and third-order effects on the economy, jobs and food security.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    You said "the survival of the species" was at stake. Are you telling me that you stand by that comment? Do you really think this coronavirus might have killed off our species? There is zero science supporting this. In fact, to the contrary, experts from the beginning expected this to peter out on its own [0]: > 2019-nCoV joins the four coronaviruses now circulating in people. “I can imagine a scenario where this becomes a fifth endemic human coronavirus,” ... “We don’t pay much attention to them because they’re so mundane” > Odds: Moderate. “I think there is a reasonable probability that this becomes the fifth community-acquired coronavirus,” Adalja said, something he expanded on in his blog. Webby agreed: “I have a little bit of hope that, OK, we’ll put up with a couple of years of heightened [2019-nCoV] activity before settling down to something like the other four coronaviruses.” > Odds: Pretty good. What we may be seeing “is the emergence of a new coronavirus … that could very well become another seasonal pathogen that causes pneumonia,” Your statement about "survival of the species" seems outlandish, according the the science I read. Your above reply "things could have been worse" is not an adequate defensse of such an alarmist statement. Do you have any references supporting your position? oit appears so far that you do not. You should keep in mind that not everyone shares your paranoia and want to get on with as much of their lives as possible. We live in democracies and other people will rightfully object to you imposing your views on all of them without better justification. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-cor...
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      > You said "the survival of the species" was at stake. That wasn't me saying that; I'm not gp. I was only objecting to your comment that implicitly assumed a linear effect, and therefore concludes that things wouldn't have been bad without shutdowns >> That works out to 1 out of 570 people hat have died of covid. I do not think the "survival of the species" was at stake, but our 2020 lifestyles were at stake. Things could have gotten much worse, in a non-linear, exponential manner.

There is a HUGE difference in accepting a dole because you're shut down for the survival of your species and can't work vs how you see yourself functioning in a society where you can work.

KorematsuFred 6y ago

I do acknowledge the difference, what I am trying to highlight that perhaps dole is not what they want. Perhaps the poor people are not interested in staying indoors in return for dole and would rather risk their lives to seek things that value more than dole. It is not the lack of dole that is causing the failure of lockdowns.

supernovae 5y ago
It is the lack of dole that caused the failures of lockdowns in combination with a lack of systemic social safety nets to help support people. If you were unemployed, you lost your healthcare, if you lost your healthcare getting sick probably means losing your house/rent or getting behind, if you get behind none of those stimulus checks do anything for those that are behind because the system was never designed to support people through a pandemic. You're trying to highlight something that doesn't exist.

more_corn 6y ago

"Survival of our species" is a bit extreme. Not to diminish the severity of our pandemic but it kills 1%. If we did nothing and just let everyone get it, 1% of us would die (not in any way advocating for that) our species would survive just fine. Perhaps you could just say "responding to a public health emergency"

mikem170 6y ago

> shut down for the survival of your species Do you really believe the survival of our species is at stake? There have been 1754 covid-19 deaths per million people in the USA since the start of the pandemic [0], a seemingly reliable number. That works out to 1 out of 570 people that have died of covid. Mostly older and less healthy folks. Part of the problem may be that not everyone is that scared. Living in democracies we need to respect that. [0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

sangnoir 5y ago
> That works out to 1 out of 570 people that have died of covid. Mostly older and less healthy folks. Your assumption is that what the USA went through, with the shutdowns is the worst-case scenario. I posit that it is not - things could have been far worse in terms of death, as well as second- and third-order effects on the economy, jobs and food security.
- mikem170 5y ago
  You said "the survival of the species" was at stake. Are you telling me that you stand by that comment? Do you really think this coronavirus might have killed off our species? There is zero science supporting this. In fact, to the contrary, experts from the beginning expected this to peter out on its own [0]: > 2019-nCoV joins the four coronaviruses now circulating in people. “I can imagine a scenario where this becomes a fifth endemic human coronavirus,” ... “We don’t pay much attention to them because they’re so mundane” > Odds: Moderate. “I think there is a reasonable probability that this becomes the fifth community-acquired coronavirus,” Adalja said, something he expanded on in his blog. Webby agreed: “I have a little bit of hope that, OK, we’ll put up with a couple of years of heightened [2019-nCoV] activity before settling down to something like the other four coronaviruses.” > Odds: Pretty good. What we may be seeing “is the emergence of a new coronavirus … that could very well become another seasonal pathogen that causes pneumonia,” Your statement about "survival of the species" seems outlandish, according the the science I read. Your above reply "things could have been worse" is not an adequate defensse of such an alarmist statement. Do you have any references supporting your position? oit appears so far that you do not. You should keep in mind that not everyone shares your paranoia and want to get on with as much of their lives as possible. We live in democracies and other people will rightfully object to you imposing your views on all of them without better justification. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-cor...
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > You said "the survival of the species" was at stake. That wasn't me saying that; I'm not gp. I was only objecting to your comment that implicitly assumed a linear effect, and therefore concludes that things wouldn't have been bad without shutdowns >> That works out to 1 out of 570 people hat have died of covid. I do not think the "survival of the species" was at stake, but our 2020 lifestyles were at stake. Things could have gotten much worse, in a non-linear, exponential manner.