|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 03 2021 21:54 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2021 20:20 maybenexttime wrote:On June 02 2021 04:35 KwarK wrote:
Any potential actions taken that would have been effective at preventing a pandemic would have been decried as alarmist, unnecessary, and excessive by the people not dying. Successful preventative policy is always unpopular because it cannot be evaluated based on the hypothetical catastrophe avoided. Even after millions of deaths people are still angry about the lockdowns. The idea that the populist democracies of the west would have made informed proactive choices had they only been informed earlier is laughable. I’d say they needed the disaster in order to learn but that implies they’re capable of learning. Sound strategic planning is not a strength of populism. That is exactly what happened in Poland. A promptly introduced lockdown resulted in almost no deaths and a massive surge during the second wave because people acted like idiots. That made Poland one of the worst performers in Europe across the two waves... Somewhat similar in germany. Did really well in the beginning, not so great after people stopped taking it serious because "it wasn't so bad". Of course, ignoring that "it wasn't so bad" due to people taking it serious in the beginning. It doesn't even have anything to do with the "type" of government. You had populist/hard right wing countries fail (poland, US, UK etc), but you also had centrist/left leaning governments fail - see sweden, see germany etc. The only real difference to case load in the end was how densely populated any country was. "The west" collectively failed, because the majority of people "in the west" are entitled, ignorant idiots, crying murder over the necessity to wear a mask or not being able to get hammered in the pub. Or to put it differently, not giving a shit whether they kill someone if that means they don't need to wear a piece of cloth or have to practice their alcoholism confined in their own sad homes. It's not the governments. It's the people. You can blame the government failures too (i certainly do in the UK), but in the end, it's the people who couldn't give less of a shit. Not everyone, of course, but the vast majority.
Agree on this. It still boggles my mind that everyone went ahead with their holidays last summer after the lull behind the first wave and that governments were actively pushing for the tourist sector to re-open. The second wave was just sooooo predictable.
|
On June 03 2021 06:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2021 20:29 EnDeR_ wrote:Meanwhile in rural California: www.theguardian.comThe region has long been one of the most forceful in its pushback against measures such as masks, business restrictions and vaccine mandates – and the protests have only continued to gain steam. A cafe in the town of Mendocino made headlines after announcing it will charge customers a $5 fee if they order while wearing a mask. It also threatened to charge $5 to anyone “caught bragging about your vaccine”.
... He also offered a 50% discount to customers who threw their masks in the trash... They're not the only region with low vaccine rates and open disregard for social distancing rules. I wonder what it'll take for everyone to realize that the only way things go back to normal is if everyone (90%+ in the population) gets vaccinated and masks become a regular life feature. Masks becoming a regular life feature so we can return to normal seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me. The problem with telling people in rural areas they need to get on board so we can return to normal life is that they've already returned to normal life months ago.
Fair point. I do think though that mask-wearing when you have symptoms is something that I would like to see adopted; Asian countries are already doing this for the most part and it helps reduce the spread of diseases. Same with having bottles of disinfectant at every entrance. These things should stay.
|
On June 03 2021 22:03 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2021 06:23 BlackJack wrote:On June 02 2021 20:29 EnDeR_ wrote:Meanwhile in rural California: www.theguardian.comThe region has long been one of the most forceful in its pushback against measures such as masks, business restrictions and vaccine mandates – and the protests have only continued to gain steam. A cafe in the town of Mendocino made headlines after announcing it will charge customers a $5 fee if they order while wearing a mask. It also threatened to charge $5 to anyone “caught bragging about your vaccine”.
... He also offered a 50% discount to customers who threw their masks in the trash... They're not the only region with low vaccine rates and open disregard for social distancing rules. I wonder what it'll take for everyone to realize that the only way things go back to normal is if everyone (90%+ in the population) gets vaccinated and masks become a regular life feature. Masks becoming a regular life feature so we can return to normal seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me. The problem with telling people in rural areas they need to get on board so we can return to normal life is that they've already returned to normal life months ago. Fair point. I do think though that mask-wearing when you have symptoms is something that I would like to see adopted; Asian countries are already doing this for the most part and it helps reduce the spread of diseases. Same with having bottles of disinfectant at every entrance. These things should stay.
It isn't that simple. Being as clean as possible is not necessarily the same as being healthy. Given that many bacteria are harmless or good for us, not sharing them and killing them with alcohol can be worse for our health.
We also need to keep our immune systems busy, allergies are a non issue in poor countries for a reason.
|
On June 03 2021 21:54 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2021 20:20 maybenexttime wrote:On June 02 2021 04:35 KwarK wrote:
Any potential actions taken that would have been effective at preventing a pandemic would have been decried as alarmist, unnecessary, and excessive by the people not dying. Successful preventative policy is always unpopular because it cannot be evaluated based on the hypothetical catastrophe avoided. Even after millions of deaths people are still angry about the lockdowns. The idea that the populist democracies of the west would have made informed proactive choices had they only been informed earlier is laughable. I’d say they needed the disaster in order to learn but that implies they’re capable of learning. Sound strategic planning is not a strength of populism. That is exactly what happened in Poland. A promptly introduced lockdown resulted in almost no deaths and a massive surge during the second wave because people acted like idiots. That made Poland one of the worst performers in Europe across the two waves... Somewhat similar in germany. Did really well in the beginning, not so great after people stopped taking it serious because "it wasn't so bad". Of course, ignoring that "it wasn't so bad" due to people taking it serious in the beginning. It doesn't even have anything to do with the "type" of government. You had populist/hard right wing countries fail (poland, US, UK etc), but you also had centrist/left leaning governments fail - see sweden, see germany etc. The only real difference to case load in the end was how densely populated any country was. "The west" collectively failed, because the majority of people "in the west" are entitled, ignorant idiots, crying murder over the necessity to wear a mask or not being able to get hammered in the pub. Or to put it differently, not giving a shit whether they kill someone if that means they don't need to wear a piece of cloth or have to practice their alcoholism confined in their own sad homes. It's not the governments. It's the people. You can blame the government failures too (i certainly do in the UK), but in the end, it's the people who couldn't give less of a shit. Not everyone, of course, but the vast majority.
Couldn't have put it better. I don't think China notifying the world earlier would've made a difference (not saying they shouldn't have). It would have been before the outbreak in Wuhan even got serious, and governments/people around the world were not taking it seriously not only after Wuhan, but even after Bergamo.
I did the maths. In 2019, about 280 people in the UK were killed by drunk drivers. 85k people were convicted for drunk driving. Assuming that those 85k people accounts for all such incidents (unlikely), if you drink drive you have a 0.3% chance that you'll kill someone. COVID-19 kills 1% of the infected or so in the UK. With no restrictions/vaccines, an infected person will on average infect three others. In other words, the chance that you'll kill at least one person if you just act like normal is about 3%. And yet people have no issue calling drunk drivers potential killers, but if you make them wear a mask or get a vaccine it's "muh freedoms"...
P(A U B U C) = P(A) + P(B) + P(C) - P(A ∩ B) - P(A ∩ C) - P(B ∩ C) + P(A ∩ B ∩ C) = [(0.01+0.01+0.01) - (0.01*0.01) - (0.01*0.01) - (0.01*0.01) + (0.01*0.01*0.01)] * 100% = 2,97%
|
On June 03 2021 23:25 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2021 21:54 m4ini wrote:On June 03 2021 20:20 maybenexttime wrote:On June 02 2021 04:35 KwarK wrote:
Any potential actions taken that would have been effective at preventing a pandemic would have been decried as alarmist, unnecessary, and excessive by the people not dying. Successful preventative policy is always unpopular because it cannot be evaluated based on the hypothetical catastrophe avoided. Even after millions of deaths people are still angry about the lockdowns. The idea that the populist democracies of the west would have made informed proactive choices had they only been informed earlier is laughable. I’d say they needed the disaster in order to learn but that implies they’re capable of learning. Sound strategic planning is not a strength of populism. That is exactly what happened in Poland. A promptly introduced lockdown resulted in almost no deaths and a massive surge during the second wave because people acted like idiots. That made Poland one of the worst performers in Europe across the two waves... Somewhat similar in germany. Did really well in the beginning, not so great after people stopped taking it serious because "it wasn't so bad". Of course, ignoring that "it wasn't so bad" due to people taking it serious in the beginning. It doesn't even have anything to do with the "type" of government. You had populist/hard right wing countries fail (poland, US, UK etc), but you also had centrist/left leaning governments fail - see sweden, see germany etc. The only real difference to case load in the end was how densely populated any country was. "The west" collectively failed, because the majority of people "in the west" are entitled, ignorant idiots, crying murder over the necessity to wear a mask or not being able to get hammered in the pub. Or to put it differently, not giving a shit whether they kill someone if that means they don't need to wear a piece of cloth or have to practice their alcoholism confined in their own sad homes. It's not the governments. It's the people. You can blame the government failures too (i certainly do in the UK), but in the end, it's the people who couldn't give less of a shit. Not everyone, of course, but the vast majority. Couldn't have put it better. I don't think China notifying the world earlier would've made a difference (not saying they shouldn't have). It would have been before the outbreak in Wuhan even got serious, and governments/people around the world were not taking it seriously not only after Wuhan, but even after Bergamo. I did the maths. In 2019, about 280 people in the UK were killed by drunk drivers. 85k people were convicted for drunk driving. Assuming that those 85k people accounts for all such incidents (unlikely), if you drink drive you have a 0.3% chance that you'll kill someone. COVID-19 kills 1% of the infected or so in the UK. With no restrictions/vaccines, an infected person will on average infect three others. In other words, the chance that you'll kill at least one person if you just act like normal is about 3%. And yet people have no issue calling drunk drivers potential killers, but if you make them wear a mask or get a vaccine it's "muh freedoms"... P(A U B U C) = P(A) + P(B) + P(C) - P(A ∩ B) - P(A ∩ C) - P(B ∩ C) + P(A ∩ B ∩ C) = [(0.01+0.01+0.01) - (0.01*0.01) - (0.01*0.01) - (0.01*0.01) + (0.01*0.01*0.01)] * 100% = 2,97%
This doesn't even include the number of people who drink drive and get away with it.
I would imagine probably 90% of drunk drivers don't get convicted.
In fact:
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/2/158
The probability of getting arrested while over the limit (according to this paper anyway) is 0.0058 so make that 99.5% - not counting those who get arrested but not convicted.
|
On June 03 2021 23:25 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2021 21:54 m4ini wrote:On June 03 2021 20:20 maybenexttime wrote:On June 02 2021 04:35 KwarK wrote:
Any potential actions taken that would have been effective at preventing a pandemic would have been decried as alarmist, unnecessary, and excessive by the people not dying. Successful preventative policy is always unpopular because it cannot be evaluated based on the hypothetical catastrophe avoided. Even after millions of deaths people are still angry about the lockdowns. The idea that the populist democracies of the west would have made informed proactive choices had they only been informed earlier is laughable. I’d say they needed the disaster in order to learn but that implies they’re capable of learning. Sound strategic planning is not a strength of populism. That is exactly what happened in Poland. A promptly introduced lockdown resulted in almost no deaths and a massive surge during the second wave because people acted like idiots. That made Poland one of the worst performers in Europe across the two waves... Somewhat similar in germany. Did really well in the beginning, not so great after people stopped taking it serious because "it wasn't so bad". Of course, ignoring that "it wasn't so bad" due to people taking it serious in the beginning. It doesn't even have anything to do with the "type" of government. You had populist/hard right wing countries fail (poland, US, UK etc), but you also had centrist/left leaning governments fail - see sweden, see germany etc. The only real difference to case load in the end was how densely populated any country was. "The west" collectively failed, because the majority of people "in the west" are entitled, ignorant idiots, crying murder over the necessity to wear a mask or not being able to get hammered in the pub. Or to put it differently, not giving a shit whether they kill someone if that means they don't need to wear a piece of cloth or have to practice their alcoholism confined in their own sad homes. It's not the governments. It's the people. You can blame the government failures too (i certainly do in the UK), but in the end, it's the people who couldn't give less of a shit. Not everyone, of course, but the vast majority. Couldn't have put it better. I don't think China notifying the world earlier would've made a difference (not saying they shouldn't have). It would have been before the outbreak in Wuhan even got serious, and governments/people around the world were not taking it seriously not only after Wuhan, but even after Bergamo. I did the maths. In 2019, about 280 people in the UK were killed by drunk drivers. 85k people were convicted for drunk driving. Assuming that those 85k people accounts for all such incidents (unlikely), if you drink drive you have a 0.3% chance that you'll kill someone. COVID-19 kills 1% of the infected or so in the UK. With no restrictions/vaccines, an infected person will on average infect three others. In other words, the chance that you'll kill at least one person if you just act like normal is about 3%. And yet people have no issue calling drunk drivers potential killers, but if you make them wear a mask or get a vaccine it's "muh freedoms"... P(A U B U C) = P(A) + P(B) + P(C) - P(A ∩ B) - P(A ∩ C) - P(B ∩ C) + P(A ∩ B ∩ C) = [(0.01+0.01+0.01) - (0.01*0.01) - (0.01*0.01) - (0.01*0.01) + (0.01*0.01*0.01)] * 100% = 2,97%
There are so many errors here, I don't even know where to begin. First:
-If you get the virus once, you are extremely unlikely to get seriously sick. The same could not be said about drunk driving, so the comparison makes no sense.
-You are assuming that wearing a mask protects you and others, even though they are far down the list of measures in terms of real-life efficiency. You will also have to wear them properly, never touch it without washing your hands before and after. They only make a difference where an infection would otherwise happen, and the won't ever stop spread within housholds. If something isn't safe to do without a mask, it likely isn't safe with them either, like indoor dining and long-distance flights.
I am so tired of face masks being eleveated to this be-all-end-all measure. They are NOT, it is prefectly possible to contain covid-19 without using them at all. That they are so visible tricks us.
|
On June 04 2021 00:11 Slydie wrote:
-If you get the virus once, you are extremely unlikely to get seriously sick. The same could not be said about drunk driving, so the comparison makes no sense.
Are you saying that most of the people who die from covid get the virus more than once?
|
I don't see how drunk driving being a potential repeated offense is relevant. And I'm obviously talking about taking all the necessary precautions. I have yet to see covidiots who will not wear a mask, but keep their distance or self-isolate when needed.
Edit: For clarity, I'm talking about the risk that you'll kill someone as a drunk driver, not the risk of being killed by a drunk driver. The same for COVID.
|
On June 04 2021 00:11 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2021 23:25 maybenexttime wrote:On June 03 2021 21:54 m4ini wrote:On June 03 2021 20:20 maybenexttime wrote:On June 02 2021 04:35 KwarK wrote:
Any potential actions taken that would have been effective at preventing a pandemic would have been decried as alarmist, unnecessary, and excessive by the people not dying. Successful preventative policy is always unpopular because it cannot be evaluated based on the hypothetical catastrophe avoided. Even after millions of deaths people are still angry about the lockdowns. The idea that the populist democracies of the west would have made informed proactive choices had they only been informed earlier is laughable. I’d say they needed the disaster in order to learn but that implies they’re capable of learning. Sound strategic planning is not a strength of populism. That is exactly what happened in Poland. A promptly introduced lockdown resulted in almost no deaths and a massive surge during the second wave because people acted like idiots. That made Poland one of the worst performers in Europe across the two waves... Somewhat similar in germany. Did really well in the beginning, not so great after people stopped taking it serious because "it wasn't so bad". Of course, ignoring that "it wasn't so bad" due to people taking it serious in the beginning. It doesn't even have anything to do with the "type" of government. You had populist/hard right wing countries fail (poland, US, UK etc), but you also had centrist/left leaning governments fail - see sweden, see germany etc. The only real difference to case load in the end was how densely populated any country was. "The west" collectively failed, because the majority of people "in the west" are entitled, ignorant idiots, crying murder over the necessity to wear a mask or not being able to get hammered in the pub. Or to put it differently, not giving a shit whether they kill someone if that means they don't need to wear a piece of cloth or have to practice their alcoholism confined in their own sad homes. It's not the governments. It's the people. You can blame the government failures too (i certainly do in the UK), but in the end, it's the people who couldn't give less of a shit. Not everyone, of course, but the vast majority. Couldn't have put it better. I don't think China notifying the world earlier would've made a difference (not saying they shouldn't have). It would have been before the outbreak in Wuhan even got serious, and governments/people around the world were not taking it seriously not only after Wuhan, but even after Bergamo. I did the maths. In 2019, about 280 people in the UK were killed by drunk drivers. 85k people were convicted for drunk driving. Assuming that those 85k people accounts for all such incidents (unlikely), if you drink drive you have a 0.3% chance that you'll kill someone. COVID-19 kills 1% of the infected or so in the UK. With no restrictions/vaccines, an infected person will on average infect three others. In other words, the chance that you'll kill at least one person if you just act like normal is about 3%. And yet people have no issue calling drunk drivers potential killers, but if you make them wear a mask or get a vaccine it's "muh freedoms"... P(A U B U C) = P(A) + P(B) + P(C) - P(A ∩ B) - P(A ∩ C) - P(B ∩ C) + P(A ∩ B ∩ C) = [(0.01+0.01+0.01) - (0.01*0.01) - (0.01*0.01) - (0.01*0.01) + (0.01*0.01*0.01)] * 100% = 2,97% There are so many errors here, I don't even know where to begin. First: - If you get the virus once, you are extremely unlikely to get seriously sick. The same could not be said about drunk driving, so the comparison makes no sense.-You are assuming that wearing a mask protects you and others, even though they are far down the list of measures in terms of real-life efficiency. You will also have to wear them properly, never touch it without washing your hands before and after. They only make a difference where an infection would otherwise happen, and the won't ever stop spread within housholds. If something isn't safe to do without a mask, it likely isn't safe with them either, like indoor dining and long-distance flights. I am so tired of face masks being eleveated to this be-all-end-all measure. They are NOT, it is prefectly possible to contain covid-19 without using them at all. That they are so visible tricks us.
You don't need to be ER level sick to spread it. The alcohol equivalent would be if accidentally swallowing your mouthwash made you drunk.
|
The reason people talk about masks a lot is because it's easier to demonize the COVIDIOTS if you phrase them as selfish assholes that would rather kill somebody than wear a cloth over their face. In reality a lot of them are pissed because they have been told their businesses or jobs were no longer essential and many lost their source of income, can't care for their family, are at risk of losing their homes, etc. Their hatred of masks is secondary to all that but for some reason it gets brought to the forefront by disingenuous people that want to imply that all we are asking of them is to wear a mask when really what we are asking of them is to impoverish themselves.
|
On June 04 2021 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
The reason people talk about masks a lot is because it's easier to demonize the COVIDIOTS if you phrase them as selfish assholes that would rather kill somebody than wear a cloth over their face. In reality a lot of them are pissed because they have been told their businesses or jobs were no longer essential and many lost their source of income, can't care for their family, are at risk of losing their homes, etc. Their hatred of masks is secondary to all that but for some reason it gets brought to the forefront by disingenuous people that want to imply that all we are asking of them is to wear a mask when really what we are asking of them is to impoverish themselves.
So are you saying there's some connection between people being impoverished by covid and people not wearing masks? What do you reckon the correlation is?
|
On June 04 2021 05:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2021 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
The reason people talk about masks a lot is because it's easier to demonize the COVIDIOTS if you phrase them as selfish assholes that would rather kill somebody than wear a cloth over their face. In reality a lot of them are pissed because they have been told their businesses or jobs were no longer essential and many lost their source of income, can't care for their family, are at risk of losing their homes, etc. Their hatred of masks is secondary to all that but for some reason it gets brought to the forefront by disingenuous people that want to imply that all we are asking of them is to wear a mask when really what we are asking of them is to impoverish themselves. So are you saying there's some connection between people being impoverished by covid and people not wearing masks? What do you reckon the correlation is?
Yes, I think so. People that aren't happy about having to impoverish themselves over COVID aren't going to be happy about wearing a mask. In general they believe people are too hysterical over COVID and wearing a mask is just offering more legitimacy to the hysteria. It's not even that ridiculous of a take, here's a poll from gallup that highlights how ridiculously off people's view of COVID is:
Republicans are more likely than Democrats to correctly identify the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. Nearly 70% of Democrats wildly overestimate it.
|
On June 04 2021 05:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2021 05:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2021 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
The reason people talk about masks a lot is because it's easier to demonize the COVIDIOTS if you phrase them as selfish assholes that would rather kill somebody than wear a cloth over their face. In reality a lot of them are pissed because they have been told their businesses or jobs were no longer essential and many lost their source of income, can't care for their family, are at risk of losing their homes, etc. Their hatred of masks is secondary to all that but for some reason it gets brought to the forefront by disingenuous people that want to imply that all we are asking of them is to wear a mask when really what we are asking of them is to impoverish themselves. So are you saying there's some connection between people being impoverished by covid and people not wearing masks? What do you reckon the correlation is? Yes, I think so. People that aren't happy about having to impoverish themselves over COVID aren't going to be happy about wearing a mask. In general they believe people are too hysterical over COVID and wearing a mask is just offering more legitimacy to the hysteria. It's not even that ridiculous of a take, here's a poll from gallup that highlights how ridiculously off people's view of COVID is: https://twitter.com/TheEliKlein/status/1373408037692710914Republicans are more likely than Democrats to correctly identify the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. Nearly 70% of Democrats wildly overestimate it.
You seem to be drawing alot of associations here. You think republicans are more clued up about covid, and are also less likely to wear a mask and more likely to have been made poor by covid?
I live in a very poor area of the UK, and just like anywhere else over here, some people wear masks and some don't. I don't really get how being made poor by covid would affect mask wearing. To me its got more to do with whether or not someone cares about covid in general, and whether or not they give a shit about potentially spreading it.
You seem to want to make this a partisan issue of republicans not wearing masks because they are smart and have lost money, but you could just as easily portray it as republicans not wearing masks because they are rude and don't care whether or not they are making people uncomfortable or ill.
|
On June 04 2021 05:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2021 05:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2021 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
The reason people talk about masks a lot is because it's easier to demonize the COVIDIOTS if you phrase them as selfish assholes that would rather kill somebody than wear a cloth over their face. In reality a lot of them are pissed because they have been told their businesses or jobs were no longer essential and many lost their source of income, can't care for their family, are at risk of losing their homes, etc. Their hatred of masks is secondary to all that but for some reason it gets brought to the forefront by disingenuous people that want to imply that all we are asking of them is to wear a mask when really what we are asking of them is to impoverish themselves. So are you saying there's some connection between people being impoverished by covid and people not wearing masks? What do you reckon the correlation is? Yes, I think so. People that aren't happy about having to impoverish themselves over COVID aren't going to be happy about wearing a mask. In general they believe people are too hysterical over COVID and wearing a mask is just offering more legitimacy to the hysteria. It's not even that ridiculous of a take, here's a poll from gallup that highlights how ridiculously off people's view of COVID is: https://twitter.com/TheEliKlein/status/1373408037692710914Republicans are more likely than Democrats to correctly identify the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. Nearly 70% of Democrats wildly overestimate it.
And 41% of Republicans think that seasonal flu killed more people than COVID-19 in 2020 (compared to just 13% of Democrats). People are not only terrible at estimating such things, but they're also awful at understanding the practical implications of those numbers if provided with them. How many people will say that a mortality rate of 1% is not that bad? I bet it's a lot.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-misinformation-is-distorting-covid-policies-and-behaviors/
|
On June 04 2021 05:59 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2021 05:51 BlackJack wrote:On June 04 2021 05:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2021 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
The reason people talk about masks a lot is because it's easier to demonize the COVIDIOTS if you phrase them as selfish assholes that would rather kill somebody than wear a cloth over their face. In reality a lot of them are pissed because they have been told their businesses or jobs were no longer essential and many lost their source of income, can't care for their family, are at risk of losing their homes, etc. Their hatred of masks is secondary to all that but for some reason it gets brought to the forefront by disingenuous people that want to imply that all we are asking of them is to wear a mask when really what we are asking of them is to impoverish themselves. So are you saying there's some connection between people being impoverished by covid and people not wearing masks? What do you reckon the correlation is? Yes, I think so. People that aren't happy about having to impoverish themselves over COVID aren't going to be happy about wearing a mask. In general they believe people are too hysterical over COVID and wearing a mask is just offering more legitimacy to the hysteria. It's not even that ridiculous of a take, here's a poll from gallup that highlights how ridiculously off people's view of COVID is: https://twitter.com/TheEliKlein/status/1373408037692710914Republicans are more likely than Democrats to correctly identify the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. Nearly 70% of Democrats wildly overestimate it. You seem to be drawing alot of associations here. You think republicans are more clued up about covid, and are also less likely to wear a mask and more likely to have been made poor by covid? I live in a very poor area of the UK, and just like anywhere else over here, some people wear masks and some don't. I don't really get how being made poor by covid would affect mask wearing. To me its got more to do with whether or not someone cares about covid in general, and whether or not they give a shit about potentially spreading it. You seem to want to make this a partisan issue of republicans not wearing masks because they are smart and have lost money, but you could just as easily portray it as republicans not wearing masks because they are rude and don't care whether or not they are making people uncomfortable or ill.
I would guess another significant variable that tends to figure into an individual’s “do I follow Covid rules” calculation is whether they are close with someone who has either died from Covid or suffered long term consequences.
|
On June 04 2021 05:59 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2021 05:51 BlackJack wrote:On June 04 2021 05:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2021 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
The reason people talk about masks a lot is because it's easier to demonize the COVIDIOTS if you phrase them as selfish assholes that would rather kill somebody than wear a cloth over their face. In reality a lot of them are pissed because they have been told their businesses or jobs were no longer essential and many lost their source of income, can't care for their family, are at risk of losing their homes, etc. Their hatred of masks is secondary to all that but for some reason it gets brought to the forefront by disingenuous people that want to imply that all we are asking of them is to wear a mask when really what we are asking of them is to impoverish themselves. So are you saying there's some connection between people being impoverished by covid and people not wearing masks? What do you reckon the correlation is? Yes, I think so. People that aren't happy about having to impoverish themselves over COVID aren't going to be happy about wearing a mask. In general they believe people are too hysterical over COVID and wearing a mask is just offering more legitimacy to the hysteria. It's not even that ridiculous of a take, here's a poll from gallup that highlights how ridiculously off people's view of COVID is: https://twitter.com/TheEliKlein/status/1373408037692710914Republicans are more likely than Democrats to correctly identify the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. Nearly 70% of Democrats wildly overestimate it. You seem to be drawing alot of associations here. You think republicans are more clued up about covid, and are also less likely to wear a mask and more likely to have been made poor by covid? I live in a very poor area of the UK, and just like anywhere else over here, some people wear masks and some don't. I don't really get how being made poor by covid would affect mask wearing. To me its got more to do with whether or not someone cares about covid in general, and whether or not they give a shit about potentially spreading it. You seem to want to make this a partisan issue of republicans not wearing masks because they are smart and have lost money, but you could just as easily portray it as republicans not wearing masks because they are rude and don't care whether or not they are making people uncomfortable or ill.
Do you really think that people that lost their businesses/jobs for not being "essential" are not more likely to be against masks/lockdowns than the average person? It's really easy to just say that people that oppose masks/lockdowns are just selfish assholes. You're right it's not a Republican/Democrat thing though since anti-lockdown/mask protestors aren't just in the US.
|
It's certainly completely irrational.
|
On June 04 2021 06:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2021 05:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2021 05:51 BlackJack wrote:On June 04 2021 05:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2021 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
The reason people talk about masks a lot is because it's easier to demonize the COVIDIOTS if you phrase them as selfish assholes that would rather kill somebody than wear a cloth over their face. In reality a lot of them are pissed because they have been told their businesses or jobs were no longer essential and many lost their source of income, can't care for their family, are at risk of losing their homes, etc. Their hatred of masks is secondary to all that but for some reason it gets brought to the forefront by disingenuous people that want to imply that all we are asking of them is to wear a mask when really what we are asking of them is to impoverish themselves. So are you saying there's some connection between people being impoverished by covid and people not wearing masks? What do you reckon the correlation is? Yes, I think so. People that aren't happy about having to impoverish themselves over COVID aren't going to be happy about wearing a mask. In general they believe people are too hysterical over COVID and wearing a mask is just offering more legitimacy to the hysteria. It's not even that ridiculous of a take, here's a poll from gallup that highlights how ridiculously off people's view of COVID is: https://twitter.com/TheEliKlein/status/1373408037692710914Republicans are more likely than Democrats to correctly identify the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. Nearly 70% of Democrats wildly overestimate it. You seem to be drawing alot of associations here. You think republicans are more clued up about covid, and are also less likely to wear a mask and more likely to have been made poor by covid? I live in a very poor area of the UK, and just like anywhere else over here, some people wear masks and some don't. I don't really get how being made poor by covid would affect mask wearing. To me its got more to do with whether or not someone cares about covid in general, and whether or not they give a shit about potentially spreading it. You seem to want to make this a partisan issue of republicans not wearing masks because they are smart and have lost money, but you could just as easily portray it as republicans not wearing masks because they are rude and don't care whether or not they are making people uncomfortable or ill. Do you really think that people that lost their businesses/jobs for not being "essential" are not more likely to be against masks/lockdowns than the average person? It's really easy to just say that people that oppose masks/lockdowns are just selfish assholes. You're right it's not a Republican/Democrat thing though since anti-lockdown/mask protestors aren't just in the US.
I really don't understand why someone who lost their job will react by saying "Right then, I won't wear a mask." That also doesn't work with my personal experience of the issue. I know plenty of people who have lost their jobs. Most of them wear masks when out in public because they would feel like a bit of dick being in an enclosed space where everyone is wearing a mask except them. Others don't give a shit. I think assigning some other motive than not giving a shit is kinda weird to be honest. It isn't a protest at them having lost their jobs, its just that they don't give a shit about masks.
The anti-mask 'movement' was present right from the very beginning of covid, before anyone had lost their jobs.
It might be easy to say that not wearing a mask is the sign of a selfish asshole, but do you know what's easier than that? Wearing a mask.
Of course, there might be a correlation where the causation is backwards. People who won't wear a mask could definitely be more likely to lose their jobs.
When it comes to being anti-lockdown, I can see why it would be correlated with the financial consequences of the lockdown. That makes sense.
On June 04 2021 06:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2021 05:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2021 05:51 BlackJack wrote:On June 04 2021 05:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2021 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
The reason people talk about masks a lot is because it's easier to demonize the COVIDIOTS if you phrase them as selfish assholes that would rather kill somebody than wear a cloth over their face. In reality a lot of them are pissed because they have been told their businesses or jobs were no longer essential and many lost their source of income, can't care for their family, are at risk of losing their homes, etc. Their hatred of masks is secondary to all that but for some reason it gets brought to the forefront by disingenuous people that want to imply that all we are asking of them is to wear a mask when really what we are asking of them is to impoverish themselves. So are you saying there's some connection between people being impoverished by covid and people not wearing masks? What do you reckon the correlation is? Yes, I think so. People that aren't happy about having to impoverish themselves over COVID aren't going to be happy about wearing a mask. In general they believe people are too hysterical over COVID and wearing a mask is just offering more legitimacy to the hysteria. It's not even that ridiculous of a take, here's a poll from gallup that highlights how ridiculously off people's view of COVID is: https://twitter.com/TheEliKlein/status/1373408037692710914Republicans are more likely than Democrats to correctly identify the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. Nearly 70% of Democrats wildly overestimate it. You seem to be drawing alot of associations here. You think republicans are more clued up about covid, and are also less likely to wear a mask and more likely to have been made poor by covid? I live in a very poor area of the UK, and just like anywhere else over here, some people wear masks and some don't. I don't really get how being made poor by covid would affect mask wearing. To me its got more to do with whether or not someone cares about covid in general, and whether or not they give a shit about potentially spreading it. You seem to want to make this a partisan issue of republicans not wearing masks because they are smart and have lost money, but you could just as easily portray it as republicans not wearing masks because they are rude and don't care whether or not they are making people uncomfortable or ill. I would guess another significant variable that tends to figure into an individual’s “do I follow Covid rules” calculation is whether they are close with someone who has either died from Covid or suffered long term consequences.
Yeah that makes sense. I can't imagine anyone who knows someone who died from covid would be happy not following the rules.
|
The antimask thing just doesn't make any sense. It's a low cost/low impact intervention with really high effectiveness.
|
On June 04 2021 07:14 EnDeR_ wrote:
The antimask thing just doesn't make any sense. It's a low cost/low impact intervention with really high effectiveness.
Men in the US see it as a challenge to their masculinity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
