|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On December 09 2021 02:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Another thing: I think nurse wages are only as low as they are because of the culture of women being nurses a long time ago. Nurses should probably be paid 75%-90% what a doctor is paid, not like 30%
Which level of nurse? There's definitely different levels of education requirement and certification attached to nursing.
Don't think too many people would disagree with NP's or CRNAs being given a respectable salary though.
|
And by better employment perks, I don't mean just increasing base salary in pure monetary terms. There are many ways to tailor financial incentives to attract the right kind of 'wholesome' people to healthcare rather than the greed-is-good kind. Medical insurance coverage to dependants, wellness allowance claims, or even housing loan subsidies. The goal is to make essential government service as attractive as MNCs. Civil service used to have that clout among the boomer generation like my old folks - part of the reason is perhaps civil service used to be much smaller and have less bloat.
This is digressing, I know. But I think this is where the social welfare state model has gotten wrong. The focus should be quality, rather than quantity. Invest in a few essential essential public service (healthcare, security), and cut down or outsource other services that the private sector can manage well (utility, transportation). Or at least create a tier system where more money gets poured into the more essential sectors (rather than having a universal job grade for all workers regardless of sector).
|
|
|
On December 09 2021 07:20 RKC wrote:
And by better employment perks, I don't mean just increasing base salary in pure monetary terms. There are many ways to tailor financial incentives to attract the right kind of 'wholesome' people to healthcare rather than the greed-is-good kind. Medical insurance coverage to dependants, wellness allowance claims, or even housing loan subsidies. The goal is to make essential government service as attractive as MNCs. Civil service used to have that clout among the boomer generation like my old folks - part of the reason is perhaps civil service used to be much smaller and have less bloat.
This is digressing, I know. But I think this is where the social welfare state model has gotten wrong. The focus should be quality, rather than quantity. Invest in a few essential essential public service (healthcare, security), and cut down or outsource other services that the private sector can manage well (utility, transportation). Or at least create a tier system where more money gets poured into the more essential sectors (rather than having a universal job grade for all workers regardless of sector).
It isn't that simple. You say transportation should be privatised, but most public transport is not profitable. Sure, buses/trains between and inside major cities, or into major cities from the peripheral towns generally are. But a bus that goes from tiny regional towns to the nearest city isn't generally. Same for utilities: laying fibre-optic cable to some town with 500 inhabitants isn't profitable even if they all want high speed internet. However, most governments (and people) deplore the ongoing urbanisation. If you want that to stop you need to make sure the countryside has similar facilities to the city. Nobody expects a modern hospital there, but they do expect a bus that can take them to the one in the nearest city. The situation is already bad enough with not much work available in the countryside, but don't need to accelerate the process by removing services (post is another service that isn't profitable in small towns).
|
On December 09 2021 17:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2021 07:20 RKC wrote:
And by better employment perks, I don't mean just increasing base salary in pure monetary terms. There are many ways to tailor financial incentives to attract the right kind of 'wholesome' people to healthcare rather than the greed-is-good kind. Medical insurance coverage to dependants, wellness allowance claims, or even housing loan subsidies. The goal is to make essential government service as attractive as MNCs. Civil service used to have that clout among the boomer generation like my old folks - part of the reason is perhaps civil service used to be much smaller and have less bloat.
This is digressing, I know. But I think this is where the social welfare state model has gotten wrong. The focus should be quality, rather than quantity. Invest in a few essential essential public service (healthcare, security), and cut down or outsource other services that the private sector can manage well (utility, transportation). Or at least create a tier system where more money gets poured into the more essential sectors (rather than having a universal job grade for all workers regardless of sector). It isn't that simple. You say transportation should be privatised, but most public transport is not profitable. Sure, buses/trains between and inside major cities, or into major cities from the peripheral towns generally are. But a bus that goes from tiny regional towns to the nearest city isn't generally. Same for utilities: laying fibre-optic cable to some town with 500 inhabitants isn't profitable even if they all want high speed internet. However, most governments (and people) deplore the ongoing urbanisation. If you want that to stop you need to make sure the countryside has similar facilities to the city. Nobody expects a modern hospital there, but they do expect a bus that can take them to the one in the nearest city. The situation is already bad enough with not much work available in the countryside, but don't need to accelerate the process by removing services (post is another service that isn't profitable in small towns).
Yes, balancing different aspects of public life is never easy. It's only in rare moments of crisis that emergency services attract attention. Whilst everyday services like utility and infrastructure needs to be maintained like clockwork.
Ultimately, every society has to make the call of what public service to prioritise. Pandemics, collapsing bridges, natural diasasters due to climate change, etc. So many problems to solve, so little money to go around.
Something's got to give. Not every society can afford to create safety nets for everyone. That's the sad reality of life, for the most of us.
|
|
|
Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks.
|
|
|
On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks.
Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk?
|
On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk?
Okay, besides anti-science individuals, it makes sense to also include individuals who don't give a shit about their health or the health of those around them. Selfish people. All better now?
|
On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk?
The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world.
|
On December 10 2021 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk? The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world.
Nah that doesn't matter at all; didn't you see the *gasp* for effect!?
|
On December 10 2021 10:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk? The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world. Nah that doesn't matter at all; didn't you see the *gasp* for effect!?
Did I consider that, *gasp*, some people just want to be selfish dickbags?
Why yes. Yes I have. Doesn't mean you can't be fucking stupid in addition to. I have to remember sometimes to take some dark comfort from Darwin's learnings.
|
On December 10 2021 12:47 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 10:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 10 2021 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk? The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world. Nah that doesn't matter at all; didn't you see the *gasp* for effect!? Did I consider that, *gasp*, some people just want to be selfish dickbags? Why yes. Yes I have. Doesn't mean you can't be fucking stupid in addition to. I have to remember sometimes to take some dark comfort from Darwin's learnings.
I really doubt either of you have truly isolated yourself from all forms of public entertainment and communal interactions for the last 21 months. Have you seen a movie/show/play, gone out to eat, done any traveling, etc.??
Unless you've truly isolated yourself for the last 21 months all you are really announcing is that you think you get to decide the line between acceptable risk and selfishness. That's not selflessness, that's arrogance.
|
Norway28910 Posts
On December 10 2021 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk? The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world.
Millions of young/vaccinated people?
As a Norwegian during winter I actually quite enjoy wearing a mask and sometimes wear one even when walking by myself outside, but if you're young, vaccinated and asymptomatic then I really can't picture that making a significant difference in terms of how likely you are to get seriously ill (even though the chance of getting covid increases, young and vaccinated people are really unlikely to be seriously harmed by that illness) or to infect others with serious illness (even though asymptomatic people can spread covid, a vast majority of asymptomatic people don't actually have it).
yes yes, wearing masks while using public transportation or crowded places during periods where regional infection is high makes sense and is just good and doesn't really come with negative side effects, but cmon, Gotunks specifies 'young/vaccinated people' - the risks for this group is indeed very small. I guess he could have added 'without obvious comorbidities, but imo it's pretty much implied. There aren't millions of dead within this group.
|
On December 10 2021 17:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk? The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world. Millions of young/vaccinated people? As a Norwegian during winter I actually quite enjoy wearing a mask and sometimes wear one even when walking by myself outside, but if you're young, vaccinated and asymptomatic then I really can't picture that making a significant difference in terms of how likely you are to get seriously ill (even though the chance of getting covid increases, young and vaccinated people are really unlikely to be seriously harmed by that illness) or to infect others with serious illness (even though asymptomatic people can spread covid, a vast majority of asymptomatic people don't actually have it). yes yes, wearing masks while using public transportation or crowded places during periods where regional infection is high makes sense and is just good and doesn't really come with negative side effects, but cmon, Gotunks specifies 'young/vaccinated people' - the risks for this group is indeed very small. I guess he could have added 'without obvious comorbidities, but imo it's pretty much implied. There aren't millions of dead within this group.
I fail to see how any of that changes it being selfish and stupid as long as the mask can stop some young people from infecting others. Not to mention that the risk is not as miniscule as people like to pretend even for young people. But of course you only want to look at death rates again, right?
|
Norway28910 Posts
On December 10 2021 18:08 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 17:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 10 2021 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk? The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world. Millions of young/vaccinated people? As a Norwegian during winter I actually quite enjoy wearing a mask and sometimes wear one even when walking by myself outside, but if you're young, vaccinated and asymptomatic then I really can't picture that making a significant difference in terms of how likely you are to get seriously ill (even though the chance of getting covid increases, young and vaccinated people are really unlikely to be seriously harmed by that illness) or to infect others with serious illness (even though asymptomatic people can spread covid, a vast majority of asymptomatic people don't actually have it). yes yes, wearing masks while using public transportation or crowded places during periods where regional infection is high makes sense and is just good and doesn't really come with negative side effects, but cmon, Gotunks specifies 'young/vaccinated people' - the risks for this group is indeed very small. I guess he could have added 'without obvious comorbidities, but imo it's pretty much implied. There aren't millions of dead within this group. I fail to see how any of that changes it being selfish and stupid as long as the mask can stop some young people from infecting others. Not to mention that the risk is not as miniscule as people like to pretend even for young people. But of course you only want to look at death rates again, right?
I don't think the selfish and stupid framing is really productive in any way. It fails to convince the people you want to convince, rather it just further pushes them away from the message you want them to accept. It's fine if you want to hold that position yourself, I guess, but I don't really see the point in expressing it. But mostly I just get irked by Gotunk's words being so twisted beyond recognition - and me and Gotunk really don't have a history of agreement on political matters. I don't really think me and him agree on Covid either - but the guy clearly said young/vaccinated in his post. Bringing up 'millions of dead' has no relation to those. (It's true that deaths in lower income countries are much more skewed towards younger age groups than what you see in higher income countries, but we're still far from 'millions of dead' for say, sub-40 year olds, even though a country like India might be around 100k. But this is a problem caused by global inequalities in vaccine distribution, something I'm hugely negative towards, not about young people in western countries not wearing masks.)
For the record I think hospitalizations is a useful metric for 'how bad' it is, not just death rates, but I don't think number of infected people has much significance. For people that are young, healthy and vaccinated, hospitalizations are very low.
I also think that people who have symptoms (of any respiratory illness) should wear masks, and I'm totally fine with adhering to mask recommendations whenever the regional covid numbers are high enough to warrant it, but there are also many people for whom it really isn't a big deal. Yes, it's good that we all contribute towards dealing with the problem. I agree entirely with that. However, the 'people who don't wear masks are selfish and stupid' isn't going to succeed in convincing those people to wear masks. Everything I understand about the human psyche to me indicates that on the contrary, it's likely to have the opposite effect, further entrenching people within their own 'camps', making any messaging from people in the other camp less appealing, meaning that this messaging has the same type of negative consequence for combating the disease as the act of not wearing the mask has.
|
On December 10 2021 15:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 12:47 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 10:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 10 2021 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk? The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world. Nah that doesn't matter at all; didn't you see the *gasp* for effect!? Did I consider that, *gasp*, some people just want to be selfish dickbags? Why yes. Yes I have. Doesn't mean you can't be fucking stupid in addition to. I have to remember sometimes to take some dark comfort from Darwin's learnings. I really doubt either of you have truly isolated yourself from all forms of public entertainment and communal interactions for the last 21 months. Have you seen a movie/show/play, gone out to eat, done any traveling, etc.?? Unless you've truly isolated yourself for the last 21 months all you are really announcing is that you think you get to decide the line between acceptable risk and selfishness. That's not selflessness, that's arrogance.
Actually, yes, with the exception of going to work and doing the occasional mandatory errand (e.g., buying groceries), I've been doing that very serious level of isolation. But that's way more extreme than what we were talking about, anyway - that people should at least be willing to wear masks if the situation calls for it, as per medical safety guidelines. If you're actively ignoring medical guidelines, you either don't trust the experts or you don't care about doing your part to minimize risk. Those are the two groups.
|
On December 10 2021 18:08 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 17:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 10 2021 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk? The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world. Millions of young/vaccinated people? As a Norwegian during winter I actually quite enjoy wearing a mask and sometimes wear one even when walking by myself outside, but if you're young, vaccinated and asymptomatic then I really can't picture that making a significant difference in terms of how likely you are to get seriously ill (even though the chance of getting covid increases, young and vaccinated people are really unlikely to be seriously harmed by that illness) or to infect others with serious illness (even though asymptomatic people can spread covid, a vast majority of asymptomatic people don't actually have it). yes yes, wearing masks while using public transportation or crowded places during periods where regional infection is high makes sense and is just good and doesn't really come with negative side effects, but cmon, Gotunks specifies 'young/vaccinated people' - the risks for this group is indeed very small. I guess he could have added 'without obvious comorbidities, but imo it's pretty much implied. There aren't millions of dead within this group. I fail to see how any of that changes it being selfish and stupid as long as the mask can stop some young people from infecting others. Not to mention that the risk is not as miniscule as people like to pretend even for young people. But of course you only want to look at death rates again, right?
It's becoming clear that COVID won't be eradicated. Are you committed to wearing a mask for the rest of your life? Or is there some point when you think it will become reasonable to be a selfish dickbag?
|
On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk?
Have you considered that not everything is about you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
