Coronavirus and You - Page 231

On August 17 2020 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
Using statistics to say all those families lost basically nothing when their loved ones died is pretty gross from where I'm sitting. Trivializing their loss and difficulties by telling them to just take whatever they have in their medicine cabinet and get on with their lives is doubly insulting and infuriating. That's not something I'm ok with.

On August 17 2020 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
Using statistics to say all those families lost basically nothing when their loved ones died is pretty gross from where I'm sitting. Trivializing their loss and difficulties by telling them to just take whatever they have in their medicine cabinet and get on with their lives is doubly insulting and infuriating. That's not something I'm ok with.

According to the American Psychological Association, the expression can have two meanings:

(1) In psychoanalysis, projective identification is a defense mechanism in which the individual projects qualities that are unacceptable to the self onto another person, and that person internalizes the projected qualities and believes himself to be characterized by them appropriately and justifiably.

On August 17 2020 14:05 xM(Z wrote:
i don't know dude, i've seen you in other topics and you're about here: projective identification.

unless his mother infected someone/all those families that died, you're way off. at worst, she's sort of an asshole and not a gross, uncaring, psychopath bent on infecting everyone with covid.

(and there's a lot of that going on in this topic)

On August 17 2020 14:36 NewSunshine wrote:
Instead it's still a joke to an alarming number of people, which is why our infected/death tolls are super high and still counting. It's about putting the politics aside long enough to just focus on making sure we don't lose any unnecessary life. I can guess how you feel, but there is a correct position on whether or not to take a pandemic seriously.

On August 17 2020 14:36 NewSunshine wrote:

At what point am I projecting? I made very clear what constitutes amoral behavior in my eyes. All I did was ask you to put the shoe on the other foot. To all the people who have suffered very real consequences, it's about looking like we take this pandemic at least semi-seriously. Instead it's still a joke to an alarming number of people, which is why our infected/death tolls are super high and still counting. It's about putting the politics aside long enough to just focus on making sure we don't lose any unnecessary life. I can guess how you feel, but there is a correct position on whether or not to take a pandemic seriously.

On August 17 2020 22:35 Wombat_NI wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
I really wouldn’t mind so much if these people crawled under some hole and fucked off for a bit, but by nature they’re the most insistent on flouting even the most basic precautions and acting as if normality should resume at all costs.

Could have insisted on ‘no mask no service’ from the top down ages ago, with exemptions for those with legitimate needs.

40-50% of people I encounter in work is not anywhere close to the amount of people who have any legitimate reason not to wear a mask. Most of my co-workers, even those who were wearing masks have stopped now (it’s not mandatory for us) because what’s the point if the public aren’t bothering either?

People stomached much more stringent restrictions like lockdown, they can play ball if they’re directed with leadership and culture. Culture such as ‘stop being a dick ffs’

Can’t really blame a lot of people individually because they haven’t been sold the benefits of mask uptake as per this pandemic and enforcement has been terrible as well.

On August 18 2020 00:11 Uldridge wrote:

What about yearly flu season? Shouldn't we start some heavy testing/analysis too to see who's a super spreader when we're dealing with seasonal things?
Most of the things you're mentioning have been true for literally every microbiological agent around. Social distancing and face mask wearing and washing hands more frequently will cause less disease. I don't like it because I enjoy physical contact and am afraid there might be some severe social implications from becoming a more sterile society.
Anyway, the upside of this entire thing is that I haven't really had a cold this year, which normally is the case throughout the winter.

Also, something people haven't realized yet, or I haven't seen it discussed really: this could also be a year (like every year) that a pandemic flu strikes. I don't think we're equipped to handle that right now, or are we?

On August 18 2020 00:11 Uldridge wrote:

What about yearly flu season? Shouldn't we start some heavy testing/analysis too to see who's a super spreader when we're dealing with seasonal things?
Most of the things you're mentioning have been true for literally every microbiological agent around. Social distancing and face mask wearing and washing hands more frequently will cause less disease. I don't like it because I enjoy physical contact and am afraid there might be some severe social implications from becoming a more sterile society.
Anyway, the upside of this entire thing is that I haven't really had a cold this year, which normally is the case throughout the winter.

Also, something people haven't realized yet, or I haven't seen it discussed really: this could also be a year (like every year) that a pandemic flu strikes. I don't think we're equipped to handle that right now, or are we?

On August 18 2020 00:42 JimmiC wrote:
I find it strange that the people who most want to open things up are also the most against social distancing and mask wearing. It is crazy to me, opening everything up makes a lot more sense people have the personal responsibility to do the measures that do the most to reduce spread.

On August 18 2020 01:39 cLutZ wrote:

You seem to not be connecting the idea that these people probably simply have different risk assessments than you do. One of the arrogant conceits of the lockdown-leaning people is that they think their opposition is uninformed. That is simply untrue. They have different values, similar to how people who are pro-gun and anti-gun have different values. Some people are very high on the "safety" value, other people have other values.

On August 18 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
The intolerance of other risk/reward calculations sounds like the pandemic has revealed some surprising attitudes towards sharing a country with people that think differently than them. It's kind of declaring that "My plan" (cLutZ might say absence of a plan) "is the correct risk/reward to approach the pandemic, and other plans are made by ignorant people using difference of values as an excuse to kill and sicken people for their personal convenience."

They ironically should be more accepting of the other extreme, which might be characterized, "People in favor of massive, indefinite lockdowns ignore the science or are generally ignorant of the science, and prioritize a false sense of causing near-zero risk. They would see children, businesses, economies, and national unity die before yielding an inch on their safety neuroses."

This is one of the reasons why I'm glad the American response to COVID-19 is comprised of 50 separate state responses. One state where the fearmongers hold supreme can compare their results to laissez-faire states in deaths/100k and closed businesses/suicides/emigration.

On August 18 2020 01:57 Slydie wrote:
For all of you even considering facemasks to be an important measure to beat this virus, have a look at this:

On the 8th of June, face masks became obligatory in public spaces. It soon became a blanket rule, even when distancing was possible. A lot of public goodwill and information was used on forcing people to wear them everywhere, and they do. So, what happened afterwards? A steady INCREASE of cases, peaking so far on over 4k cases detected on August 6th alone. I am not saying the face masks caused this increase, but if they did antything at all to limit the expected increase due to lifting of travel restriction and the holiday season, it is impossible to see in the statistics.

Meanwhile in Sweden, they had a completely different approach, focussing on measures they knew for certain were working, not even mentioning face masks in public. The advice was about things like avoid crowds, limit your social circles, dont hold big parties etc, and they are gaining control of the disease in a sustainable way. Having returned from Scandinavia, it is also shocking how little facemask use seems to be related to the severety of the outbreak. I am even willing to say that face masks, because of their social and cultural impact, makes too much of a distraction from every other way of fighting this pandemic, at least in the West.

In Spain, the all-in-on-masks strategy was a spectacular failure, and it is destroying the spirit of the country, and it did little if anything to limit the 2nd wave of infections. It is all very logical:
-Masks can plausibly only have effect when they are worn, which means it does nothing to spread happening in homes and while eating and drinking, which is the vast majority.
-It only has effect where there would be some spread to begin with. If distancing is in place and people don't cough eachother in the face, infections are extremely unlikely outside, and even in stores when other measures are in place.
-Face masks are most likely to be effective in public transport where people are forced to sit together for a long time. While the WHO is recommending that now in areas with a lot of spread, they also point out that more research is required.
-Put on top of that the enormous amount of incorrect use will reduce the effectiveness of masks.

Unfortuntaely, the masks have become a moral and political symbol which is impossible to argue against. Emotional slogans like "I do this for you" destroy any rational discussion.

At least I am very proud the Scandinavian countries, which still have the levelheaded approach to the masks, seemlingly knowing the potential dangers of excessive demands. I hope it stays like that!