At what point did you / will you take the coronavirus epidemic seriously?

[SeattleUte]

Lest we forget:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/a...g-mistake.html

"He has compared his dog to developmentally disabled children. He has questioned vaccines and claimed that Islam “has too much in common with ISIS.” After the Sept. 11 attacks, he wondered, on his old late-night ABC program, “Politically Incorrect,” about the nature of bravery, comparing the terrorists’ suicide mission to American missiles, which he saw as a hands-off “cowardly” approach. Advertisers pulled their spots, and the network suspended the broadcast. (It was canceled the next year.)"

... But Bill Maher isn’t Chris Rock. He’s not on “black-ish.” He’s a 61-year-old white man who would never get a pass for jesting about slavery or the N-word. (His track record inspires too much doubt to give any benefit.) That’s a license reserved, arguably, for Louis C.K., or Sarah Silverman in her performance-art prime — white comedians who have really grappled with what it means to flirt with racially inflammatory language and ideas, what it means for the flirtation to fail. Mr. Maher’s approach to television doesn’t necessitate that kind of rehearsed rumination. The appeal of “Real Time” is its on-the-spot discourse, its anti-rehearsal. That looseness can tip easily into blurting, flatulence and worse."

This article is three years old, he left hasn't canceled him yet, and he's more relevant than ever. On this morning's front page the New York Times is questioning vaccines. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/02/u...e=articleShare

[tooblue]

This article is three years old, he left hasn't canceled him yet, and he's more relevant than ever. On this morning's front page the New York Times is questioning vaccines. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/02/u...e=articleShare

He was already (literally) canceled once. His stance/attitude towards vaccines could be the least reprehensible thing about him.

[SeattleUte]

He was already (literally) canceled once. His stance/attitude towards vaccines could be the least reprehensible thing about him.

Maybe you canceled him. He still has his show and his platform and his income. By definition, he hasn't been canceled.

[tooblue]

Maybe you canceled him. He still has his show and his platform and his income. By definition, he hasn't been canceled.

His ABC show was cancelled. He does have a current show on HBO that I do not watch. If I watch any show of that ilk, I prefer to watch John Oliver.

[Mormon Red Death]

Those amazing Canadians

https://twitter.com/katecallen/status/1290006639295320068?s=19

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[Northwestcoug]

School is not going to resume on time for most of the US. Recent Georgia and Indiana outbreaks amongst children will rightfully scare most of the districts. Blame all levels of government; there is certainly much of it to go around. Include school district admin if you want, even though they were pretty powerless in the face of incompetent governments. But let's accept it and get serious about containing it for winter.

This Atlantic article rings true:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/push-reopen-schools-fail/614869/

School was deemed unsafe for children, teachers, and staffers back in March. The pandemic is worse in the United States now than it was then, with multiple epicenters burning across the country. So why would schools reopen now?

“The problem is the White House and the task force could never organize themselves to lead a federal response and bring virus transmission down to containment levels,” said Hotez, who has argued for the necessity of a federal containment plan that, if executed effectively, might allow the nation to reopen comprehensively as soon as October. “Instead they took a lazy and careless route, claiming schools are important, as we all know, and the teachers and principals need to figure it out. What they did was deliberately set up the teachers, staff, and parents to fail. It’s one of the most careless, incompetent, and heartless actions I’ve ever seen promoted by the executive branch of the federal government.”

[Eddie]

School is not going to resume on time for most of the US. Recent Georgia and Indiana outbreaks amongst children will rightfully scare most of the districts. Blame all levels of government; there is certainly much of it to go around. Include school district admin if you want, even though they were pretty powerless in the face of incompetent governments. But let's accept it and get serious about containing it for winter.

This Atlantic article rings true:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...s-fail/614869/

I'm kind of curious on people's thoughts on this - in more of a general sense. And maybe looking beyond COVID and on to the next potential pandemic or crisis.

I agree that Trump has failed when it comes to COVID. But I'm also somewhat hesitant to put everything on him - because I don't necessarily want a strong federal government directing everything that every state has to do. I suppose I tend to lean on the side of state's rights - and I want more local control rather than federal control.

I see the federal role as being more in a position of support - providing needed supplies, manpower, research, etc. Making sure that effective treatments are shared across the country and facilitating communication between states.

For better or worse - I really have liked Gov Herbert's response for schools in Utah. He gave some very general guidelines (which did include the strict requirement that masks be used), but then turned it over to school districts - telling them to come up with their own proposal for how they were going to educate kids safely. It's been interesting to see the various responses. Some districts are talking about regular school weeks. Other's won't return to in-person school until January. Still others are looking at a split week, splitting students into 2 groups that get 2 days in person each, and day 5 being online.

I like the idea of a similar response federally - with the federal government perhaps giving some general guidelines, but allowing the states to get creative and form their own solutions rather than having a one-size fits all solution handed down from on high.

What do the rest of you think? Would you prefer a standardized national response in all of this? Do you like that states have been given leeway to manage their own responses - which also means that local politicians answer to local voters? I tend to believe that it is more likely this way for there to be a response that more people buy into. But that's just me.

Thoughts?

[myboynoah]

School is not going to resume on time for most of the US. Recent Georgia and Indiana outbreaks amongst children will rightfully scare most of the districts. Blame all levels of government; there is certainly much of it to go around. Include school district admin if you want, even though they were pretty powerless in the face of incompetent governments. But let's accept it and get serious about containing it for winter.

This Atlantic article rings true:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...s-fail/614869/

Very true.

[Donuthole]

School is not going to resume on time for most of the US. Recent Georgia and Indiana outbreaks amongst children will rightfully scare most of the districts. Blame all levels of government; there is certainly much of it to go around. Include school district admin if you want, even though they were pretty powerless in the face of incompetent governments. But let's accept it and get serious about containing it for winter.

This Atlantic article rings true:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...s-fail/614869/

Very true.

This is part truth, part fear porn. Logical approaches to containing COVID would have more success if they weren't so commonly attached to thoughts like this:

We’ve seen the failures—in testing, in containment, in federal and state leadership—compound in catastrophic ways. And as our pandemic summer has stretched on, many of us have let go, one by one, of experiences from the world we used to inhabit. We bid goodbye to sleepaway camp, to live music, to distant travel, to boisterous weddings, and to spontaneity in general. Today, a new realization is dawning, and as the debate over schools reopening rages, we must acknowledge it plainly: We aren’t going back to how it was. And we shouldn’t.

The dipshits who keep saying this type of nonsense are the reason more people won't get on board with what needs to be done now to return closer to normalcy ASAP. In short, the people who think life is never going back to how it was are just as dumb (or disingenuous) as the people who think CV is going to go away after the November election. Sure, she eventually says that someday we might return to normal. But if that's the case, why such a definitive take earlier in the piece? Because fear porn. That's why.

[myboynoah]

I'm kind of curious on people's thoughts on this - in more of a general sense. And maybe looking beyond COVID and on to the next potential pandemic or crisis.

I agree that Trump has failed when it comes to COVID. But I'm also somewhat hesitant to put everything on him - because I don't necessarily want a strong federal government directing everything that every state has to do. I suppose I tend to lean on the side of state's rights - and I want more local control rather than federal control.

I see the federal role as being more in a position of support - providing needed supplies, manpower, research, etc. Making sure that effective treatments are shared across the country and facilitating communication between states.

For better or worse - I really have liked Gov Herbert's response for schools in Utah. He gave some very general guidelines (which did include the strict requirement that masks be used), but then turned it over to school districts - telling them to come up with their own proposal for how they were going to educate kids safely. It's been interesting to see the various responses. Some districts are talking about regular school weeks. Other's won't return to in-person school until January. Still others are looking at a split week, splitting students into 2 groups that get 2 days in person each, and day 5 being online.

I like the idea of a similar response federally - with the federal government perhaps giving some general guidelines, but allowing the states to get creative and form their own solutions rather than having a one-size fits all solution handed down from on high.

What do the rest of you think? Would you prefer a standardized national response in all of this? Do you like that states have been given leeway to manage their own responses - which also means that local politicians answer to local voters? I tend to believe that it is more likely this way for there to be a response that more people buy into. But that's just me.

Thoughts?

Simply put, its a national security issue and you need a strong federal response that would lead and coordinate with the states and flexibility at the local level to react to local needs and outbreaks. But you need strong federal leadership. Bush Jr. saw that and established the infrastructure at the federal level. djt and his dumb dumb bunch dismanteled that or just ingnored it. Of course, it's impossible to lead when the head is all over the map. This has been the perfect example of what happens when there is no or very weak federal leadership.

An unmitigated disaster.

[myboynoah]

This is part truth, part fear porn. Logical approaches to containing COVID would have more success if they weren't so commonly attached to thoughts like this:



The dipshits who keep saying this type of nonsense are the reason more people won't get on board with what needs to be done now to return closer to normalcy ASAP. In short, the people who think life is never going back to how it was are just as dumb (or disingenuous) as the people who think CV is going to go away after the November election. Sure, she eventually says that someday we might return to normal. But if that's the case, why such a definitive take earlier in the piece? Because fear porn. That's why.

When I read that I'm hopefully thinking it applies to the near team (out a year) until an effective vaccine is universal and effective treatment options are found. But even then, if we have COVID with us from this point forward and we are getting flu AND COVID vaccine boosters every year (or maybe every 6 months in the case of COVID), then things won't return to how they were. We will have that hanging over us for a while.

Not fear porn to me, just being realistic.

[Eddie]

Simply put, its a national security issue and you need a strong federal response that would lead and coordinate with the states and flexibility at the local level to react to local needs and outbreaks. But you need strong federal leadership. Bush Jr. saw that and established the infrastructure at the federal level. djt and his dumb dumb bunch dismanteled that or just ingnored it. Of course, it's impossible to lead when the head is all over the map. This has been the perfect example of what happens when there is no or very weak federal leadership.

An unmitigated disaster.

I agree that the leadership from the feds is a mess.

There hasn't been support as far as getting needed supplies and equipment. Lack of capacity to test, which is apparently still an issue in many areas. I suppose sending the ships to NYC was a nice gesture, but it was maybe the one thing that was done right.

Having doctors on national press conferences that are all over the map - don't wear masks...no wait, wear masks...and having the doctors recommendations contradicted by the POTUS, who is also contradicting potential treatments, etc.

You'll get no argument from me that the Fed response has been a disaster. Some strong leadership definitely would've been helpful through this. And, honestly, it might've even been an opportunity to bring the country together rather than just one more divide.

But all of that considered - I still like much of the decision making (particularly as it relates to shutting schools or businesses, quarantines, ordering masks be worn, etc.) being left to the states when it comes to some of the response. I see that some states are responding better than others. But I feel like they have their role when it comes to local citizens. I like the fed advising and providing expertise, and allowing the states to use that expertise to decide some things for themselves.

[myboynoah]

But all of that considered - I still like much of the decision making (particularly as it relates to shutting schools or businesses, quarantines, ordering masks be worn, etc.) being left to the states when it comes to some of the response. I see that some states are responding better than others. But I feel like they have their role when it comes to local citizens. I like the fed advising and providing expertise, and allowing the states to use that expertise to decide some things for themselves.

Yep, something like that would be how it would have to work.

[Northwestcoug]

This is part truth, part fear porn. Logical approaches to containing COVID would have more success if they weren't so commonly attached to thoughts like this:



The dipshits who keep saying this type of nonsense are the reason more people won't get on board with what needs to be done now to return closer to normalcy ASAP. In short, the people who think life is never going back to how it was are just as dumb (or disingenuous) as the people who think CV is going to go away after the November election. Sure, she eventually says that someday we might return to normal. But if that's the case, why such a definitive take earlier in the piece? Because fear porn. That's why.

I don’t like the way that was worded, though I think I understand what she means. She ended the article with this, which I assume is closer to her true intent:

We cannot wish away the pandemic, as much as we try; it will persist until we muster the resolve and the resources to contain it. This is our normal. Not forever, but for a very long now.

[Donuthole]

At what point did you / will you take the coronavirus epidemic seriously?

I don’t like the way that was worded, though I think I understand what she means. She ended the article with this, which I assume is closer to her true intent:

Yes, I addressed that in my post. She wanted some shock and awe before she let us know that she doesn’t actually believe it.