181–188 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I can tell, this person is not in government [1] and is not claiming to represent anyone but themselves. I don't understand how you conclude that their comment is US govt policy. [1] https://newrepublic.com/authors/dana-houle
The OP is the government policy... the tweet is a dumb take. Do you not see any overlap between the dumb take and the government policy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was a ranger in the army, during survival exercise they said the techniques we learned would only apply to surviving during a war. For all other purposes seek civilization as humans are almost unable to survive in the wild anymore. It is very hard to spend less calories trying to get food than what the food you find contains. I think you are wildly overthinking your ability to survive in the wild. Of course I know…
Well, I wouldn't be going anywhere with no supplies at all. Considering that just one cooler's worth of food can last me at least a week but almost certainly longer, I wouldn't be really 'roughing it'. I could take a fishing pole, I suppose, but that would really just be amusement and the occasional snack - not a viable source of food. Probably the one of most useful survival skills I learned in my days as a scout wa…
The problem is not next few weeks but the rest of our lives. What would you eat next year?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that this advice is supposed to apply for some time into the future, i.e. potentially during the next wave, right? Risk assessments are fluid and change with conditions. Covid precaution hostility is not rational.
No, they're clearly talking about quite immediately afterwards (as well as mentioning covid before, and during ). You do realize that this advice is useless at best, and that it is deliberate covid fearmongering, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they're clearly talking about quite immediately afterwards (as well as mentioning covid before, and during ). You do realize that this advice is useless at best, and that it is deliberate covid fearmongering, right?
I think you may have a reading comprehension issue, but this clearly isn't a conversation worth having.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? In relative terms, yeah, obviously, but a respiratory virus breakout in a fallout shelter certainly isn’t any less troubling than a respiratory virus breakout at a workplace or music festival.
A covid outbreak in March 02022, when everyone is already vaccinated and the dominant strain of covid is the omicron strain (which, even without vaccination, is only as fatal as the regular flu instead of an order of magnitude worse), is dramatically less troubling than a covid outbreak six months ago, and it isn't worth mentioning in the context of fallout safety rules, except to say not to worry about covid.
What the fuck, this has to be a parody: Be Safe AFTER Immediately after you are inside shelter, if you may have been outside after the fallout arrived. ... Engage virtually with your community through video and phone calls. Know that it’s normal to feel anxious or stressed. Take care of your body and talk to someone if you are feeling upset. Many people may already feel fear and anxiety about the coronavirus 2019 (CO…
What the fuck, this has to be a parody: Be Safe AFTER Immediately after you are inside shelter, if you may have been outside after the fallout arrived. ... Engage virtually with your community through video and phone calls. Know that it’s normal to feel anxious or stressed. Take care of your body and talk to someone if you are feeling upset. Many people may already feel fear and anxiety about the coronavirus 2019 (CO…
Quoted post unavailable.
Your comment seems irrelevant to the subject at hand, and your addendum that it "isn’t promoted by wankers" has a bizarrely aggressive tone, and I would like to encourage you to delete your comment and not make any further comments in this vein, whether replying to me or to anyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
mm/dd/yyyy is not a "readable date format that people understand", because for 39% of dates it's hopelessly ambiguous with dd/mm/yyyy, though this particular case is unambiguous. I never use it myself, but I was quoting the document we're commenting on. Your comment seems irrelevant to the subject at hand, and your addendum that it "isn’t promoted by wankers" has a bizarrely aggressive tone, and I would like to encou…