Earlier quoted context omitted.
The money actually comes from the employer. Employers are obliged to keep paying until the sickness is over. (The details are complicated, but this guarantee generally lasts two years from onset.) Employers have insurance against longer episodes but short-term they usually eat the cost directly. It's in the budget. When employers suspect employees of fraud they will investigate. They can ask for a sick note but most…
From what employer? Many people who need to stay home when they’re sick are the employer.
“I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”
361–370 of 373 posts
Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it is. Science advances one funeral at a time. The most scientifically reasonable thing can still be wrong. If an authority forces everyone to do the same, then everyone would be wrong. And this is all assuming that there is zero corruption at play, which is unlikely. Everyone should do the scientifically proven swab test every morning. The test has very strict requirements that were created by politicians and in…
> The most scientifically reasonable thing can still be wrong. Yes, it can be. But you still should do what science says because relying on science is the only way you could make knowledge base decision, because science is the only way we actually know things. If you decide to act other way to what science dictates and it leads to better outcome, then you were right by sheer luck and can't really claim that you made…
Other people can also say the craziest things and pass it off as science. Should we believe them too, because they claim it's science? You can't verify every single thing whether it's "based on science" or not. You need to use heuristics and sometimes those heuristics lead people to do something different that ends up being the better way to do things than what science at the time entails. Taking away people's choice means that this happens a lot less.
As an aside, I would like to contest the idea that science is the only way we know things. Most science that ends up in practical use has a lot of handwaving of details in it. We describe some parts of it, but everything else is filled in by our instincts and knowledge. Few sciences are as pure as mathematics, where you can reason over things on paper without needing an extra assumed context. In most cases when science says we "know" something it is meant in a narrow context. We extrapolate based on that into other contexts and most of the time it works fine, but we often don't know.
Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how everyone wants to talk about masks and hand sanitizer, but not about gloves or good old soap and water. To me, it's a sign of wanting to score internet points more than to actually inform. The best information I've seen so far suggests that SARS-CoV-2 can survive 2-3 hours as aerosol, 2-3 days on some surfaces. You're much more likely to be exposed or to expose others by touching something than by walking…
Hubei mandated that anyone who was outdoors wears a mask. They didn't mandate that anyone who was outdoors wears gloves. Disposable latex gloves are cheaper and easier to access in China than masks and yet China prioritized masks.
Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”
#364Interestingly, when we face a problem where deaths can be attributed to a very specific, identifiable killer, politicians don't fail to act in strong ways... Let's talk about action against climate change now...
> Let's talk about action against climate change now... What do you mean exactly by "talk"? People have been "talking" about it for decades, what are you proposing or predicting will change now?
Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The most scientifically reasonable thing can still be wrong. Yes, it can be. But you still should do what science says because relying on science is the only way you could make knowledge base decision, because science is the only way we actually know things. If you decide to act other way to what science dictates and it leads to better outcome, then you were right by sheer luck and can't really claim that you made…
Do you brush your teeth? Have you ever looked into why brushing your teeth is good scientifically? How many people do you think have done that? Yet we all brush our teeth or at least believe it's good for us. We're not basing our decision to brush teeth on science. We're basing it on the word of other people. Other people can also say the craziest things and pass it off as science. Should we believe them too, because…
I'm doing it for the feeling of freshness and believe it's good for me because of what I believe to know from science and personal expeirience about existence and influence of microorganisms.
I try to avoid putting qtips in my ears even though people are doing it because science says that it has higher probability of doing harm than good.
> Other people can also say the craziest things and pass it off as science.
That doesn't make it science and you should base your decisions on science not things passed as science. You should use your critical faculties and knowledge of scientific process to tell what science is and what is not.
You definitely should verify every single thing that informs your decision proces if the decision you are about to make is an important one.
> ... Sometimes those heuristics lead people to do something different that ends up being the better way to do things than what science at the time entails.
Science offers heuristics to guide your decision process. If scientific heuristic exists and you are using your own instead, you are doing wrong (even if by chance it ends up well).
If there's no scientific heuristic for given problem ( you need to check! ) then by all means make up your own. You won't be wrong unless you make "let's ignore what science established" a part of your heuristic.
You'd be amazed how much of the things you consider instincts filling gaps in science was actually researched for very practical fields. A lot. When money is on the line people suddenly get very interested in actual reality and they do the research. Some of those instincts get confirmed, some get thoroughly debunked. There was no knowledge untill science properly investigated it. Just self propagating ideas, right or wrong.
Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would definitely prefer free hands IF I also have access to hand sanitizer. I would be much more confident that I have successfully covered my entire hand in sanitizer than if I were to sanitize gloved hands. I would admit that I would probably feel safer with a mask on though, despite the problems with wearing masks as well.
So you're going to use hand sanitizer a hundred times, on average every five minutes? Color me skeptical.
Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the 'I must have argan oil and lime caviar in my next shampoo because the advert says so' need is qualitatively the same as your clinical need though is it? If anything I'd say that indicates the failure of unrestricted markets. This all started with black_puppydog's comment: > I don't agree with the conclusion. We can scale down our economies and still maintain production of essentials by ``drumroll``…
Maybe not shampoo, but some people can't seem to stand certain types of toothpaste with sodium lauryl sulfate in it. It apartment aggregates canker sores in their mouth. Those are most of the types of toothpastes you can buy. If you cut out almost all toothpaste products you'd likely eliminate the ones without this substance. We might think of this specific point when selecting the types of toothpaste that we will al…
Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”
#368Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're going to use hand sanitizer a hundred times, on average every five minutes? Color me skeptical.
Maybe, maybe not, but I definitely wouldn't change gloves every five minutes. Squirting some hand sanitizer after every client in retail doesn't seem as onerous. And definitely if my nose itches, I would rather squirt some hand sanitizer, clean my hands, and scratch it; rather than take off my gloves, scratch my nose, than put on new gloves.
Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”
#370I don't understand why we are not trying to interrupt the transmission vectors with masks and hand sanitizer like the Chinese do. They ramped the daily production from 10M to 100M and even advised the use of make-shift masks. The reaction in the west: masks are not protecting 100% and also we don't have any and we are too lazy to produce them, although they are much cheaper than the economic impact covid-19 has. 1. y…