It might be worse for shorter people? Most people’s nostrils point downward, and most people tilt their heads down to cough of sneeze. So shorter people, especially in a crowd- might have some (possibly insignificant) increase to their risk of catching the virus?
Ahh so this is why literal hordes of children from different households are allowed to convene no less than 5 days a week and have extended periods without their masks on. I was worried there was a lack of logic and an inconsistency behind the rules
Inconsistent and illogical rules tend to emerge when technical issues are politicized and politicians have to walk a line between following what is prescribed by experts, and pandering to their constituents and balancing people’s emotions. People are illogical and inconsistent. They were asked to stay home unless there was a matter of necessity, and to wear masks and social distance in public and avoid travel. Between those with cabin fever, those who just didn’t care to follow the rules, and those who were clamoring in the rafters with talks of conspiracies and violations of their freedom and such- they have kept relaxing and bending rules to make people happy even if it isn’t the most logical or consistent way to do things. And oh do the numbers climb higher.
Of course there is a native political complement- measures of quarantine are not helpful to productivity or the economy. In a global sense, the country able to produce labor and goods and generate economic power in a vacuum has an advantage that could set the global stage going forward. So getting parents to work and kids to school and consumers consuming- not only serves the richest in a country (who generally have the power to make such policy decisions as public safety) but it also creates economic leverage for whatever countries are most willing to gamble lives and suffering against economic and global political power.
In the most simple and direct analogy- as economics as we practice it is a form of conflict- war, with mutually reliant parties- if the world is at war for domination, the country that values lives above all won’t endanger their citizens to win. The countries willing to endanger their citizens in a state of “total war” has great short term advantage. Countries with higher populations, and especially those with high unemployment or under employment, have population reserves to cushion any losses they might suffer so that long term, it can actually be to their overall practical benefit to sacrifice the lives of large numbers of people in exchange for advantage.
When the dust clears, they can put people to work who didn’t have work before, easing socio economic burdens domestically and reinvigorating their consumer base. The new consumers replace or often outnumber those who were lost. While the total numbers of dead or other casualties can be high, the population density remains high enough that rapid repopulation is possible, and with less people and more to go around, more people have the means to support families. We’ve seen this pattern- WW2 being a notable example of a “baby boom” following a period of high deaths and relative scarcity, and the following period becomes one of relatively low poverty and high morale and economic growth as people “clean up and rebuild.”
So basically, a bunch of yahoos whooping about masks and how unfair or boring avoiding a pandemic is- pushed politicians to make decisions based on popular sentiment instead of expert advice, but their bets are backed because even in a near worst case scenario, the long term forecast of recovery likely ends up with a happier and wealthier population- so long as we can fend off other global powers from taking our lunch while the lights were off, and we can beat them back to maximum productivity. It’s a solution that caters to an illogical world. Give people logical instructions and they won’t follow them- we saw that already. Pander to them and gamble their lives against a likely bright future? That’s a win. So the rules make sense- just not from a scientific or medical standpoint.
Calm down, guy. Letting people live their lives isn't gambling anything, anybody who's scared or vulnerable can dig in and wait for the vaccine while those of us who don't mind the odds can brave the odds and accept that sometimes people get a cold, and sometimes they don't make it.
Similarly to how sometimes a person gets up at night to piss, and other times they trip and spill their brains on the rim of the toilet.
My bad. I think I get what you’re saying. You’re saying that letting people love their lives isn’t a gamble, that those who can take the odds of risk against their potential goal should be allowed to do so, and that life is full of inherent risk in everything we do/ even using the toilet you are taking odds that your desire to pee could end up with an injury or death?
...... soooo... you started your post with “letting people live their lives is not a gamble...” then proceeded to basically state the definition of a gamble, and then finished the post by giving an example of how life is always a gamble....?
So what you’re saying is that this, like almost everything in life, is a gamble.... but it isn’t a gamble? I’m not really sure where you were going with that- or if perhaps you misunderstand what the word “gamble” means? Let’s put a pin in that as we’ve explored it as far as need be.
Most people don’t have the option to dig in. They will have to go out for things like work and necessities. In fact- the poorer a person is, in general the less choice they have. When they go out, their risk is increased when the other people they encounter have “never minded the odds” and increased the statistical risk. We don’t understand the long term effects of Covid but are getting some evidence they exist and aren’t great. The world needs canaries who forge ahead in the cave and blaze a path for everyone else or die teaching us what not to do, and lord knows I wont personally miss a lot of the people who would “bravely” disregard safety in the noble pursuit of eating at the bar at TGI Friday’s again- even if it would be tragic. But- if the canary risks killing everyone else and everyone else doesn’t get a say, that isn’t living your life.
You are aware that despite how fascinating it would be for me, I cannot simply homebrew my own nuclear reactor in a suburban neighborhood. What about MY freedom to live my life? Why do I need a pilots license and what business is it of the FAA what condition my plane is in or my flight path? If I’m brave enough to rescue an old F4 from the scrap heap and try to fly it through down town Chicago at 500ft or less- that’s my business isn’t it? Anyone who doesn’t want to risk having a jet fall on them probably shouldn’t be outside and should dig in. I mean- you can get up to take a piss and on the way to your toilet a passenger jet could crash into your house. If it’s gonna happen it’s gonna happen- so let me fly my home built junk plane through downtown Chicago at 500ft above the deck!
“Just stop man” well. Why didn’t I just say that to you sooner? The ultimate debate maneuver. But if you step back, if you can step back, get some distance from emotion, and can be less concerned with “winning” or “being right” and more concerned with reality- I’m not saying you don’t say some true things. But your points aren’t related. The fact that a person in a position of authority and power broke the rules doesn’t mean that the whole thing is pointless. It’s illegal to have sex with kids. That takes away your freedom to date 17 and under year olds. But they have rights and freedoms too right? So you lose that freedom to protect their human rights. Now, some governors and senators and other people who make the rules- they threw some “parties” with a guy we will call “Jeff.” They did illegal things with kids. They are rich and powerful. Does that mean that because the governor had sex with kids that laws saying you can’t have sex with kids are BS, that we shouldn’t have them?
I don’t think it does. I think it means that we should have a better system to hold powerful people and especially leader accountable for when they break the rules. I don’t think anyone should sleep with kids and because some people want to do it and some people break the law and do it, and some rich or powerful people get away with doing it- that isn’t an argument that supports making that not a rule. That’s an argument that the rule is a good idea and we need to make sure people follow it.
Pedophiles often call themselves or others like them “brave” “bold.” They face the stigmas of society and legal repercussions because they don’t think our rules are right. They don’t see the harm in what they are doing. Now- experts and people with decency tend to say that those behaviors do cause harm and they aren’t acceptable. Who should we listen to on that one I wonder? They can argue that they are fine with it. They feel no shame about doing it and they want to do it. But rules against sex with kids aren’t about protecting the pedophiles are they? They are about protecting people who are vulnerable. Ok. Let’s use the Famousome logic. If you don’t want your kids to be at risk from pedophiles, keep them at home. Why make rules about what pedophiles and willing kids can or can’t do? Put it on personal responsibility. That invalidates all the arguments about transgender restrooms doesn’t it? “Use at your own risk.” Anyone you meet in public could be an open pedophile and theres no...
.. prohibition against it, and if you don’t like that risk- stay home. Keep your kids home. Everyone else can send their kids to school or the mall and you can raise your kid at home because you aren’t willing to accept the risk. Well... that’s not how that works is it? Of course there are still risks that pedophiles are in the world- but we minimize those risks don’t we? We don’t just let them walk around without any limits or controls or prohibitions do we? Because doing that would what? Create an unchecked risk that can prevent people from safely exercising their basic rights in public no?
Hey, have you guys seen Breaking Bad? I really enjoyed the character development with both the main pairing and also the supporting cast (Bob Odenkirk and Dean Norris especially)
It kind of suffers from "the hobbit" syndrome where there's probably Half an hour's worth of content stretched into hour long episodes a lot of the time.
.
It is also (understandably) much less action-packed than breaking bad. It still has some great moments and it's interesting to see more of Saul's backstory (and some other familiar characters start appearing later on). But yeah, basically it's very slow paced most of the time imo
Similarly to how sometimes a person gets up at night to piss, and other times they trip and spill their brains on the rim of the toilet.
.
Edit: Ah fuck I'm trapped between two comments
.
It is also (understandably) much less action-packed than breaking bad. It still has some great moments and it's interesting to see more of Saul's backstory (and some other familiar characters start appearing later on). But yeah, basically it's very slow paced most of the time imo