EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 587
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
romasi22
2 Posts
| ||
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
| ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On February 12 2022 13:15 LegalLord wrote: Well, the rationale they're not going to state is that they have the leverage in that situation because their reduced offer is still probably higher than local market rate. If people will take it... well fine. Personally, I saw the idea as appealing at first and explored a couple opportunities on that front for a while, but eventually came to the conclusion that it's not for me. I know that many computer programmers have an almost pathological obsession with full remote, but if you look at the landscape of what's on offer it's not impressive. As you mentioned, there's the long-term career aspect, where unless the company is explicitly set up to be remote you'll be in the reliable-grunt tier rather than up for any promotions. Another factor is that your options are limited for new lines of work - the best remote jobs I've seen tend to be gained by switching to remote after already being well established within the company and asking for a change in circumstances; short of that you often end up working for temp agencies, trying to negotiate into remote from a non-remote job, or finding one of the very few positions that actually seem reasonable that offer remote and actually mean it (remote in the job description often doesn't actually mean remote, turns out). Add to that I've not entirely been thrilled with two years of mostly-full-remote and I've definitely soured on the idea. But as I said, among the computer programmer type that you would see in those kinds of companies, the ability to be full remote can often be the priority, so whatever works for you. Sensible points. In principle, I like the idea. Realistically, if given the choice, I'll be more cautious. Depends really how much I trust the organisation to be acting for everyone's interest. In most places, the offers seem more like a poisoned apple / chalice. Some of my friends cynically feel that it's yet another corporate ploy to gather info and 'filter' employees for keeps and to let go in the next redundancy exercise. Also, if the offer is sold as a dream job to work from some tropical beach or paradise island, I would be even more sceptical. Sounds one step away from outsourcing one's role for good to cheaper developing countries. Nothing for wrong people to like that kind of deal. Free-lancing is gaining a lot of fans due to the pandemic. But for people into job security, remote working is something not to be so cheerful about. Unfortunately, it's the fear of losing security that also pressures people into coming into office even if they don't feel they need to. Oh well, interesting times ahead. Maybe the silver lining is how the pandemic has put a pause on everyone's lives, to allow employers and employees alike to evaluate deeply about their career trajectory and life goals. All in all, there's more good than bad in this interlude. | ||
|
Geisterkarle
Germany3257 Posts
On February 12 2022 14:42 BlackJack wrote: I bet there is substantial overlap between the group of people protesting police brutality last year and the group of people begging for the police to go in and start cracking some skulls of the Canadian truckers. As the saying goes, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Yeah, it is a classic! Here in Germany - as in other countries - there are many people taking it to the streets, that they are against Covid rules, masks, etc. They are "overall" hated because the usual: They are "all" right-wing and nuts and stupid and - as you say - the police should hit them hard! While sometimes there are some clashes with them (or counter protesters) most of these demonstrations are peaceful. They even "switched" to "Covid promenades". So they just walk about together as if it is not planned. So basically they do "nothing" and "everyone" hate them! Here an (German) article that tells us, that those "walkings" are "poison for society"! > https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/Soziologe-Corona-Spaziergaenge-vergiften-gesellschaftliches-Klima,corona9858.html On the other hand there are currently people that sit themselves on speedways, blocking the way for everyone that wants to drive there! Or even glue themselves on the pavement (I'm not making this up: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/letzte-generation-blockade-muenchen-innenstadt-1.5522424 ) What? No, nothing Covid! It is climate protest (also something about "containern" (they want to fish food out food out of trash cans from supermarkets)! And "all" are ok with that because ... I'm not sure... they are more disruptive then the Covid protesters but it is "the good cause"! | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11508 Posts
On February 12 2022 16:59 Geisterkarle wrote: Yeah, it is a classic! Here in Germany - as in other countries - there are many people taking it to the streets, that they are against Covid rules, masks, etc. They are "overall" hated because the usual: They are "all" right-wing and nuts and stupid and - as you say - the police should hit them hard! While sometimes there are some clashes with them (or counter protesters) most of these demonstrations are peaceful. They even "switched" to "Covid promenades". So they just walk about together as if it is not planned. So basically they do "nothing" and "everyone" hate them! Here an (German) article that tells us, that those "walkings" are "poison for society"! > https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/Soziologe-Corona-Spaziergaenge-vergiften-gesellschaftliches-Klima,corona9858.html On the other hand there are currently people that sit themselves on speedways, blocking the way for everyone that wants to drive there! Or even glue themselves on the pavement (I'm not making this up: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/letzte-generation-blockade-muenchen-innenstadt-1.5522424 ) What? No, nothing Covid! It is climate protest (also something about "containern" (they want to fish food out food out of trash cans from supermarkets)! And "all" are ok with that because ... I'm not sure... they are more disruptive then the Covid protesters but it is "the good cause"! I think this argument doesn't work very well. The main thing of a protest is what the protest is about. Not the method of protesting. I am far more okay with a protest that protests for something that i believe in compared to a protest with the same method for something i find appalling. Focusing on the method of protest instead of the goal is absurd, and somehow claiming that people should be similarly in favor or against different protests if they use the same method doesn't make any sense. If a bunch of neonazis peacefully protest, i still hate it. (I also believe that they should have the right to do so) I am not in favor of police brutality against rightwing protests. I also think this argument is often read incorrectly. People have experienced the police react with completely different brutality levels to protests based on where those protests are placed in society. Here in Germany, police historically reacts a lot more aggressive to left-wing protests compared to right-wing protests. The people who point this out rarely want the police to be brutal against right-wing protests, they want them to be similarly permissive to left-wing protests. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4729 Posts
The anti-COVID folks, on the other hand, are treated rather lightly here. They are allowed to march and protest freely. Considering the climate folks want to save Earth (I am not going into discussion if they are right or their methods make sense) and the COVID folks want more people killed by deadly virus, I think it should be the other way around. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
On February 12 2022 18:11 Simberto wrote: I think this argument doesn't work very well. The main thing of a protest is what the protest is about. Not the method of protesting. I am far more okay with a protest that protests for something that i believe in compared to a protest with the same method for something i find appalling. Focusing on the method of protest instead of the goal is absurd, and somehow claiming that people should be similarly in favor or against different protests if they use the same method doesn't make any sense. If a bunch of neonazis peacefully protest, i still hate it. (I also believe that they should have the right to do so) I am not in favor of police brutality against rightwing protests. I also think this argument is often read incorrectly. People have experienced the police react with completely different brutality levels to protests based on where those protests are placed in society. Here in Germany, police historically reacts a lot more aggressive to left-wing protests compared to right-wing protests. The people who point this out rarely want the police to be brutal against right-wing protests, they want them to be similarly permissive to left-wing protests. The argument is not that you have to support the cause of all protests equally. The argument is that you shouldn't believe that the level of harshness the police use to quell protests should depend on how much you agree with the message. Which I'm not saying you do, since you clearly just stated you support the rights of neonazis to peacefully protest. Also in fairness, that partisanship exists on both sides, e.g. the overlap between the people that support the trucker convoy but wanted to squash the BLM protests is also substantial. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28667 Posts
| ||
|
Geisterkarle
Germany3257 Posts
How do you know if a demonstration is right- or left-wing? - If the police is facing the protesters it it left-wing, if they face away from them, it is right-wing! Also, I'm someone that "follows" the bible: "An ihren Taten sollt ihr sie erkennen!" (By their deeds you shall know them). Just a good cause is _no_ free-ride to do whatever someone wants! You want to show your support for a better climate? So do a normal demonstration! What? "Everyone ignores us, if we just stand there!" ... oh, so why do you bother about these boring Covid-protests? You just said, nobody cares if you just do that? But this is quite derailing here! So, back to topic  Anyone knows how it looks like in Denmark after dropping most Covid-rules? | ||
|
Razyda
726 Posts
On February 11 2022 22:54 JimmiC wrote: Because you misread my first question as one reason instead of one's reasons, I'm guessing. If you are going to try to hold each word as some exact reason in one part of the post, you shouldn't completing get the sentence wrong in the other. English has interesting words we use imperfectly. You are right that if you want to say I cant be 100% they would all feel that way, by the same token you can not be the other direction.But if it makes you feel better I should have said "I'm sure most" or "I'm sure almost all". Its also a throw away comment of the post that the only legitimate reason you can pick out is for a tiny fraction. The point of it was we are talking about public health rules who meed to look at the decisions of many and how they impact the whole group. The same way people are not saying you have to know everything to make a medical suggestion, you just have to trust the doctors and specialists who do. You somehow trust them with the other vaccines, tgose also have tiny obscure risks as does advil. You trust them on hand washing for cooks, even though everyone wont die, few wiil. Same on meat expirary day rules even though much of that meat would be fine few would get sick and less would fie, it would work out great for many! And then you follow all sorts of rules that have no health or safety compoment, think all the silly dress code shit. And even wearing close im the first place, what if people dont want too? How about smoking in doors? There is 1000s of rules you dont bat an eye at or dont think about because they've always been there or effect you indirectly. What people are scared of is change amd they dont like it. The people not following the health orders are the ones letting fear drive their lives. The others are letting experts, science and data do it for large societal impacting choices. On February 11 2022 09:15 Razyda wrote: Bolded - because I really dont, similarly as I dont care what faith they are, or if they Labour/Conservative voters or if they prefer automatic over stick, or shooters over rts. Everyone have their own reason for those and it is simply not my business what they are. Italic - there is couple of issues I have with this approach. First of all, whoever I'll be talking to is infinitely more aware of their circumstances than I'll ever be. Therefore they are way more qualified than I am to make this choice. This makes me saying "You should/shouldnt get vaccinated" an empty statement really, or rather declaration of the side rather than anything else. Second somewhat comes from first - let say that they take my advice and something goes awfully bad -thats on me. I am not the kind of person who would go "oh, well sucks for him/her" and carry on with my life. I simply dont have enough knowledge/information to take on such responsibility. On February 11 2022 09:18 JimmiC wrote: What are the reasons that one shouldn't get vaccinated? Quite frankly my first reaction was disbelief that there exists someone who can get that out of my post. Therefore I Specified "First one" and gave you reason which can't really be argued. I also asked you a question (which you still didn't answer btw and you didn't because there is only 1 answer to this question and this answer reveal your lack of good judgment) which was aimed at making you aware whose attitude is more responsible one considering that: neither of us is medical professional neither of us know circumstances of every person reading our opinions yours - effectively giving people medical advice mine - refusing to do so At this point you really should just let it go. Or if you wanted to argue, admit that this is valid reason and ask for my reasons. What you did though: On February 11 2022 09:49 JimmiC wrote: No I'm sure the .000001% of people who have those would wish the rest would get it and everyone (the like 50 people in Canada LOL) with that reason would qualify for an actual medical exemption and be treated at the pharmacy or hospital where they got the shot. How about other reasons, like yours? https://www.healthline.com/health-news/youre-probably-not-allergic-to-vaccines You did ask the question, but for some reason decided to add bolded part which in no way is related to anything which was discussed so far (which seems to be habit of yours). On top of that you made grand statement, what people you know nothing about would want. without anything to support this claim. I then pointed out that you didn't answer my question, and challenged your claim. I also answered your question as this is generally accepted practice. On February 11 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote: I dont understand your first paragraph. I was asking tge reasons someone shouldnt. You brought up one super obsecure reason that effects almost no one and kills a number so small most people would consider it zero. I thought with so many people against it you have a whole bunch of reasons that were realistic concerns for people, hopefully at least on par with the downsides of not. Im sure that its a good idea to go all in with a pair of aces pre flop, but Im also not going to be right 100% of the time every time. If I was 100% sure, or thought every single one was, I would have wrote that and then your word play burn would have made more sense. I mean technically yes, the same way it is for a guy who pushes all in with 2, 7 offsuit and wins the pot. The thing is when making public policy or a series of decisions making a choice that works out badly more of the time will negatively outcome the system. The same way that even if you won that pot with the 2 7 offsuit it would still be a bad decision to do it again and worse the more times you plan on making it. So when you are the government and you are considering millions of hands instead of just 1 you dont take that risk because with huge numbers there is consistency instead of randomness. This is basically the why government makes all health and safety rules. https://www.britannica.com/science/law-of-large-numbers Are you going to start a movement to halt all vaccine requirements? Because most places have a lot but Brazil has tons! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy This was your answer. In first paragraph you still refuse to answer my question, pretending that you dont understand what I am asking for. You also try to diminish validity of the reason I gave you, while sounding borderline psychopathic (italic). In second you trying to withdraw from your claim, while maintaining its validity using incorrect poker examples. In third only your first sentence is related to discussion we have. Unless I am making decisions for entire communities bolded is unrelated to anything so far discussed. I then again pointed out that you still didn't answer my question, pointed out that reason for not taking vaccine I gave you is good enough for government and further challenged validity of your claim and your dishonesty which you tried to cover with some language gymnastics. On February 11 2022 22:54 JimmiC wrote: Because you misread my first question as one reason instead of one's reasons, I'm guessing. If you are going to try to hold each word as some exact reason in one part of the post, you shouldn't completing get the sentence wrong in the other. English has interesting words we use imperfectly. You are right that if you want to say I cant be 100% they would all feel that way, by the same token you can not be the other direction.But if it makes you feel better I should have said "I'm sure most" or "I'm sure almost all". Its also a throw away comment of the post that the only legitimate reason you can pick out is for a tiny fraction. The point of it was we are talking about public health rules who meed to look at the decisions of many and how they impact the whole group. The same way people are not saying you have to know everything to make a medical suggestion, you just have to trust the doctors and specialists who do. You somehow trust them with the other vaccines, tgose also have tiny obscure risks as does advil. You trust them on hand washing for cooks, even though everyone wont die, few wiil. Same on meat expirary day rules even though much of that meat would be fine few would get sick and less would fie, it would work out great for many! And then you follow all sorts of rules that have no health or safety compoment, think all the silly dress code shit. And even wearing close im the first place, what if people dont want too? How about smoking in doors? There is 1000s of rules you dont bat an eye at or dont think about because they've always been there or effect you indirectly. What people are scared of is change amd they dont like it. The people not following the health orders are the ones letting fear drive their lives. The others are letting experts, science and data do it for large societal impacting choices. Bolded - please point out which part of this exchange lead you to believe that this is what we discussing??? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On February 12 2022 23:30 JimmiC wrote: Who are the people asking for that? There is lots of people asking for the police to start towing there trucks so they can open their business or get their supplies across the boarders. There is also a lot of people upset about all the animals stuck on liners without food and water. There might be some key board warriors but even the tweets they've shown have not been "asking for for police to crack skulls". Do you have any source on this or is another BJ assumption stated as fact with no basis in reality? the irony of suddenly caring about people wanting to open their business or supply lines in general good luck with just "towing the trucks" | ||
|
Razyda
726 Posts
On February 12 2022 23:35 JimmiC wrote: that is the whole discussion, when people say "we should have vaccine mandates" or not, they are not talking about themselves individually, they are talking about the government or group. People are not suggesting they personally know all the reasons, they are suggesting the doctors are. There is legitimate reasons for like .001 of the population to not get vaccinated, which is fine for society, it has been for each vaccine. The cry babies that are scared of needles, or scared of some made up fantasy years down the road, scared of their DNA, scared of the gubberment takin der freedum, scared scared scared, need to suck it up so we could move on. The worst is for all the people who have had to suffer and will have their lives cut short because of the lack of medical care. It looks like because of Omicron we will get to move on in spite of the scared and selfish, we got lucky. I dont think you are able to explain, how what you wrote has anything to do with my post you quoted?? Language you are using to describe people who dare to have different opinion than you do speaks volumes abut what kind of person you are btw. On February 12 2022 23:30 JimmiC wrote: Do you have any source on this or is another BJ assumption stated as fact with no basis in reality? This is hilarious. Dont worry I will go through that step by step with you so you may be able understand why. He didn't wrote anything which state that this is a "fact". You are actually stating "stated as fact with no bases in reality" You doing very thing you falsely accusing him of doing, in the very same sentence where you accuse him. do you get the irony? You really should add to your signature "Doesn't apply for JimmiC" | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Maybe the pipeline protestors should bring their children along as human shields next time. Though I have a hunch CPS would end up taking them away instead of graciously letting them stay in truck cabs missing school getting bombarded by noise pollution for weeks (again, not saying either of those is the ideal solution). Edit: It's also all pretty pathetic because, for all of the bluster and "we'll never leave until sanctions are lifted" crap, the Ambassador Bridge blockade has dwindled vastly once the injunction came in (because of corporate interests, of course) and the police made it clear that there was real jailtime and fines coming for holdouts; we'll see the ultimate result today as they move in on the remainder, but you really don't need to crack heads to solve this situation. But you do need to do something. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25333 Posts
On February 13 2022 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote: Personally most of the discourse I've seen surrounding police actions towards the convoy is less "fire the teargas and bust out the batons" and more "interesting that the government can mobilize so quickly against other protests that aren't occupations and takes multiple weeks to deal with this one." This is one of the times when you point out double standards to illuminate priorities and say the standard should be somewhere in the middle. Maybe the pipeline protestors should bring their children along as human shields next time. Though I have a hunch CPS would end up taking them away instead of graciously letting them stay in truck cabs missing school getting bombarded by noise pollution for weeks (again, not saying either of those is the ideal solution). Edit: It's also all pretty pathetic because, for all of the bluster and "we'll never leave until sanctions are lifted" crap, the Ambassador Bridge blockade has dwindled vastly once the injunction came in (because of corporate interests, of course) and the police made it clear that there was real jailtime and fines coming for holdouts; we'll see the ultimate result today as they move in on the remainder, but you really don't need to crack heads to solve this situation. But you do need to do something. Largely that is my experience of supposed hypocrisy in such matters. Saying ‘hm, interesting the police crack heads at this other protest but not this one’ is not remotely the same thing as advocating the police should be out there cracking skulls. | ||
|
Razyda
726 Posts
On February 13 2022 01:34 JimmiC wrote: You are not making sense, sorry do not know how to reply. He said there is a group of people who are asking for police to go crack skulls. I live here, watch and read local news, I have not seen or heard anything about this group. I'm asking where he did or if he is just guessing that it exists. There is no irony, nor do I think you understand the word. Edit: If you are looking for hypocrisy it most certainly exists (and as usual it is bare and from "your side". The conservatives politicians (and supporters) that are supporting these blockades, are the same ones that put in laws against the indigenous blocking railways on their land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Infrastructure_Defence_Act#:~:text=The Critical Infrastructure Defence Act,, destroy, or obstruct infrastructure. The rule of law except if we don't like it or it it is against us crowd is getting so tiring. You still didnt answer any of my questions. You do, you just dont want to. Thats not what he said? Beside: "two-thirds of Canadians would support the use of military force to help clear out Ottawa protesters" "53 per cent support the use of force by Ottawa police to remove truckers, their families and others who refuse to leave. This includes the use of tear gas and other methods, with the understanding that such measures could result in injury." Edit: Apologies - here is the link: https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/02/12/two-thirds-of-canadians-support-military-force-to-end-ottawa-protests-poll/ | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Well, maybe not in theoretical mathematics, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. I'd also mention that after weeks of the Ottawa police chief begging for military support it would be pretty weird if <2/3 of Canadians wanted military support and military force available for the Ottawa police. | ||
| ||
