821–830 of 954 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No place in the world is handling this as poorly as we have. Well.. maybe Brazil?
What about Iran?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we didn't follow through with the lockdown nationally to actually stomp the virus This statement implies that there's a way to completely eradicate the virus, eg. if everyone in the world stays locked in their homes for 6 weeks, then the virus will be eradicated. That's not realistic, the level of coordination required to make that happen does not exist. So eradicating the virus was never on the table, no matter ho…
I actually chose stomp over eradicate because I wanted to imply that there would still be some left but that it would be a manageable amount. That's interesting that you took it the opposite way; I'm sorry for the confusion. I agree, eradication was probably impossible in the United States. What I thought we all agreed on at the start of this thing was to lock down so we could "flatten the curve". Remember that? Whil…
Go for "decimated" next time, rare to see it used right ;)
What we currently have going on right now is a complete collapse in confidence. So many commenters are debating the death rate, case counts, hospitalizations, etc, which is all besides the point. Heres the thing: even if you believe people are being irrationally afraid, telling people they are stupid and should just suck it up isn't going to get people to cooperate. Do you want to be smugly right, or do you want thin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we didn't follow through with the lockdown nationally to actually stomp the virus This statement implies that there's a way to completely eradicate the virus, eg. if everyone in the world stays locked in their homes for 6 weeks, then the virus will be eradicated. That's not realistic, the level of coordination required to make that happen does not exist. So eradicating the virus was never on the table, no matter ho…
But if everyone had stayed locked in for 6 weeks and if that had prevented 50000 deaths, how is that not worth it?
x=stopped driving y=52 z=34,000
or
x=not gone skiing y=4 months z=41
I'm not sure where the line is, but there are a number of things we could ban to lower the death rate. That doesn't mean I disagree with your assessment, but I'm just not sure I have any logical cut off point for what I would support and what I wouldn't other than just the way it feels looking at the numbers and how much it inconveniences me personally. (And I happen to like lockdown...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we didn't follow through with the lockdown nationally to actually stomp the virus This statement implies that there's a way to completely eradicate the virus, eg. if everyone in the world stays locked in their homes for 6 weeks, then the virus will be eradicated. That's not realistic, the level of coordination required to make that happen does not exist. So eradicating the virus was never on the table, no matter ho…
I actually chose stomp over eradicate because I wanted to imply that there would still be some left but that it would be a manageable amount. That's interesting that you took it the opposite way; I'm sorry for the confusion. I agree, eradication was probably impossible in the United States. What I thought we all agreed on at the start of this thing was to lock down so we could "flatten the curve". Remember that? Whil…
Suppose we drastically lower transmission. How many times should NYC and the surrounding areas be locked down because someone flew in from a country with loose contagion protocols?
Besides waiting for a vaccine and mass infections of those unwilling or unable to stay at home, I haven't seen a concrete proposal from anyone on what we should have or should be doing next.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if it's worth it or not, but after you end the lockdown, you have the same situation you did at the start of the lockdown. I think there's a huge misconception in many media sources that lockdown will somehow eliminate the virus. It can change the onset pattern of the virus, but that's it.
One of the main points of the lockdowns were to get the infection rate down to a level where testing and tracing is tractable, not to outright eliminate the virus necessarily. It seems like most states in the US were not prepared for that when they decided to open back up, and now places like FL are in this impossible situation — how do you trace 10k+ infections a day?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, keeping my child engaged for 5 days a week would cost about 150$ and 45$ go to the platform (judging from glancing over class duration/classes per week and cost). Can somebody tell me what value outschool adds aside from being an agency?
What's wrong with the only value being an agency? Do you not approve of B2B generally speaking? If teachers didn't have a service like this to use, they would each have to find their own way to attract the attention of potential students.
As someone from Germany I also think that 600€ for "entertaining" one child (with 180€ going to a platform provider) is crazy.
I don't have kids though so in the end if that's what the market rate ends up at apparently it is either what parents are willing to pay or at least it is what market providers presume to be a realistic rate (and we will see how soon the marketplace will run out of money).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually chose stomp over eradicate because I wanted to imply that there would still be some left but that it would be a manageable amount. That's interesting that you took it the opposite way; I'm sorry for the confusion. I agree, eradication was probably impossible in the United States. What I thought we all agreed on at the start of this thing was to lock down so we could "flatten the curve". Remember that? Whil…
JFK international airport is a 20 minute ride from the heart of Manhattan and we have a "transportation security agency" that can't find physical contraband in a suitcase much less be expected to be gatekeepers of health for the nation. Suppose we drastically lower transmission. How many times should NYC and the surrounding areas be locked down because someone flew in from a country with loose contagion protocols? Be…
A country like Texas or Florida?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A mandate that people wear masks is not acceptable. Personally speaking I'm all good with wearing a mask if they let me out of my house. The Shelter in place thing has been such an overreaction that I'm kind of primed to rebel just because I'm so incensed by the violation of rights... Wearing a mask is like requiring wearing a seatbelt. Shelter in place is like saying no one can drive except a few exceptionals.
Thanks for showing us an example of exactly the kind of stupidity the parent is talking about. The government is well within its rights to require shelter in place. If you don't like it, get your case heard by the Supreme Court and win, but until then, stop pretending you have a right to not be quarantined. You don't. This is exactly the kind of thought and culture that prevents America from doing even the simplest t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A mandate that people wear masks is not acceptable. Personally speaking I'm all good with wearing a mask if they let me out of my house. The Shelter in place thing has been such an overreaction that I'm kind of primed to rebel just because I'm so incensed by the violation of rights... Wearing a mask is like requiring wearing a seatbelt. Shelter in place is like saying no one can drive except a few exceptionals.
Which right is being violated in your opinion? And why is that more important than others' right to stay alive?