3 ms·

The problem is: the "science" is used only as a tool to buttress one's pre-defined notions. Here in San Francisco, near the beginning of COVID, we put our home

The problem is: the "science" is used only as a tool to buttress one's pre-defined notions. Here in San Francisco, near the beginning of COVID, we put our homeless in hotel rooms. One resident per room, no shared bathrooms, etc. Plus, we gave them free food, free alcohol and free drugs (weed, IIRC). The idea was to satisfy all of their needs and not have them going outside. This lasted close to 2 years. This was a fairly big sample: close to 3700 people. That is a statistically significant sample, given that SF's total homeless population is around 20K - 30K (including those in shelters). So what happened with these people? How many of them cleaned up their acts and became productive members of society? This would be a fairly straightforward question to answer, right? BUT! The Homeless Industry in SF has refused to do so! There were no studies done on this population and their outcomes. Whatever happened to these scientists? Why did they ignore this golden opportunity to study this situation? What we _do_ know is that the residents trashed the hotels and the City of SF is being sued by these hotels to the tune of 10s of millions of dollars. I remember when all flights were grounded after 9/11, and scientists took the opportunity to study the impact of contrails on the night sky, visibility of celestial bodies, etc. Weirdly, no scientist considered it worthwhile to study these homeless people in their new housing.

the_only_law 4y ago
> How many of them cleaned up their acts and became productive members of society? It doesn’t sound like this was the purpose, it sounds like the purpose was to temporarily keep them off the street. So I’m not exactly shocked that it didn’t give a result it wasn’t designed to give.
- 1024core 4y ago
  Way to dodge the question. Sure, it wasn't the purpose, but it was the same situation! If you're going to tell me that providing housing alone is enough for these people, then this is exactly that situation: they were provided free room and board (and *NOT* shared rooms, either). So where are the positive outcomes that "housing first" is supposed to bring?
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    > If you're going to tell me that providing housing alone is enough for these people I’m sorry where did I say that. Don’t fucking accuse me of saying something I didn’t say. All I implied is that your expected result was likely not the expected result of the actual program.
pvaldes 4y ago
> Weirdly, no scientist considered it worthwhile to study these homeless people in their new housing. Why did they ignore this golden opportunity to study this situation? Scientists are a scarce resource and job offers need to compete for them. Those able to provide a workplace better than: "typing in your computer using an unmade bed as table in a trashed small hotel room filled with weed smoke and shared with drunk people that could or not have previous mental issues and could be violent or not" got all the talent. Not really difficult to understand. Science is hard enough yet.
marniewebb 4y ago
I think we have to separate caring for our fellow community members from and supporting people in being productive members of society. So many people are with stable homes because they weren’t able - for whatever reason — to be a productive member of society (and there are plenty of arguments about what productive means). We should still care for them.

the_only_law 4y ago

> How many of them cleaned up their acts and became productive members of society? It doesn’t sound like this was the purpose, it sounds like the purpose was to temporarily keep them off the street. So I’m not exactly shocked that it didn’t give a result it wasn’t designed to give.

1024core 4y ago
Way to dodge the question. Sure, it wasn't the purpose, but it was the same situation! If you're going to tell me that providing housing alone is enough for these people, then this is exactly that situation: they were provided free room and board (and *NOT* shared rooms, either). So where are the positive outcomes that "housing first" is supposed to bring?
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > If you're going to tell me that providing housing alone is enough for these people I’m sorry where did I say that. Don’t fucking accuse me of saying something I didn’t say. All I implied is that your expected result was likely not the expected result of the actual program.

pvaldes 4y ago

> Weirdly, no scientist considered it worthwhile to study these homeless people in their new housing. Why did they ignore this golden opportunity to study this situation? Scientists are a scarce resource and job offers need to compete for them. Those able to provide a workplace better than: "typing in your computer using an unmade bed as table in a trashed small hotel room filled with weed smoke and shared with drunk people that could or not have previous mental issues and could be violent or not" got all the talent. Not really difficult to understand. Science is hard enough yet.

marniewebb 4y ago

I think we have to separate caring for our fellow community members from and supporting people in being productive members of society. So many people are with stable homes because they weren’t able - for whatever reason — to be a productive member of society (and there are plenty of arguments about what productive means). We should still care for them.