|
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 |
United States19574 Posts
On August 04 2021 03:40 KwarK wrote:
But surely that agrees with more distance = good. The density of the virus goes down as the distance goes up. The closer you are to the source of the aerosol source, the higher the concentration.
Not arguing that 6ft is magical barrier, just that “don’t stand so close to people” is a fundamentally good message for this pandemic.
The problem is that the question is so much more complex. Its distance, duration, ventilation, etc. 6 feet and masks in Wal Mart is borderline useless because almost no one has caught it in Wal Mart anyways. 6 feet and masks in Jerry's Bar and Grill is equally useless, because you can't eat with a mask, tables aren't 6 feet apart, or the more effective lengths (lol @ that idea), and the duration is so long that the air would start to become saturated with aerosols anyways, even if people did the absurd thing that some were recommending circa April 2020 of re-masking between bites.
More effective than any of that would have been a $50 bill to people who lost 25 pounds.
|
if you're allowing a situation where masks dont work it's rather unsuprising that masks dont work.
not that complex after all, innit?
|
|
|
United States19574 Posts
On August 04 2021 05:15 Artisreal wrote:
if you're allowing a situation where masks dont work it's rather unsuprising that masks dont work.
not that complex after all, innit?
The thing is, everything that people do/want to do is basically such a situation. There are few-to-no situations where you have an indoor, 15 minute, interaction with a person and you both aren't also doing something so physical/or needs the mouth/nose exposed to render the masks irrelevant.
Like, maybe a men's haircut at one of the cheap, impersonal, salons.
|
On August 04 2021 05:55 JimmiC wrote:
I think DeSantis's presidential hopes are done, with much younger people Florida is breaking both daily case and hospitalization records. They are even up to averaging 35 pediatric cases per day. His "covid is done we need to open up completely and everyone is over reacting" Message is aging very poorly.
I hope you're right, although whoever they replace him with would probably be just as bad.
|
|
|
|
|
On August 04 2021 02:29 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2021 00:10 Zambrah wrote:
I think supporting people through the long haul of Covid involves some amount of prevention for eviction and homelessness given a year+ of lost income.
Obviously thats not the only thing that should happen/have happened, and a mortgage freeze would have been great, in fact any major form of debt should probably have just been frozen and rolled over.
Really seems like we're coming to a point where the government is going to be more concerned with making it seem like Covids over and beaten than doing anything to combat the effect Covid has had on a lot of people. Half of the political sphere in the US allways said Covid was over. The other us frustrated that people stopped vaxing and has no clue what to do about it. People that need it for sure should get help, but just halting extractions whiteout any further measures directly adressing the brewing (enlarging) homelessnes crysis seems to be such a stupid and shortsighted "solution". Sooner or later people will have to pay rent again, for the whole time they used the flat/house. Just stopping eviction is like giving morphine to a guy that just lost 2 legs and is dieing of bloodloss. It also fucks over plenty of people that invested their lives earnings into becoming a landlord. Yes, plenty of big evil companies can probably take the hit. Plenty of afluent upper middle class can't. Destroying your upper middle class isn't good policy.
The people who own apartments almost certainly can take the hit better than the people who have to rent them.
|
United States19574 Posts
On August 04 2021 06:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2021 06:07 cLutZ wrote:On August 04 2021 05:15 Artisreal wrote:
if you're allowing a situation where masks dont work it's rather unsuprising that masks dont work.
not that complex after all, innit? The thing is, everything that people do/want to do is basically such a situation. There are few-to-no situations where you have an indoor, 15 minute, interaction with a person and you both aren't also doing something so physical/or needs the mouth/nose exposed to render the masks irrelevant. Like, maybe a men's haircut at one of the cheap, impersonal, salons. There are very few, if anything people do that need ones mouth or nose exposed. Hell pro athletes purposely work out with farm more oxygen restrictive masks to increase their cardio. And they are going way harder then basically anyone who works. Whoever told you they needed their nose or mouth out was lying to you or themselves.
That is irrelevant though. If two people are, for example, wrestling in a HS wrestling match. They will be shedding so much aerosol virus that masks between the two is irrelevant. You are making the wrestling less enjoyable for no documentable benefit. The same is true in Wal-Mart, or a public park, just the opposite direction. There is so little virus spread by an unmasked person to you as you pass them by with a cart or walking your dog that your chance of contracting is indistinguishable from zero. So the masks are, again, a cost (however minor) for no benefit.
To create the real-life scenario where masking is beneficial you have to impose a middle time constraint (like 15-30 minutes indoors) You have to impose a restriction to stop raised breathing from singing or physical activity. No other mouth based activities like eating or drinking. Even regular conversation probably lowers the effectiveness from masks enough that you would impose a 5 minute limit indoors. Can you name 5 actual activities like this that people regularly do?
To the extent masks and mandates work in the real world (and the CDC study on this is pretty shaky, and they took a lot of liberty with the data to show it), its probably because they made some marginal activities that should have been banned as part of an effective lockdown, and simply made them unpleasant enough (because of the mask) that the activity was no longer worthwhile for a % of the population. Like, going to a movie or an art gallery. I'd surely not do either if I had to mask up, but some would, and the masks would be ineffective there, but would be "effective" because I am not there, thus reducing the # of potential victims/victimizers.
|
|
|
United States19574 Posts
For what part exactly? There are lots of studies showing restaurants do spread Covid. There are lots of examples of choirs spreading, and airplanes. Its impossible to "prove a negative" like that outside is actually safe.
This is a good letter to the CDC showing that they were way behind the science on aerosol transmission, and that N95 or equivalent masks need to be put into play for low-ventilation, high time, activities to resume.
https://aiha-assets.sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/AIHA/uploads/PressReleases/Immediate-Action-to-Address-Inhalation-Exposure-to-SARS-CoV-2_2142021.pdf
In October, the CDC recognized inhalation as a route of exposure that should be controlled to protect against
COVID-19 [9], but most CDC guidance and recommendations have not yet been updated or strengthened to
address and limit inhalation exposure to small aerosol particles. CDC continues to use the outdated and
confusing term “respiratory droplets” to describe both larger propelled droplet sprays and smaller inhalable
aerosol particles. It also confuses matters with “airborne transmission” to indicate inhalation exposure
exclusively at long distances and does not consider inhalation exposure via the same aerosols at short distances.
IIRC, the CDC re-updated sometime in May officially recognizing this, but not actually updating to saying N95 is the minimum masking that is worthwhile for most prolonged activities (factories are cited in the letter and numerous papers).
If there were studies showing significant outdoor or transitory contact (e.g. Wal Mart) spread in any significant numbers, I have not ever seen them presented in a actual scientific forum.
|
On August 04 2021 06:28 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2021 02:29 Velr wrote:On August 04 2021 00:10 Zambrah wrote:
I think supporting people through the long haul of Covid involves some amount of prevention for eviction and homelessness given a year+ of lost income.
Obviously thats not the only thing that should happen/have happened, and a mortgage freeze would have been great, in fact any major form of debt should probably have just been frozen and rolled over.
Really seems like we're coming to a point where the government is going to be more concerned with making it seem like Covids over and beaten than doing anything to combat the effect Covid has had on a lot of people. Half of the political sphere in the US allways said Covid was over. The other us frustrated that people stopped vaxing and has no clue what to do about it. People that need it for sure should get help, but just halting extractions whiteout any further measures directly adressing the brewing (enlarging) homelessnes crysis seems to be such a stupid and shortsighted "solution". Sooner or later people will have to pay rent again, for the whole time they used the flat/house. Just stopping eviction is like giving morphine to a guy that just lost 2 legs and is dieing of bloodloss. It also fucks over plenty of people that invested their lives earnings into becoming a landlord. Yes, plenty of big evil companies can probably take the hit. Plenty of afluent upper middle class can't. Destroying your upper middle class isn't good policy. The people who own apartments almost certainly can take the hit better than the people who have to rent them.
y, and the people that own anything can take hit better than the people that don't. Your argument is?
|
|
|
On August 04 2021 02:29 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2021 00:10 Zambrah wrote:
I think supporting people through the long haul of Covid involves some amount of prevention for eviction and homelessness given a year+ of lost income.
Obviously thats not the only thing that should happen/have happened, and a mortgage freeze would have been great, in fact any major form of debt should probably have just been frozen and rolled over.
Really seems like we're coming to a point where the government is going to be more concerned with making it seem like Covids over and beaten than doing anything to combat the effect Covid has had on a lot of people. Half of the political sphere in the US allways said Covid was over. The other us frustrated that people stopped vaxing and has no clue what to do about it. People that need it for sure should get help, but just halting extractions whiteout any further measures directly adressing the brewing (enlarging) homelessnes crysis seems to be such a stupid and shortsighted "solution". Sooner or later people will have to pay rent again, for the whole time they used the flat/house. Just stopping eviction is like giving morphine to a guy that just lost 2 legs and is dieing of bloodloss. It also fucks over plenty of people that invested their lives earnings into becoming a landlord. Yes, plenty of big evil companies can probably take the hit. Plenty of afluent upper middle class can't. Destroying your upper middle class isn't good policy.
Might want to take up that up with the Democrats, since they're in charge of Congress and the presidency you would imagine that they would have a robust plan to prevent evictions and homelessness, help start to stabilize people economically so they'll be able to pay back rent and mortgages, and make sure people can leave the Covid era with some degree of safety.
Guess what they didn't have or do though.
This idea that because something isnt a unique fucking panacea for every facet of a problem means we should just not do it is so incredibly old though, its the kind of logic that would say its not worth curing lung cancer because it doesnt also cure kidney cancer, bladder cancer, and every other fucking type of cancer.
Obviously we require more than just a fucking freeze on evictions, thats clear to anyone with blood pumping through grey matter, but letting the eviction freeze lapse 'cause "oops, didnt know that needed to be renewed!" is, first, incompetent as fuck, second, also not really doing anything to solve any of the fucking problems anyways.
Incidentally, the upper middle class can 100% totally take the fucking hit. If they're going to be so financially downtrodden from owning three houses they might want to consider selling the fucking houses they can't afford. Its not like we're in a housing market where people are selling their houses at or above fucking asking price. So spare me with "Woe is the affluent upper middle class multiple homeowner!" bullshit, because it is bullshit.
|
Well, here seems to be the answer the previous page or so questions about the evictions. Biden admin came through with another moratorium on evictions. Late, but still it's there.
Days after a national eviction moratorium expired, the Biden administration on Tuesday issued a new, more limited freeze that remains in effect through Oct. 3.
Like the previous order, the two-month moratorium issued Tuesday comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The new ban on evictions covers parts of the United States that are experiencing what the CDC calls "substantial" and "high" spread of the coronavirus.
As of Tuesday afternoon, that's the vast majority of U.S. counties.
The order, which cites the rise of the delta variant, says: "Without this Order, evictions in these [higher transmission] areas would likely exacerbate the increase in cases."
"Where we are right now with such high disease rates, we felt a new, tailored order [was needed] to make sure that ... working Americans who were at risk of eviction could be stably housed during this really tenuous, challenging period of time," the CDC's director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, told NPR's All Things Considered.
The federal ban expired Saturday night, affecting millions of Americans who had the potential to be removed from their homes if they had fallen behind on rent.
Since that moratorium's expiration, progressives had pressured the Biden administration to extend the pause on evictions.
The administration previously said it didn't have the legal authority to issue a such a measure. The new order could face legal challenges.
Source
|
The problem is the Supreme Court is going to slap that down, they've already declared the CDC's declaring of eviction moratoriums to be unconstitutional over a month ago, they said Congress had to do it, so this is, while a nice kind of general action to see, not a proper extension given it has less than no chance of surviving the Supreme Court.
I wonder how long it'll last though, and if it'll actually stop any evictions in the mean time for however long it's in the court system.
|
I thought the supreme court just ruled that the CDC didn't have the authority to issue eviction moratorium? Did they sidestep that ruling somehow by making it more limited?
|
On August 04 2021 09:09 Zambrah wrote:
The problem is the Supreme Court is going to slap that down, they've already declared the CDC's declaring of eviction moratoriums to be unconstitutional over a month ago, they said Congress had to do it, so this is, while a nice kind of general action to see, not a proper extension given it has less than no chance of surviving the Supreme Court.
I wonder how long it'll last though, and if it'll actually stop any evictions in the mean time for however long it's in the court system.
It would seem that almost everything that requires "congressional authorization" is just a way to kill it without killing it, knowing a divided congress won't get anything done. If the Dems would get rid of the filibuster, they'd be fine. But Manchin and the other one are cutting their noses to spite their face.
|
This tweet pretty much sums up what happened with the Biden administration's 180 an eviction moratorium after people including Congressperson Bush slept on the capital steps.
Agree with Zambrah that it was remarkably incompetent (assuming incompetence over malice) of Democrats to allow it to lapse in the first place as well as not an actual plan (without one seemingly on the horizon from Democrats either).
EDIT: Should add there have been organizing efforts around the country (that have taken a variety of forms, like Cancel Rent) that also put immense pressure on governments federal to local for months to do more helping and less violent forced displacement.
EDIT2: The moratorium is the bare minimum to keep the dam from breaking just yet imo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
