All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (2 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[samiam5211]

Trump pausing adjudication of green card applications has 0 impact on the number of people authorized to work.

Applicants for a green card generally get work authorization while their application is pending.

I-765s are being adjudicated as normal.

He’s just giving the Stephen Miller part of his base something to chew on.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

It's Time for Police to Start Snitching

Communities of color are actually disproportionately likely to report crimes—it’s police themselves who have maintained a corrosive culture of silence.

www.theatlantic.com

If You See Something, Say Something® | Homeland Security

www.dhs.gov

Why ‘He Should Have Just Complied’ Does Not Apply to Stephon Clark

Since reporting Tuesday night on the shooting death of Stephon Clark at the hands of the Sacramento Police Department, I have gotten many of the same responses from people both on Twitter and in the comments section on The Root.

www.theroot.com

This whole exchange is kind of tragically funny.

We need to encourage snitching.. if you see something say something. He should have complied.

It's easy to be on the side of law and order, and complying with lawful orders when it's not you, or when the "perp" isn't white.

All of these whiny paramilitary wannabe's crying about not being able to get a hair cut should just grab a pair of clipper and give themselves a high and tight.

That is easy to say when your family has not enough food to eat and the bills are paid. I am sure most of the people protesting are political activists, but there are a lot of people who want this lockdown to end so they don't lose their house and have to go on welfare.

This isn't a direct response to either of you, but I'm using it as a launch point.

I often find that our rhetoric doesn't fully match our beliefs, or rather, how we often speak in absolutes, but we really have all sorts of assumed exceptions. And by we, I mean people.

For example, I distinctly remember Trump running as the "Law and Order" president. And how so many people who want the wall built and are concerned about illegal immigration cited as a major concern as the respect for the law (ie, it doesn't matter if illegal immigration is a net benefit or harm to the country, they were breaking the law!). And while I haven't done an actual statistical analysis on this, it feels like there is a big overlap of people who were vehemently in favor of the law, are now in favor of breaking "the law" when they disagree with it.

And obviously, I know that there are plenty of other people low key circumventing the social distancing ordinances and so on that aren't connected to this at all.

I think times like this are a good time to kind of peel away the rhetoric and figure out what it is that we believe and why, without the rhetoric that we wrap ourselves in. The "whatabout-ism" arguments are good for this. Ie, why does Ralph Northam survive a black face controversy, when Republicans get excoriated over racial faux pas? And so on.

And JimEverett's post, kind of made me think about the fragileness of our economy. We supposedly had the best economy ever (and I agree that it was very good). But we can't survive a month without massive bailouts? What does that say about us? How do we account for risk in our planning? Should we create stronger incentives for savings vs. consumerism? Or should the government not worry about modifying behavior but explicitly have a plan in place (and savings ready) for when we inevitably run into these problems?

Sorry, just meandering thoughts this morning.

 

[Heathen]

Folks, let me show you guys a few real American heroines. Some absolute badasses.

These women are ICU nurses on the frontlines of treating our citizens in the fight against this disease. They peacefully stood in silence outside the Arizona state capital Monday, having angry Trump supporters scream at them. I guess all the American flag apparel is an attempt to compensate for the conspiratorial stupidity of screaming in peoples faces during a pandemic in which one of the prime modes of transmission is via breathing/coughing. The DPS officer in the back is there to protect the nurses. Huge thank to our Healthcare workers. You ARE the soldiers on the front lines of this fight and you ARE appreciated by so many...

These were some of the comments directed at the nurses by protestors:
"Fake nurse! I bet you're a vet tech! I hope you get the virus and die!
"Abortion nurse! You're the ones getting us sick! You're the virus! Shouldn't you be at work?
"Yeah you look so busy saving lives! How much are they paying you to be out here! You're embarrassing yourself!"

Article:

She's the ICU nurse who silently stood in protest at the Phoenix rally to reopen Arizona

It was her day off from treating COVID-19 patients. She decided to attend the rally of people who thought fears of the virus were overblown.

www.azcentral.com

 

[Dragon]

Folks, let me show you guys a few real American heroines. Some absolute badasses.

These women are ICU nurses on the frontlines of treating our citizens in the fight against this disease. They peacefully stood in silence outside the Arizona state capital Monday, having angry Trump supporters scream at them. I guess all the American flag apparel is an attempt to compensate for the conspiratorial stupidity of screaming in peoples faces during a pandemic in which one of the prime modes of transmission is via breathing/coughing. The DPS officer in the back is there to protect the nurses. Huge thank to our Healthcare workers. You ARE the soldiers on the front lines of this fight and you ARE appreciated by so many...

These were some of the comments directed at the nurses by protestors:
"Fake nurse! I bet you're a vet tech! I hope you get the virus and die!
"Abortion nurse! You're the ones getting us sick! You're the virus! Shouldn't you be at work?
"Yeah you look so busy saving lives! How much are they paying you to be out here! You're embarrassing yourself!"

Those "gentlemen" are going to be wimps in 2 weeks time when they seek medical help due to catching the virus...

 

[wardorican]

Ward, I am not really sure what you went to such lengths to prove here. Unless one is trying to show the price we pay when the media acts too hastily in covering police related shootings, the Stephon Clark case is a poor choice.

I don't want to get derailed off the topic too far, but there was a detailed investigation of that shooting and the evidence strongly suggests that was a tragic case of suicide by cop.

Wasn't great lengths, it was a minute or two, which is probably why that last example isn't great.

The point is simple. Following the rules, compliance is something many of you have argued for a long time. It's something I'd bet a lot of these protesters have said. Now, when it actually affects them, they finally see why sometimes people don't comply, or aren't given a chance to comply.

The irony is palpable.

 

[Beach Friends]

This isn't a direct response to either of you, but I'm using it as a launch point.

I often find that our rhetoric doesn't fully match our beliefs, or rather, how we often speak in absolutes, but we really have all sorts of assumed exceptions. And by we, I mean people.

For example, I distinctly remember Trump running as the "Law and Order" president. And how so many people who want the wall built and are concerned about illegal immigration cited as a major concern as the respect for the law (ie, it doesn't matter if illegal immigration is a net benefit or harm to the country, they were breaking the law!). And while I haven't done an actual statistical analysis on this, it feels like there is a big overlap of people who were vehemently in favor of the law, are now in favor of breaking "the law" when they disagree with it.

And obviously, I know that there are plenty of other people low key circumventing the social distancing ordinances and so on that aren't connected to this at all.

I think times like this are a good time to kind of peel away the rhetoric and figure out what it is that we believe and why, without the rhetoric that we wrap ourselves in. The "whatabout-ism" arguments are good for this. Ie, why does Ralph Northam survive a black face controversy, when Republicans get excoriated over racial faux pas? And so on.

And JimEverett's post, kind of made me think about the fragileness of our economy. We supposedly had the best economy ever (and I agree that it was very good). But we can't survive a month without massive bailouts? What does that say about us? How do we account for risk in our planning? Should we create stronger incentives for savings vs. consumerism? Or should the government not worry about modifying behavior but explicitly have a plan in place (and savings ready) for when we inevitably run into these problems?

Sorry, just meandering thoughts this morning.

Your post probably deserves more time than I have to devote to it. I think there is a lot to unpack, including the possibility that people try to paint each other into corners to force inconsistencies where there are none rather than to flesh out their actual positions.

I think calling the police because you think your neighbors are not social distancing is pretty bizzare and I think I can honestly say that it would not occur to me that I need to call the police on kids playing basketball.

I don't think that is inconsistent with thinking it was okay for the guy who called the police when some other guy broke the window in his car. I am not sure why @wardorican thought that was a good example, other than it seems that ward was overly eager to bring race in the mix.

 

[Beach Friends]

Wasn't great lengths, it was a minute or two, which is probably why that last example isn't great.

The point is simple. Following the rules, compliance is something many of you have argued for a long time. It's something I'd bet a lot of these protesters have said. Now, when it actually affects them, they finally see why sometimes people don't comply, or aren't given a chance to comply.

The irony is palpable.

The last example is horrible.

 

[wardorican]

This isn't a direct response to either of you, but I'm using it as a launch point.

I often find that our rhetoric doesn't fully match our beliefs, or rather, how we often speak in absolutes, but we really have all sorts of assumed exceptions. And by we, I mean people.

For example, I distinctly remember Trump running as the "Law and Order" president. And how so many people who want the wall built and are concerned about illegal immigration cited as a major concern as the respect for the law (ie, it doesn't matter if illegal immigration is a net benefit or harm to the country, they were breaking the law!). And while I haven't done an actual statistical analysis on this, it feels like there is a big overlap of people who were vehemently in favor of the law, are now in favor of breaking "the law" when they disagree with it.

And obviously, I know that there are plenty of other people low key circumventing the social distancing ordinances and so on that aren't connected to this at all.

I think times like this are a good time to kind of peel away the rhetoric and figure out what it is that we believe and why, without the rhetoric that we wrap ourselves in. The "whatabout-ism" arguments are good for this. Ie, why does Ralph Northam survive a black face controversy, when Republicans get excoriated over racial faux pas? And so on.

And JimEverett's post, kind of made me think about the fragileness of our economy. We supposedly had the best economy ever (and I agree that it was very good). But we can't survive a month without massive bailouts? What does that say about us? How do we account for risk in our planning? Should we create stronger incentives for savings vs. consumerism? Or should the government not worry about modifying behavior but explicitly have a plan in place (and savings ready) for when we inevitably run into these problems?

Sorry, just meandering thoughts this morning.

It's why a social safety net is important. I think of it like this. If the Fed didn't jump in with the extra $600/week payments, florida unemployment is like $275/week, or $1100 on a regular month. Even by being put on a 60% salary, with just $1100 added, I'd be hurting. Not to the point where I have to decide what bill to pay, but close. If laid off.. with my wife's pay, we'd probably start by selling a car, and finding other things to remove. I'd struggle.

If not for her health care benefits, if we had to go to the doctor, or worse, a hospital, we'd be ruined.

I think you're also seeing a bunch of people who've never had to file unemployment realize how crappy the system is. How slow. How odd some of the questions can be.

 

[wardorican]

Your post probably deserves more time than I have to devote to it. I think there is a lot to unpack, including the possibility that people try to paint each other into corners to force inconsistencies where there are none rather than to flesh out their actual positions.

I think calling the police because you think your neighbors are not social distancing is pretty bizzare and I think I can honestly say that it would not occur to me that I need to call the police on kids playing basketball.

I don't think that is inconsistent with thinking it was okay for the guy who called the police when some other guy broke the window in his car. I am not sure why @wardorican thought that was a good example, other than it seems that ward was overly eager to bring race in the mix.

Literally, I googled "he should have complied" and that one came up first. If the example is the problem, I'll gladly find another. It was just a blunt way of saying what UncleTravellingJim has said. So, just ignore me, and reply to him, since I think his comment is far better than mine. I think that would be better for the whole conversation.

 

[wardorican]

Folks, let me show you guys a few real American heroines. Some absolute badasses.

These women are ICU nurses on the frontlines of treating our citizens in the fight against this disease. They peacefully stood in silence outside the Arizona state capital Monday, having angry Trump supporters scream at them. I guess all the American flag apparel is an attempt to compensate for the conspiratorial stupidity of screaming in peoples faces during a pandemic in which one of the prime modes of transmission is via breathing/coughing. The DPS officer in the back is there to protect the nurses. Huge thank to our Healthcare workers. You ARE the soldiers on the front lines of this fight and you ARE appreciated by so many...

These were some of the comments directed at the nurses by protestors:
"Fake nurse! I bet you're a vet tech! I hope you get the virus and die!
"Abortion nurse! You're the ones getting us sick! You're the virus! Shouldn't you be at work?
"Yeah you look so busy saving lives! How much are they paying you to be out here! You're embarrassing yourself!"

Was there an article that goes with this?

 

[lurk]

While this still remains to be peer reviewed, it is the third study showing issues with hydroxychloroquine. (The other two, a french and a swedish studies)

Just show that it is important to do ensure proper testing!

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/21/health/hydroxychloroquine-veterans-study/index.html

Imagine that, scientists using science to ascertain facts from data versus a businessman-turned-politician using his "gut" to confabulate bullshirt. And all of this to get people's hopes up and destroy access for patients who actually have conditions that benefit from the drug just so some stockholders can make some quick money. I imagine that poster on here who had turned his life's mission into making hydroxychloroquine happen must be crushed, although I notice he's stopped posting about it now that Fox has quietly stopped running hydroxychloroquine stories all day long...

 

[Beach Friends]

Literally, I googled "he should have complied" and that one came up first. If the example is the problem, I'll gladly find another. It was just a blunt way of saying what UncleTravellingJim has said. So, just ignore me, and reply to him, since I think his comment is far better than mine. I think that would be better for the whole conversation.

Fair enough

 

[Sandman]

Do we know that each protester is a Republican (or we can just lump all Repubs and right wing since you guys do anyway) and no Democrats are protesting? We apparently do because that is the logic you are using.

Lol. Do you not realize that all I did was take that video you posted and reverse it? This is exactly what that video was doing, but as to the Democrats. It was assuming that all Democrats were protesting and no Republicans since that county carried Clinton in 2016. The fact that you are unable to see that all I was doing was turning the mirror on you is very telling, and honestly, it is sad.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Your post probably deserves more time than I have to devote to it. I think there is a lot to unpack, including the possibility that people try to paint each other into corners to force inconsistencies where there are none rather than to flesh out their actual positions.

I think calling the police because you think your neighbors are not social distancing is pretty bizzare and I think I can honestly say that it would not occur to me that I need to call the police on kids playing basketball.

I don't think that is inconsistent with thinking it was okay for the guy who called the police when some other guy broke the window in his car. I am not sure why @wardorican thought that was a good example, other than it seems that ward was overly eager to bring race in the mix.

No worries about a brief response, it's not specifically related to the thread (only tangentially), and it's something that likely will meander a bit anyway.

So, I generally don't mind having a discussion to find out inconsistencies in my own thought. I don't take it to mean that I can't hold two views that I've publicly arrived at through seemingly contradictory reasoning. It just means that I might need to examine more why I came to those conclusions, or maybe I need to think about the hierarchy of my values, or maybe I really should change my position. I don't think humans are robots arriving at positions through pure reason - we're kind of a mixed bag and emotion drives a lot of our actions. But working through this stuff I think can help achieve better policy as well as less friction.

For the specific example, I can understand why you think that it's ok to call the police when you see someone commit property damage or theft, but you think it's weird or wrong to call the police on kids playing basketball. I don't think it's a hypocritical position either. If I had to guess, I'd say you see a much clearer act of harm in one instance over the other, and that a quicker response in that instance will provide better societal results that you support (less crime/property damage), through deterrence and so on.

So, in this instance, I think it's a matter that you perceive the risk of the disease to be far less than people who support stricter measures. And I think that might yield a more fruitful discussion. How much government action is justified over perceived risk? There isn't going to be an actual answer, b/c people have different values (ie, life vs freedom, or freedom vs. security, community rights vs individual rights). I do think it's useful to delve into what your own values are, and are they universal -- how committed am I to individual freedom if it means giving rights to someone I don't trust who might later cause me harm?

 

[Heathen]

Was there an article that goes with this?

Yep, sorry should have included that in the post..will edit:

She's the ICU nurse who silently stood in protest at the Phoenix rally to reopen Arizona

It was her day off from treating COVID-19 patients. She decided to attend the rally of people who thought fears of the virus were overblown.

www.azcentral.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

And I swear I'm not day drinking.

 

[Beach Friends]

And I swear I'm not day drinking.

Well, I am about to be.

I think your observation about perceived risk is a good one.

I am not sure there is a lot of daylight between how we would actually behave in most instances.

 

[SFIDC3]

And JimEverett's post, kind of made me think about the fragileness of our economy. We supposedly had the best economy ever (and I agree that it was very good). But we can't survive a month without massive bailouts? What does that say about us? How do we account for risk in our planning? Should we create stronger incentives for savings vs. consumerism? Or should the government not worry about modifying behavior but explicitly have a plan in place (and savings ready) for when we inevitably run into these problems?

Sorry, just meandering thoughts this morning.

This is a great point. As a nation we really do not take risk and contingency seriously IMO. I believe the main reason we don't is cost and the massive resources necessary to do it effectively....Having been involved in risk aversion and contingency planning for a government agency it is a real commitment both financially and time/labor wise. Just my thoughts....