Corvid-19 and its impact (name edit)

[Trunkage]

This makes me think you haven't been in a workplace before. Bosses, generally, hire you to do a job. They don't hire you to find holes in their business structure. Anything outside you contract, even if it is positive for the company, is bad. Because its the boss' way of doing things. It's never about what's right for the customer or the business.

Just do your job. The best you can do for the business or the customer is to do your job. You think you found holes in their business structure, but you're not omniscient. You're likely right sometimes and missing information in others. The people ultimately responsible aren't going to just take your word for it. They have to do what they think is best, and your word isn't going to be magically convincing every time. It's not stubbornness or personal slight if they dismiss what you're saying. Even if you're right and they're wrong in the end, it doesn't necessarily make their decisions wrong because they might still be making the best choices based on the information they have, and they're responsible for that. Your job isn't to try and be super boss that's better than the actual management. Your job is to do your job. Because that's what is right for customers and business. Being cynical and condescending about people isn't going to change that.

FREEDOM! LIBERTY! YEAH! That's what Capitalism is all about /sarcasm

Well, couldn't have summed up one problem with Capitalism better myself, man. You did a good job. It's never been about freedom or liberty. It's about making others do what you want because you paid them. Don't worry. I'll sit in my box being a mindless drone, without any part of me put in. It's fine.

What you said is pretty much what I teach the newbies. Stop caring about your job, because it doesn't care about you. You'll do a better job. Caring requires you to actually want to make things better and that not what you were hired for.

 

[tstorm823]

You need to be more accurate about how you discuss this. That wasn't the question - the question to which Trump said he didn't take responsibility was: "Dr. Fauci said earlier this week that the lag in testing was in fact, failing. Do you take responsibility for that? And when can you guarantee that every single American who needs a test will be able to have a test? What's the date of that?"

That is a reasonable question.

Analyze this for a moment. "Do you take responsibility for the lag in testing?" is a reasonable question that he may have answer differently. "Do you take responsibility for failing" is not. The first sentence of that question exists only to make it a trap. Watching that press conference, there are many people asking difficult questions. Very few of them are doing stupid tricks like this to make trap questions.

He called it a "nasty question". Nasty, no doubt, because he's bang to rights on it.

Or, it's nasty because it's dishonest. The experts and resources of the Pandemic Response team still exist at the White House, they just got restructured underneath a different umbrella. The only meaningful change was the removal of the head of the unit from the National Security Council, and it's not certain this shuffling had any impact on the response to the virus. Again, it was a declared national health emergency a month and a half ago. There's no reason to believe the NSC was uninformed about the risk.

Maybe he did know, maybe he didn't. But he certainly said he didn't.

He did not say that he didn't know. He said he would have said that. It's not indicated under what circumstances he would have said it, but it is a would. Even if you refuse to accept the obvious explanation from context that he was expressing surprise at the number of people dying of the flu, not complete ignorance of it, the purpose of the word "would" is to indicate something didn't happen or hasn't happened yet." Which is to say, he didn't say that he didn't know people died of the flu. He knew people died of the flu. It's just a stupid headline.

You're right, I don't disagree with him on that point. My problem is that it's rendered unclear, garbled and incoherent. Trump is a total bullshitter - he doesn't seem to care whether he speaks truths or untruths, they spill from his mouth as it pleases him. But I and many other people don't want to hear our national leader speak a load of stuff where the content is irrelevant and only the tone / attitude matters. We want to know what's going on and why.

Then why are you ignoring what's going on and why, and focusing only on the tone?

This is sort of what I mean about Trump's communication skills. I suspect lot of his base like the fact they easily pick up the gist, in a largely emotional way, without caring about the detail. Simple slogans (build that wall, lock her up) married to appeals to emotion (ridiculing opponents, jingoism, etc.) The actual content of his speeches in informational value, logical coherence and fluency is borderline worthless, the sort of thing a seven-year-old could understand. And when I say something a seven-year-old could understand, that's partly a compliment. It's quite hard to do. And for a lot of people, as his rallies demonstrate, it's effective.

There is a difference between a rally and a press release. His rallies exist for entertainment and little else, so to say they lack informational value is perfectly fair, but I don't necessarily think it's a criticism.

He does let that attitude rear its ugly head at moments in serious press conferences, and that's both fair and criticism, and I'd agree with you on that.

What isn't fair is to take like an hour of information, most of which is useful, factual, and civil, and cut out only the dishonest questions and post them as headlines.

There was a failure on the specific item in question, that's an undeniable fact. There is absolutely no way you can present sending out faulty tests, setting back a vital testing regime by weeks, as anything but a failure.

Disagree. Decision to design a test? Good. Decision to redesign when it was faulty? Also good. Results? We don't know yet. The people who were seriously suspected of having the virus were tested by different means in the meantime. I'm not sure I call that a failure.

You don't understand my colleagues. The microbiologist in particular speaks his mind and could not give a shit who he disagrees with.

So you're going to tell this person that Trump's response wasn't that bad, right?

Well, couldn't have summed up one problem with Capitalism better myself, man. You did a good job. It's never been about freedom or liberty. It's about making others do what you want because you paid them. Don't worry. I'll sit in my box being a mindless drone, without any part of me put in. It's fine.

Have you considered putting yourself into your work instead of trying to do different tasks altogether? It's not the employer's fault that they don't want to hear you explain why you shouldn't do the task you were hired to.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Have you considered putting yourself into your work instead of trying to do different tasks altogether? It's not the employer's fault that they don't want to hear you explain why you shouldn't do the task you were hired to.

Have you considered licking the boot?

 

[Silvanus]

He did not say that he didn't know. He said he would have said that. It's not indicated under what circumstances he would have said it, but it is a would. Even if you refuse to accept the obvious explanation from context that he was expressing surprise at the number of people dying of the flu, not complete ignorance of it, the purpose of the word "would" is to indicate something didn't happen or hasn't happened yet." Which is to say, he didn't say that he didn't know people died of the flu. He knew people died of the flu. It's just a stupid headline.

"I've never heard those numbers, I would've been shocked. I would have said, 'Does anybody die of the flu?' I didn't know people died from the flu."

That's verbatim.

Ok, so let's imagine that in that statement, he's purely saying that he would have said it. This means that he would have said he didn't know people died from the flu.

How is that better? It's still admitting ignorance of the fact it kills people.

(I also enjoy the fact that the "obvious interpretation", in your eyes, is to assume he didn't mean the words he said).

This is all actually quite mindboggling. Straight from Trump's own playbook; even with the facts literally directly in front of you, just deny, deny, deny.

He did not say that he didn't know.

"I didn't know people died from the flu".

 

[Agema]

Analyze this for a moment. "Do you take responsibility for the lag in testing?" is a reasonable question that he may have answer differently.

Look, it could not be simpler. The Trump administration oversaw the released of a faulty test. Trump heads up the administration, and you agree he is responsible for what his administration does. Therefore, he is responsible, QED, by your own rationale. You can't then resaonably argue a question putting precisely that to him is somehow unfair.

It's not a trick. You act like Trump can only give a direct, honest answer. Seriously: Trump, honest? What parallel universe are you in? This is the easiest thing in the world to deal with. Here: "Obviously it's unfortunate a faulty test was released by the CDC, but I have taken responsibility to prioritise production of a working test that will go to millions of Americans in the next couple of weeks". That question's only a problem to a pathetically egotistical man-child who is so hypersensitive to criticism that he can't pull his thoughts together to bat it away.

Or, it's nasty because it's dishonest. The experts and resources of the Pandemic Response team still exist at the White House, they just got restructured underneath a different umbrella.

No, this was about efficiency savings. And efficiency savings are about reducing manpower and resources.

This is how works, because it's how it always works. Scrap a team with a dedicated remit and merge its functions into a wider department, it always gets diluted. A once-dedicated team leader becomes a generic manager with several other things to oversee, once-dedicated team workers and resources are part-diverted to other projects, and the once-dedicated remit becomes just another thing to balance against competing projects under the same unit.

He did not say that he didn't know. He said he would have said that.

So Trump says he would say he didn't know flu killed if he were asked. So then... he didn't know flu killed, would be the logical conclusion. Or you expect us to just know this is one of those moments Trump was lying, whilst you're also arguing Trump is such a straight shooter that he's incapable of sidestepping a question asking if he takes responsibility for the errors of his administration. Ugh.

Then why are you ignoring what's going on and why, and focusing only on the tone?

I'm not. I'm pointing out that you should not reasonably credit truths which are jumbled with untruths, unclear and incoherently presented. Imagine you read an essay and have to mark it. It appears to have what might be accurate facts, but they're often unclear and sometimes the writer contradicts those facts with inaccuracies. The organisation and logical flow is muddled and unclear, so it's hard to tell what the reasoning is and how the evidence and reasoning supports the conclusions. Large tracts of it are irrelevant. Yeah, you hand that a very low grade. Pointing out a few bits of evidence are correct doesn't salvage it.

You want us to pick out a few things that Trump says that are potentially more accurate, interpret them through the lack of clarity in the kindest way possible, and declare Trump fine. You know what? No, I'm not going to.

There is a difference between a rally and a press release...

What isn't fair is to take like an hour of information, most of which is useful, factual, and civil, and cut out only the dishonest questions and post them as headlines.

Okay. I once took the effort of reading through a couple of transcripts entire Trump press conferences. They're awful. The way the media has to focus attention on snippets often does Trump a favour, because it means you don't see the vast tracts of incoherent rambling, boasting and vapidity that occupies considerable tracts of them.

Disagree. Decision to design a test? Good. Decision to redesign when it was faulty? Also good. Results? We don't know yet. The people who were seriously suspected of having the virus were tested by different means in the meantime. I'm not sure I call that a failure.

It was a failure. The USA used a faulty test which impaired its ability to track and record the disease during a critical period of spread, as even acknowledged by your country's scientific director on the pandemic. Intentions are nice, but consequences matter.

So you're going to tell this person that Trump's response wasn't that bad, right?

I'm not interested in dignifying your prejudices against people who disagree with you.

 

[SupahEwok]

I'm not interested in dignifying your prejudices against people who disagree with you.

It could be fun though. Maybe the microbiologist will get a laugh out of it.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

My county is one of six in the area that just enacted a stay-at-home order, effective at midnight. For the next three weeks, all but essential businesses will be shutting down, and we are only to leave home for work and essential activities like shopping.

Source [https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/coronavirus/region-wide-coronavirus-order-to-impact-bay-area-residents/2255386/]

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Okay can someone explain why its all of a sudden racist to say this virus started in China? Is that like some weird Chinese government propaganda to get people to forget? I watched Jim Sterling's video this morning and he said conservatives are calling it a Wuhan Flu and that's racist.
Now granted its a dumb name, but racist? Since when was Wuhan a race? Or even Chinese? I thought it was Asian was the race, China is a nationality, Wuhan is the region. Saying this virus started because of China's overpopulated, generally impoverished rural regions with low-to-no health standards or regulations leading to bush-meat sales shouldn't be considered a racial statement. Can it be considered judgmental? Sure. Jingoistic? Debatable. Factual? Almost certainly. But racist? Might as well call it trans-phobic and rankist while we're at it.
When did we forget what words mean?

 

[IceForce]

It's very surreal to see all that disaster movie stuff happening around me. Schools closing down,toilet paper being unavailable almost anywhere, events getting cancelled, people getting quarantined, borders closing... it's weird. Hope it won't get as bad as it's in Italy.

Yeah, I never thought I'd be living in the middle of a real-life zombie apocalypse (or near enough to it). It's so weird.

 

[tstorm823]

"I've never heard those numbers, I would've been shocked. I would have said, 'Does anybody die of the flu?' I didn't know people died from the flu."

Hey look, Silvanus didn't know people died from the flu. That's how stacked quotations work, right?

Here: "Obviously it's unfortunate a faulty test was released by the CDC, but I have taken responsibility to prioritise production of a working test that will go to millions of Americans in the next couple of weeks". That question's only a problem to a pathetically egotistical man-child who is so hypersensitive to criticism that he can't pull his thoughts together to bat it away.

Your version didn't answer the question. You're suggesting he should answer the question by taking responsibility for something else entirely. That's just deflection. It's not better.

No, this was about efficiency savings. And efficiency savings are about reducing manpower and resources.

This is how works, because it's how it always works. Scrap a team with a dedicated remit and merge its functions into a wider department, it always gets diluted. A once-dedicated team leader becomes a generic manager with several other things to oversee, once-dedicated team workers and resources are part-diverted to other projects, and the once-dedicated remit becomes just another thing to balance against competing projects under the same unit.

Eliminating a tiny handful of officials saves the federal government effective zero dollars. The efficiency hoped for in restructuring is the "too many cooks in the kitchen" kind.

He did not say that he didn't know. He said he would have said that.

So Trump says he would say he didn't know flu killed if he were asked. So then... he didn't know flu killed, would be the logical conclusion. Or you expect us to just know this is one of those moments Trump was lying, whilst you're also arguing Trump is such a straight shooter that he's incapable of sidestepping a question asking if he takes responsibility for the errors of his administration. Ugh.

You want us to pick out a few things that Trump says that are potentially more accurate, interpret them through the lack of clarity in the kindest way possible, and declare Trump fine. You know what? No, I'm not going to.

No, I want you to interpret in any way other than the worst possible way for 10 minutes. You can do it, I believe in you.

Okay. I once took the effort of reading through a couple of transcripts entire Trump press conferences. They're awful. The way the media has to focus attention on snippets often does Trump a favour, because it means you don't see the vast tracts of incoherent rambling, boasting and vapidity that occupies considerable tracts of them.

No you didn't. Calling that bluff out immediately.

I'm not interested in dignifying your prejudices against people who disagree with you.

I don't know that they disagree with me. I know that you think they do. But I also know you make no effort to consider any position other than your own as reasonable, so you might not even notice what they think.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

It's very surreal to see all that disaster movie stuff happening around me. Schools closing down,toilet paper being unavailable almost anywhere, events getting cancelled, people getting quarantined, borders closing... it's weird. Hope it won't get as bad as it's in Italy.

Yeah, it's getting weird here in my part of Brazil. In 2018 truckers went on strike and the way people are behaving now is even worse. This morning I went to the Brazilian equivalent of "Costco" because I had to buy some stuff, and it was packed when it should be completely emtpy at 7am this time of the month. Some aisles looked like I was in a zombie movie. My car was low on gas, and the gas station I always go to also had huge lines.

Also hundreds of inmates escaped from prisons in S?o Paulo [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOrYooVuf_s] The guy in the video telling them to be back on monday. lol

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Okay can someone explain why its all of a sudden racist to say this virus started in China? Is that like some weird Chinese government propaganda to get people to forget? I watched Jim Sterling's video this morning and he said conservatives are calling it a Wuhan Flu and that's racist.
Now granted its a dumb name, but racist? Since when was Wuhan a race? Or even Chinese? I thought it was Asian was the race, China is a nationality, Wuhan is the region. Saying this virus started because of China's overpopulated, generally impoverished rural regions with low-to-no health standards or regulations leading to bush-meat sales shouldn't be considered a racial statement. Can it be considered judgmental? Sure. Jingoistic? Debatable. Factual? Almost certainly. But racist? Might as well call it trans-phobic and rankist while we're at it.
When did we forget what words mean?

There's almost certainly an air of the Chinese government egging it on, but if I had to guess the main reason is that Trump is very explicitly and intentionally calling it a Chinese disease, so there's now a strong reaction that not only is it wrong to call it a Chinese disease, even referring to it by the Wuhan region it was presumed to have started in is racist. Because Trump is racist and you're being like Trump when you call it the Wuhan coronavirus.

Also OP, it's COVID, not Corvid. Even though that's how I keep wanting to spell it too.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Okay can someone explain why its all of a sudden racist to say this virus started in China? Is that like some weird Chinese government propaganda to get people to forget? I watched Jim Sterling's video this morning and he said conservatives are calling it a Wuhan Flu and that's racist.
Now granted its a dumb name, but racist? Since when was Wuhan a race? Or even Chinese? I thought it was Asian was the race, China is a nationality, Wuhan is the region. Saying this virus started because of China's overpopulated, generally impoverished rural regions with low-to-no health standards or regulations leading to bush-meat sales shouldn't be considered a racial statement. Can it be considered judgmental? Sure. Jingoistic? Debatable. Factual? Almost certainly. But racist? Might as well call it trans-phobic and rankist while we're at it.
When did we forget what words mean?

There's almost certainly an air of the Chinese government egging it on, but if I had to guess the main reason is that Trump is very explicitly and intentionally calling it a Chinese disease, so there's now a strong reaction that not only is it wrong to call it a Chinese disease, even referring to it by the Wuhan region it was presumed to have started in is racist. Because Trump is racist and you're being like Trump when you call it the Wuhan coronavirus.

Also OP, it's COVID, not Corvid. Even though that's how I keep wanting to spell it too.

See this is what I hate. I don't like Trump, I really don't. I didn't vote for him and I wish he wasn't president. But if he came out and said March 17th is a Tuesday...I'd agree with him. And that doesn't meant I agree with everything. There has to be a, oh what's it called, self evident belief structure. Self evident. As in agreed upon common knowledge.
Even if Trump is trying to be racist and blaming China for this, that doesn't change the fact that yeah, this virus did start in Wuhan, in China. Are they to blame? I'm not convinced. Are they blameless? Again, not convinced. But did the T Virus start in China? I mean, yeah. I was there 5 weeks ago when if was first getting reported. I remember.

I think Wuhan Flu is a bad name, but Wuhan's Coronavirus isn't wrong. We have the Spanish Flu. We allow for attributed origin

 

[Agema]

I think Wuhan Flu is a bad name, but Wuhan's Coronavirus isn't wrong. We have the Spanish Flu. We allow for attributed origin

There's nothing wrong per se with "Wuhan Coronavirus".

However, that doesn't mean the way that the virus is discussed can't be politicised to serve other ends, including racism. I would suggest there is a certain tone about some of Trump's statements which is a bit xenophobic. An implication that foreigners bring disease and this is what happens when you let them in. He's already used Coronavirus to justify the Mexico wall, even though the USA has far more cases than Mexico.

There's a long history of how people have talked about disease to reflect prejudices. Jews of course were long accused of poisoning wells. Irish Americans were blamed for cholera outbreaks. When Trump talks about a "foreign" or "Chinese" virus, yes he totally is encouraging them to be blamed. It serves his political ends. When things go wrong, humans look for people to blame. Trump is totally putting up a target to take the blame.

 

[Agema]

No you didn't. Calling that bluff out immediately.

But I also know you make no effort to consider any position other than your own as reasonable, so you might not even notice what they think.

Okay we are done here, because you need to take a step back, cool off, and think of more constructive ways to discuss the topic than calling people narrow-minded liars.

 

[Kwak]

Also OP, it's COVID, not Corvid. Even though that's how I keep wanting to spell it too.

The crow virus. Has a certain cool-factor to it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Also OP, it's COVID, not Corvid. Even though that's how I keep wanting to spell it too.

The crow virus. Has a certain cool-factor to it.

It erases your face, and what it leaves is

:V

 

[tstorm823]

Okay we are done here, because you need to take a step back, cool off, and think of more constructive ways to discuss the topic than calling people narrow-minded liars.

Nothing but cooled off on this side. Just getting a good chuckle at some of your responses. There's no hotheadedness in "pssht, no you didn't".

 

[Terminal Blue]

Okay can someone explain why its all of a sudden racist to say this virus started in China?

It's not.

Now granted its a dumb name, but racist? Since when was Wuhan a race? Or even Chinese? I thought it was Asian was the race, China is a nationality, Wuhan is the region.

Asia is a continent.

Race doesn't actually exist, which is why racism is so ridiculous as a position. The world isn't divided into neat groups or subspecies of humans. It was a stupid idea invented by people who didn't know what genes were. Race inherently describes a set of beliefs or prejudices, the actual physiological differences between people which are referenced by race wouldn't remotely matter without those prejudices.

Saying this virus started because of China's overpopulated, generally impoverished rural regions with low-to-no health standards or regulations leading to bush-meat sales shouldn't be considered a racial statement.

The idea that health standards in China are significantly worse than in other countries is questionable. For example, BSE started in the US and quickly spread in the UK because farmers in those countries were feed bovine offal to other cattle. We have foot and mouth outbreaks every few years because people keep feeding animals raw sewage. Yet somehow, this never translates into a characterisation of these countries or their people.

That's the issue here. There's really no reason to keep tying the virus to China, it's a global pandemic the origins of which are generally irrelevant. The only reason to keep bringing it up is to paint the idea that Chinese people caused the disease by being exceptionally unhygienic, lax or morally bankrupt, which is ironic because the inhabitants of most east Asian countries seem to have been far more intelligent and proactive in dealing with the risk of pandemic diseases than their counterparts in the US or Europe, despite typically having less resources to work with.

Bushmeat is generally not a good thing from a health standpoint. But if you're railing about bushmeat while also eating animals which have literally been fed their own shit, then people are going to start asking what's really going on.

 

[Trunkage]

Well, couldn't have summed up one problem with Capitalism better myself, man. You did a good job. It's never been about freedom or liberty. It's about making others do what you want because you paid them. Don't worry. I'll sit in my box being a mindless drone, without any part of me put in. It's fine.

Have you considered putting yourself into your work instead of trying to do different tasks altogether? It's not the employer's fault that they don't want to hear you explain why you shouldn't do the task you were hired to.

Clap, clap. Great assumption. Clearly, because I think about other things, I don't do my work because I'm wasting time elsewhere. Unfortunately not true because that would be any easily fireable offence. I try to get the paperwork done that necessary for the day by 2pm, so I can spend time with clients. Also, as stated, I bring the customers in.

But, you're right. the boss doesn't have to consider me at all. You know, exactly like I said at the start of this side track (and my original point). Please stop agreeing with me that Capitalism does not give workers purpose or using their talents. It's about being a Yes Man and toeing the line. It's getting embarrassing