I Miss My Bar
imissmybar.com
imissmybar.com
If anyone's wondering, the bar is still open and operating on a very limited capacity, which has made it much nicer in my opinion. Also, the usual jazz quartet has been replaced with a trio with much younger musicians, since understandably the older musicians don't want to play in a bar during a pandemic.
[1] Maverick Monterrey - Lugar de Encuentros https://www.maverickmty.com
As for tourism, there’s not much to do, at least not when compared to other Mexican cities with more heritage and culture. Being a big metropolitan city, there are many fine restaurants and entertainment attractions, and for me the stand-out landmark is Chipinque, a federal park in the mountains inside the city. You can go there to walk, hike, or ride, and you get a very nice view of the metropolitan area.
All in all, if you were making a tourist trip to Mexico, I’d recommend you pick some place else before coming to Monterrey. However, if you get to come here as a business trip, you’ll definitely have a nice time!
also on a unrelated note, "you will see in two weeks" crowd seems to have completely disappeared.
I'm saying the 2 weeks part was gaslighting. What they should have said is "one year or greater to flatten the curve." That would have been honest
First masks were unnecessary and hand washing was crucial. Now it’s essentially the reverse. It helps to wash hands of course but we realize it’s less of a vector.
Then various governments said it’ll be over by summer. Then various governments said it’ll be a year.
No one was attempting to gaslight; this was the culmination of millions of professionals doing their best to make sense of the situation, and occasionally, uncertain terms being communicated incorrectly. This is normal. The decision to perceive non-optimal performance in an incredibly complex situation as an attack on a population is yours, and you’re welcome to it. I simply don’t see the point.
I think you might be forgetting medical authorities approving certain protests as being more important than containing covid. Dont want to start was flamewar here but just pointing out a flaw in your response. That was factually a 'emotional or manipulative motivation', right or wrong.
> This is normal.
Obviously not.
Can you provide some examples? I googled around and found this [1] which seems like a reasonable summary of the Covid-related consequences of the George Floyd protests. The "reasons it seems like it was OK" doesn't seem too divergent from what many medical professionals are saying (don't gather indoors, wear masks, wash hands).
I'd also like to point out that institutional racism and police brutality are public health crises with uncountable effects on the health of Black Americans. Further, when you consider that Covid-19 has had far worse effects on communities of color, and that many essential workers are people of color, the protests don't seem that unrelated.
Edit, found some:
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/political-and-health-l...
- https://abcnews.go.com/Health/people-protest-george-floyds-d...
- https://time.com/5848212/doctors-supporting-protests/
- https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-lette...
Here are some quotes:
> “Protesting against systemic injustice that is contributing directly to this pandemic is essential,” Dhillon said. “The right to live, the right to breathe, the right to walk down the street without police coming at you for no reason . . . that’s different than me wanting to go to my place of worship on the weekend, me wanting to take my kid on a roller coaster, me wanting to go to brunch with my friends.”
> "Staying indoors all the time in a pandemic is equivalent to an abstinence-only policy,"
> For her part, Patel says the core tenants of harm reduction fit into public health doctors’ broader obligation to protect human rights while also helping people stay safe. "You’re describing a broader human rights-based approach to policy and medicine," Patel said. "These are the tenants of human rights."
> "There’s broad recognition that racism is one of the top public health issues of our time," Beletsky said.
> "Racism is a public health problem," the health department tweeted Monday. "In New York City, Black and Brown communities face the disproportionate impact, grief and loss from the COVID-19 pandemic on top of the trauma of state-sanctioned violence."
> “If people were to understand that racism, and all of the social and political and economic inequalities that racism creates, ultimately harms people’s health,” Boyd says, they would see that “protest is a profound public health intervention, because it allows us to finally address and end forms of inequality.”
> "We created the letter in response to emerging narratives that seemed to malign demonstrations as risky for the public health because of Covid-19," according to the letter writers, many of whom are part of the University of Washington's Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. "Instead, we wanted to present a narrative that prioritizes opposition to racism as vital to the public health, including the epidemic response. We believe that the way forward is not to suppress protests in the name of public health but to respond to protesters demands in the name of public health, thereby addressing multiple public health crises."
[1]: https://www.vox.com/2020/6/26/21300636/coronavirus-pandemic-...
From your cnn link
'"Prepare for an increased number of infections in the days following a protest," the letter says. '
> “The right to live, the right to breathe, the right to walk down the street without police coming at you for no reason . . . that’s different than me wanting to go to my place of worship on the weekend, me wanting to take my kid on a roller coaster, me wanting to go to brunch with my friends.”
This is obviously an emotional response. She didn't do A/B testing of various activity outcomes on public health and base her conclusions on that. Can't somone simply say going to church is good for metal health of the population, she didn't obviously measure the outcomes of that activity.
From where I sit, I think they pretty well explained why they think the BLM marches in the wake of George Floyd's murder were justified. I certainly wouldn't say they had "emotional or manipulative motivations", a characterization which seems completely off base.
Can you point me to the study for public health outcome differences from protests vs going to church. And what what their scietific criteria for where to draw the line was.
"As the pandemic ushered in isolation and financial hardship, overdose deaths reached new heights" [1]
Again, What is their basis for what is ok and what is not. Emotions. correct?
Who are they to decide which population is expendable.
1. https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/16/as-pandemic-ushered-in-i...
But I don't think doctors are making decisions about advice based on emotions. COVID-19 is the most likely cause of death for people 25-44 [1] (supplanting unintentional opioid overdose deaths). COVID-19 has a hugely disproportionate effect on communities of color [2]. Systemic racism also causes deaths; look at asthma for example [3].
Finally, even the CDC is kind of at a loss as to what to do about overdose deaths [4]. Essentially they're like "get more naloxone and get more treatment."
> Who are they to decide which population is expendable.
I get where you're coming from here but, I don't think it's as simple as "lockdowns kill people" because:
- Not imposing a lockdown also kills people
- Even in the absence of a lockdown order, people are hesitant to get together
- There are lots of ways to socialize and get outside that are very low risk (pods, outdoor activities)
- COVID-19 deaths are far, far outstripping opioid overdose deaths due to lockdowns (the numbers I've found show that COVID-19 deaths exceed all opioid overdose deaths, not just the total YoY increase).
But if I could summarize what I think your points have been, I think your argument is broadly that doctors treated George Floyd's murder and the subsequent protests differently than hardships in other communities, and that at least indicates some level of emotional reaction if not outright bias. But I think they themselves have explained why they reacted differently, and I think the data (gathered by medical researchers and social scientists) back them up.
[1]: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201026/COVID-19-now-like...
[2]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/09/16/covid-...
[3]: https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=1...
[4]: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p1218-overdose-death...
Are you saying that they calculated
deaths caused by covid protests < deaths prevented from potests effecting health outcomes of POC.
Hence Protests OK.
deaths from depression caused from isolation < deaths from covid
Isolation OK.
If so, can you show me how they calculated,
'deaths prevented from potests effecting health outcomes of POC'
> > I think the data (gathered by medical researchers and social scientists) back them up.
what data is this ? There is no way they gathered any data within 1 week of when the protests started. Thats just too crazy of a timeline. If they are saying that collected some secret data to prove that protests will save more lives than lockdowns in less than week, then that proves how brazen they are in in their lying.
The point is that there might be reasons why violating social distancing and lockdown mandates might be worth it. Protesting police brutality is one reason. Avoiding unemployment and accompanying mental health issues is another. One of these protests got the public approval of health care professionals and the other didn't. There was an entire movement called White Coats for Black Lives who endorsed the protests. Again, worth it. However, there's an entire class of folks who don't have options for remote pajama jobs. The protests against lockdowns was about avoiding the devastating effects to their lives.
We shouldn't be faulting protestors or doctors here, we should be faulting our leaders.
And sure, there's a political/optics component. Disapproving of protests against police brutality would have been an incredibly bad look, much worse than disapproving of protests against pandemic safety measures. That shouldn't require any kind of explanation or evoke any surprise.
If you mean "perfectly fine", then no, it isn't. But it's normal¹ meaning is "what happens most of the time", and it certainly is.
1 - That's intended.
What I saw:
1. Lots of outright lies, for example Chinese people saying the truth getting arrested, WHO toeing the CCP line (for example claiming there was no human-human transmission) when it was obviously a lie already, etc...
2. Lots of governments around the world using the lies for their own gains at expense of population, for example in Brazil the media was quick to paint the president as evil, to allow a inconstitutional power grab by governors and mayors (mind you, I am not saying quarantine is bad, I am saying it was done in a extremely illegal manner, and often for corrupt reasons, now a ton of the people involved are going to jail after quickly stuffing all money they could on their own pockets).
3. Lots of politicians lying and trying to pin the blame on scientists, see Cuomo lying about deaths on nursing homes to avoid Trump criticizing him.
4. Tons of corruption in procuring vaccines, masks, remote working tools, catering, etc... some examples are various politicians from multiple countries getting caught getting bribes from chinese manufacturer, politicians forcing lockdowns but maintaining their own business open, that crazy case in hollywood where open air restaurants were shut down but there was even a catering company serving movie production crew in a makeshift open air restaurant right in front of a local restaurant that was forced to shut down...
5. Lockdowns used for supression (see Iran executing the guy that asked why he had to lockdown but religious people didn't...)
the list goes and goes and goes on.
Were some authorities gas lighting? Maybe. Were all? Certainly not. We should focus on and isolate the bad actors who are doing this, not generalize.
Hindsight is powerful, but I don't think in March anyone seriously thought this’d go through the year.
Flattening the curve was really about overloading hospitals. The end game is to make covid-19 extinct in the wild, or domesticated in the sense that only relatively harmless variants remain.
Without serious testing and contact tracing that may take a very long time. We completely fumbled the early 2020 chance to contain the virus. The vaccines should decrease the numbers enough that there will be a second chance to contain it, this time with real efforts at contact tracing if we actually want to make the virus extinct.
We did that for bars and restaurants in the UK, but it doesn't seem to have done as much good as it was probably just lost or ignored by our abysmal track and trace services...
We also had a QR code system to tag yourself in places, but it fell down because it was firstly optional, and secondly there was no way to tag out so the records weren't that accurate.
Meanwhile, we spent last month in Honolulu, and every single restaurant took down our contact info.
Nothing for regular stores in either place, though.
The Chinese were placing everyone under house arrest, mandating mask use, monitoring everyone's movements at checkpoints, temperature checking anyone who left their house when possible, banning people from going outside more than X times per week, forcibly quarantining, arresting non-compliant people, shuttering every non-essential business under the strictest interpretation of "essential", blocking internal travel, physically isolating cities, requiring quarantine when returning from traveling abroad, etc. The US government didn't really do any of that. To anyone aware of the contrast in national responses, it was very obvious that we would not be able to replicate China's success and that COVID would be around until we got a vaccine.
https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/world/asia/china-covid-ec...
I am also getting anecdata from people living in Shanghai and Beijing. Life has largely returned to normal outside of people wearing masks.
OP was likely asking because he wanted to see non-Chinese sources on this.
On one hand, yes, obviously China's numbers cannot be trusted, at all.
On the other hand, most of their neighbors, whose numbers are substantially more trustworthy, also managed to get it under some semblance of control.
Given the latter point, I'm guessing they mostly got it under control.
For all we know, China just stopped counting and is accepting whatever new cases or deaths come up.
We know they fake other numbers. There's not reason not to think they aren't faking them here.
If the news wasn't telling me about the Virus all the time, I would not know there was a "raging" epidemic. I only know one person who contracted the virus among my entire family and friends group.
A few months into this, basically every single American media outlet was tripping over themselves to defend American values when it was abundantly clear that they were impeding our ability to successfully respond to this crisis. There was a huge appetite for bashing China / authoritarianism and pointing out the universal superiority of our system. The fact that we have largely heard nothing about the Chinese response (no criticism, no praise, no critique, not even general acknowledgement that it was much different than ours) from the government or the media suggests that it was a success whereas our efforts were a colossal failure and we don't want to talk about it or admit it: this situation doesn't align with the story we tell ourselves ((freedom and democracy) > authoritarianism, always).
> If the news wasn't telling me about the Virus all the time, I would not know there was a "raging" epidemic. I only know one person who contracted the virus among my entire family and friends group
We are basically a year into this with 500K dead and counting. How many citizens need to die before people stop feeling the need to create throwaway accounts to announce that this whole thing is overblown.
What data am I gonna show you? the only available data says "they defeated it" and it comes from the state government.
>We are basically a year into this with 500K dead and counting. How many citizens need to die before people stop feeling the need to create throwaway accounts to announce that this whole thing is overblown.
Like I said, I literally only know one soul who got this. They recovered in two days. My Aunt & Uncle are emergency room nurses and say that it's overblown _now_ (last April? was definitely bad).
I also don't know anybody who dies from the seasonal flu that claims a lot of people too.
I literally don't know anybody. I'm not being facetious, though I'm incredibly frustrated watching my city melt away, but I just haven't seen it. I would've expected bodies on the sidewalk given how stringent everything has been.
I myself have no real economical shortcomings due to the lockdown, but even as a person who is normaly a total loner and who can spend weeks completely alone on a excessive hiking trip i am slowly going crazy... For my wife, who is a highly social character, its even worse.
And i am not the only one in this mindset... what i hear and see in my region let me believe the mood is slowly turning into some sort of "Torches and Pitchforks" way...
I'm quite loner on my own, and the first lockdown was quite a breeze. But these days I'm becoming more and more tired, and I spend my time after work doing basic nothing. Also watching a movie is boring! I have no idea how people with kids, or without job stability, or with relatives to take care off haven't gone crazy yet!
We're all right, but it's slowly wearing us down. But there's people who are seriously worn down by it. I for one am glad I'm not alone, I'm not sure I would be in any good mental state right now if my girlfriend hadn't moved in two years ago.
I can really imagine the torches and pitchforks more and more. Because my country didn't do enough during the summer last year, cases spiked after people went back to work and school. The measures and carefulness of people failed because things kept going on for too long.
And now the government has set a curfew, which messes with the only time I actually go out during the day (taking the dog for a walk just before midnight). It feels like we're being punished for something other people did. They're still handing out thousands of tickets a week (although those will likely all be voided because a court decided the curfew was introduced on the wrong grounds), they're still breaking up a hundred parties a week, and there's still millions of people that go to work every day even though they can work from home.
At the current rate, it'll take the rest of the year before we get to an 80% vaccination rate. I mean I hope things will return to a semblance of normality by the summer (last year the number of cases went down sharply after flu season finished), but I'm afraid we'll be stuck for another year at least.
Living in a big old house in the country with your family? Your life is probably basically the same as it always was. Potentially better, depending on the work situation. Okay, sure, you're not going on as many holidays, and depending on how strict the rules are where you are, dinner parties are off the cards.
Living in a flat as a single person in the big exciting city? Literally everything you do has been illegal or restricted in some form for almost a year now.
I have no issue with how people choose to live their lives. I'm sure one day when I settle down I'll be in that group too. It sounds lovely.
But we have to be very, very clear about this - a month or two more and I'm going to be in the 'pitchforks and torches' group. There are limits, you can't just delete my lifestyle for a year and counting as a risk-aversion play and expect me to roll over and take it. Nah.
For me seeing the streets of my capital city completely empty at beginning of lockdown, as well as the trams and buses (even though you could ride them), made me realize that I was living in an environment that is fundamentally not pleasant. That it was people that made it alive.
Without people, I saw that this city which I always thought of as "the place where I can do anything, almost any time of the day" is really just a conglomerate of gray buildings, commerce, lots and lots of roads and noisy traffic, and very little green.
The spell was good while it lasted. That said I am also past 45 now... if I was younger I might still want to come back to a big city when I can in order to have access to more activities.
With all of that gone, the 400 sq ft apartment stopped being livable. That apartment wasn’t cheap, but I was able to afford to buy a house in another part of town. So I did — as did every other person in that downtown area that I knew.
Those areas are now severely depopulated to the point it’s not safe to walk around in after dark, despite being one of the nicest areas of town a year ago. Businesses are continuing to fail because their customers keep moving away. City centers will be absolutely dead for a decade or more. People are underestimating the long term impact to cities because office workers aren’t coming back en masse any time soon either — if ever. People are what makes a city great, and they’re not coming back for a long time.
I've heard city-dwellers claim (perhaps partly in jest) to have spent decades standing with the same people at the commuter rail station every day without giving them so much as a nod or smile, let alone learning their names.
Financially I'm doing great, I've worked throughout and there's literally nothing to spend the money on. My mental health is starting to deteriorate though. I'm not sleeping well most nights, I've turned very much inwards, I feel angry and despairing a lot.
Part of the current problem is that we don't have a timetable. There is no plan. There isn't even a set of criteria around which a plan could be built.
I don't agree that this is "a risk aversion play" here in the UK though - we have well over 100k people dead from this disease, hospitals beyond capacity and all sorts. Cancer treatments being pushed out, causing more death down the line. I don't think you can say that trying to control the spread is unwarranted.
Poorly communicated, yes. Mishandled, screwed up, too little, too late every time, yes. But unfortunately necessary to stop it just getting worse.
Been very popular over the last year or so. Yeah I've heard a few of the trickles of info. I'm hoping for the official reveal on Monday. Guess we'll see.
(and thanks for the link)
When I'm tired as all hell and wishing I could just go back to bed, that's what keeps me going. When I'm not tired as all hell I actually still enjoy the work, so that helps.
Cost of living is pretty high, salaries are pretty OK (better than a lot of UK perm, not as good as UK fintech contracting AFAICT), houses are big if you live out of the city centres, the sun shines and the beaches go on forever :)
Beyond the bucket of cash dumped onto new vaccine technologies, the international DiRT for all of our emergency preparedness, the data on pandemic spread and transmission reduction strategies, we're also getting all sorts of psych and social data on how people respond to a crisis, to government orders and to isolation. A thousand dissertations and new departments of study will spring from this.
I can understand why people want things to look forward to - and why businesses and people whose jobs will reopen would want dates in advance so they can plan.
But the dumbest thing the government could do is schedule reopenings before we know if it'll be safe to reopen.
That's what they did with the second lockdown - announced upfront that it was from to 31st October to 2nd December. Then they kept to their timetable and reopened things even though every metric on https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ made it clear we hadn't stopped the second wave - and now we have a third lockdown.
Sure. But while there is no end in sight, despair will rule. Whether it's reasonable to want a fixed timetable or not.
This is also why I mentioned criteria - even if not a fixed timetable, we could at least know what sort of criteria would trigger a rule change. I.E. when we get down to X cases per day, X deaths etc etc, the schools will open. If it keeps falling then the rule of six reapplies in outdoor public spaces ...
At least something rather than just being locked down indefinitely.
I agree the lifting of Lockdown 2 was a really poor choice.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. After the second timeline turns out to be completely made up, people will stop trusting them and add "more distrust of government" to their despair.
In the absence of Government leadership, I've had to do it for myself - I have a set date beyond which I will no longer follow social distancing. If I didn't have that, I'd have snapped long ago, which is strictly a worse outcome.
People individually snapping and choosing to do whatever they want is more dangerous than the alternative of the Government explicitly announcing that lockdown is a time-limited policy (and as such providing more support to the hardest-hit individuals).
Perfect is the enemy of the good.
Well, if that's even a good analogy, since lockdown is clearly nowhere near perfect, it's trading life for life.
I still highlight dumb holidays (next week is International I Hate Cilantro Day), read by the candlelight, explore abandoned buildings, ride my bicycle around etc.
I had to delay the plans for which I have strived for many years, but I don't consider that time lost. I got to try things I wouldn't have tried otherwise, and to invest my time in different places.
When I get hit by a wave of despair (usually after they push the dates further), I do something that reaffirms this.
I can't go anywhere so I have time to finish painting the hallway, fixing the garden etc etc. It helps I also have a home-based hobby (brewing) so I can carry on with that.
I should cycle more, and I'm sure I will when the weather picks up a bit. It really helps my state of mind.
Now it can feel pretty dodgy as soon as its dark in the city centre. No one has any reason to be there so the junkies, homeless and others have seemingly gotten more brave.
I was in the city centre around 9-10pm a little while ago and it was almost 100% drunk / high / homeless looking at me really weirdly and got approached by a couple in a semi-aggresive way.
That had never happened to me in the five years I've lived here previously.
Now even in the dead of winter, on my nightly walks I see people strolling around at night. Many times the same people, assuming they're just looking to get out of the house.
Summer was even more drastic, I don't think I have ever seen more people take to cycling and walking for enjoyments sake in my area before.
I'd say if anything, I considered maintaining a social life to be a form of self-care, one I was already struggling to get enough of.
> A month or two more and I'm going to be in the 'pitchforks and torches' group
Why wait a month or two? I'm not saying I agree with you, but nothing's going to change in 2 months. I'm pretty sure nothing's going to change in the next 5 years.
Because I have just about enough left in me, and by then, in the UK we will have vaccinated the groups which make up ~99% of preventable mortality.
At that point, the moral argument of "go outside and you're putting people at risk" completely falls apart in my view.
If there are variants which escape the vaccines, then at that point it's game over since I know I definitely won't be able to make it through another year.
I don't know what the lockdowns are like in the UK. Are you guys not even allowed to go outside?
Given the speed in which effective vaccines were developed I think this is a rather bleak outlook.
Sure, a lot is still unknown with the new virus variants and as has been expected vaccination drives had their teething problems. But in a few month time (almost) everybody who wants their jabs can get it (in rich countries, that is).
I for one, see myself on a 3 week vacation in Asia later this year. Optimistic? Maybe, and certainly dependent on a number of factors beyond my control. But I think it's a much better perspective than wallowing in misery and not seeing a way out.
In any case, listening to scientists means you take their input and factor that into the tradeoffs that drive policy. Which may well involve simultaneously that there is e.g. some risk associated with allowing people to travel by air while allowing them to do it anyway.
Some people have argued that the vaccinations are evidence of his success regarding Covid-19 but I don't see any part of that that wouldn't have been proceeding with or without him. As far as I can tell, the only difference between Trump and Biden's handling of covid has been "Biden knows to keep his mouth shut about specifics and predictions, because he might be wrong" which is exactly the kind of playing-both-sides I've seen from many state and city governments for the last year (talking a lot about how we need to follow the science and keep locking down to keep the spread low, but also taking no steps to enforce the rules or financially support people/businesses.)
But getting into a tussle with states he thinks are opening up too much, etc. is almost certainly counterproductive at this point.
Right after I posted my comment above, at 15:12 comments regarding Canadian forecasts appeared in The Guardian's COVID live blog, in which epidemologists say that restrictions must be preserved within the country because the vaccine rollout is a global problem, not a local one.
I can't find anything on The Guradian's COVID live blog talking about what you're referring to, can you provide a link?
Apparently this[1] is the permalink for The Guardian post.
[0] https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19036150.covid-scotland-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/feb/19/coronavir...
Yes, you are wrong. Everybody I know with little kids is suffering the same social isolation as you. 4 year olds do not count as socializing, especially when all of our kids are also feeling the negative effects of isolation as well.
Besides that, you specifically mentioned doing self-care. It's amazing you have the time and energy to do it. My day starts at 530am (if I'm lucky) and the only time I could work out is after the girls go to bed.
I could think of plenty of ways to get some form of social interaction if I wasn't so stretched. All my single coworkers are playing video games together and doing zoom hangouts. My friends do a poker night and I can't stay up late enough because I'm so worn out by the time it starts. I've barely spoken to anyone besides my wife, who is also being slowly ground into dust, unless you count my weekly one on one with my manager.
I'm not trying to one up anybody. If anything I think that most of us are going through some comparable form of mental anguish. The irony is that Covid keeps us from seeing how other people go through it too
The people who are isolated by themselves are struggling much more.
In prison, the worst punishment you can receive is to be taken away from the all rapists and murderers, and put in solitary confinement. Being stuck in a prison cell with a partner and family probably sounds like a dream to the person stuck in a prison cell alone.
They are massively different.
The death toll dwarfs every single "disaster" in UK modern cultural history. Aberfan, Lockerbie, Dunblane, Piper Alpha, Grenfell, Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Herald of Free Enterprise, Marchioness, Titanic, Lusitania, Harold Shipman: COVID exceeds all of those put together. Invisibly. Any given one of those is dwarfed by the daily COVID death toll.
A rate that starts to rival wartime deaths. At the recent peak the death toll for 19 January was almost one HMS Hood per day.
Cynical thought: COVID lockdowns are extreme largely because unlike most public health problems it affects the rich too, and the decision-makers behind them fall into the high-risk categories.
Sobering thought: if you think COVID-19 is bad now, wait until there's a pandemic of something like the Spanish Flu that does target and kill the young and healthy too.
The average years lost is 10 years of life in the US and 16 world wide[1] - and I think you need to reconsider how callous your comment comes across (to me at least, and I would guess others too). [edited: added detail]
I also feel your comment entirely disregards the point made by the parent comment: “I personally know a couple of people who are now effectively long-term disabled with respiratory issues - well enough to leave hospital, but their previous lifestyle can't come back.”
I think you missed this part of their comment. They were arguing the deaths weren’t the same kind of deaths as in past catastrophes, but the long term ailments are bad and real.
Though I agree the years lost is bigger than people think.
If my anecdata is irrelevant, then so is yours.
The only people I know who have had permanent damage from COVID-19 in this age range, have all had their trauma caused by excessive lockdown policies.
You know what's even less of a joke than COVID-19? Our histrionic, insane, and completely violent overreaction to it.
Quick question: how would you propose dealing with a global pandemic? Social isolation seems like the most common sense solution, since in 2021 we know how disease is transmitted and how to deal with that.
I am not going to entertain further the notion that we have locked people into their homes, given trillions of dollars to multinational corporations, and restricted the lives of everyday people, just because of a pandemic that kills less than 1% of the people infected. This is such an obvious cash-grab and overt attempt to impose further fascism upon people, just like what happened after 9/11 in the US with the imposition of the Patriot Act.
> Social isolation may be the best solution. Fine. Don't force it on us. If it's the right solution, then it will be followed.
I think your own statement is proof that this is not the case. We know social distancing works, yet you don't want to implement it.
> just like what happened after 9/11 in the US with the imposition of the Patriot Act.
I agree that governments will always do this. That doesn't make COVID any less of a threat though. The lockdown isn't the only lever of authoritarian control. There's plenty of others you can fight to increase individual liberty. Things that won't put millions of others (and yourself) at risk.
I said I don't want to force it on people - I never said it was a bad idea to remove yourself from close contact with strangers during a pandemic. Forcing it on people is how you get deaths of despair, run everyone's businesses to the ground, and ruin every healthy person's life who isn't at risk.
You don't have to force it. Social distancing is a decision an individual makes, and a rational individual would choose to do this if they wanted to live without the risk of getting infected.
Allowing anyone to opt out disproportionately negatively affects people who are unable to isolate for whatever reason: essential job, medical emergency, etc. People not isolating creates more risk for the grocery checkout person or power plant operator, for example.
> Social distancing is a decision an individual makes, and a rational individual would choose to do this if they wanted to live without the risk of getting infected.
It's just selfishness (or at best rank ignorance) to believe that whether or not you personally isolate only affects your health.
Yet 3000 people in the U.S. are dying each day from COVID.
Does that not indicate that this virus is a particularly nasty virus worthy of special measures? That it’s still spreading widely when the flu can’t?
People are still dying from respiratory viruses at a totally unacceptable rate. We're a very sick culture who cannot handle a respiratory illness without freaking-the-fuck out.
We have way bigger problems than COVID-19, which is nothing more than a symptom of those problems.
Do you actually, really believe this? Do you really believe that if that the research studies come out and say “hey stay inside” that everyone will read the studies front-to-back and go “oh, it’s in the public interest for everyone to stay inside”? Is this a thing that you think will happen in America?
> impose further fascism
What is fascism?
When the government does something I don't like /s
Social isolation isn't an opt-in kind of measure. Furthermore, the average person doesn't have the background or tools to evaluate whether it works. It's a public health matter, and you do have to follow the advice of the relevant authorities.
This is like the law against drinking and driving in many countries: you cannot decide to opt-out of this restriction. It negatively affects others who do decide to comply with the restriction. If caught, you will be subject to some kind of penalty (such as having your license revoked), for good reason.
I'm opting out anyway.
"What are you in for, son"?
"Being outside without an excuse."
Clown world.
"Drinking and driving, but I actually drive better while I'm drunk, these cops know nothing!"
It's illegal in the UK to take a picnic to a park bench.
I'm sorry for your loss. But no, it's not drunk driving, it's existing as a human being.
Best of luck.
It's about not being selfish and helping contain or flatten the contagion. It's about thinking about others and not just yourself.
> it's existing as a human being
A selfish human being, yes.
If your country is less restrictive, I'm happy for you.
It's been illegal for me to have a friend over for 100 days.
It's illegal to have a picnic on a park bench.
So yeah, I'm not doing this any more. If you think that's selfish - cool, I'm selfish according to you. I'm not going to kill myself for your social credit score, stop trolling.
What country is that? We've had about 295 days of social distancing -- we recently moved from almost total lockdown to a less restricting stance, which also requires social distancing and discourages gatherings of people.
> If you think that's selfish - cool, I'm selfish according to you. I'm not going to kill myself for your social credit score, stop trolling.
I really hope nobody gets sicks or dies needlessly because of you then.
As for your accusation of trolling: please follow HN guidelines and do not encourage flamewars.
If you don't want to interact with me, that's cool. If you want to ban large gatherings and restrict smaller ones for a period of time, I get it.
When it gets to the point that it becomes illegal to be outside without an excuse, 300 days in, you're just subjecting people to cruel and unusual punishment at this point.
The idea that people are going to die in greater proportion than the damage caused by preventing people from going for a walk to the park and sitting down with a cup of coffee is not backed by evidence, and I absolutely believe that you are trolling if you think we can all just endure this indefinitely. You're just gonna have to throw me in prison because I will treat those basic freedoms as absolute until the day I die.
I hope you stay safe, best wishes.
It's not about you, it's about not spreading disease to others.
"You cannot leave home for recreational or leisure purposes (such as for a picnic or a social meeting)."
So your statement that the commenter's "entire argument is false" is, well, false.
I'm sorry, I simply cannot let this go unchallenged. Even a moment's thought should demonstrate that that's not the case:
* It may be the objectively-best-solution for society as a whole, but not-best for an individual (for instance, a young healthy individual who is at low-risk for long-term impact for COVID, but who could act as an incubator and carrier to spread it to more vulnerable folks). The overall-harm-done by these free-circulating individuals will, I am willing to bet, be much more than the "harm" done to them by asking them to stay home. * It may be the best solution, but to recognize that as such requires specialized scientific knowledge that the average person doesn't have. Meanwhile, propagandists are free to influence society as they wish with more-easily-consumable (but, possibly, less true) messages. * Similarly to the 2nd point - it may be the right solution, but that might not be obvious until late in the process. In this situation, trusting experts and following their advice earlier will reduce the overall harm done.
The calculus of impact here is "what is the harm done by following advice if it's wrong?", vs. "what is the harm done by not-following advice if it's right?". Folks are free to make their own decision on this, but almost-every analysis I've seen suggests that "staying home" is the massively better choice, _even if_ the global pandemic turns out to have been less-severe than first expected (in fact, the opposite seems to be true). All of that is leaving aside the fact that much of the harm done by isolation could have been offset by basic social welfare programs (stimulus cheques, UBI, etc.)
Contrary to the common American mindset, freedom is not, in fact, always an unalloyed good - especially when incentives for an individual are in opposition to incentives for a group. (ironically, I wrote this summary _before_ reading your second paragraph, but it works even better. Your argument that "a previous social program restricted freedoms in an unproductive and unhelpful way, therefore any social program which restricts freedoms is unproductive and unhelpful" does not hold)
* I'm not assuming that you are American, but I _am_ contrasting my position with a mindset that I have noticed disproportionately _among_ Americans.
It's anecdotal for sure, but once you see it with your own eyes it definitely makes you take it seriously.
It would be interesting to do a relative comparison of physical and psych effects of lockdown versus post-Covid complications. It isn’t clear what the severity for the “33.6%” was.
The control group in that study is people who had the flu during lockdown.
The latter is just nature being nature, and while we can respond in some ways to reduce deaths, it will never be perfect. I get that in some ways that feels worse, because there's a feeling of powerlessness. But the former is humans being shitty and murdering each other in the name of nationalism, land, resources, religion, whatever.
We now know enough about the nature of disease that we can be somewhat effective dealing with it. If people embrace the science that is.
By the way, the truth can be very callous. I don't think it's particularly useful for you to point out how callous someone sounds on the internet unless the other person has some demonstrable intent of cruelty. We all know that we have the potential to sound like bad people through text online.
Yes there is evidence that 10-30% of covid infections have not resolved at 6 months
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.16.21249950v...
which is roughly what SARS 1 looks like (and those people are still sick). But we still can't definitely say that 35 year olds who catch covid will lose 10 years off the end of their life so it's disregarded in our decision making.
> But we still can't definitely say that 35 year olds who catch covid will lose 10 years off the end of their life so it's disregarded in our decision making.
That isn’t relevant to the 10 year statistic although it is an interesting point - you are saying the final result for years of life lost due to Covid could be a higher number than 10 years (after we get to finally tally the numbers in the decades to come as people die). Depends on how you paint your statistics I guess. [para edited to add clarity]
Note I am all for people doing whatever they want with their own lives - if you want to go to a Covid party I would love to support that. I love taking certain risks myself.
However, when the choices of one age group can kill my mum, dad or friends, I would hope we agree to serious restrictions to help prevent that. With engineering balance to the compromises, given that prevention techniques cause significant human costs.
I am from New Zealand, so I can resoundingly support everyone acting together in concert to protect everyone else (as most kiwis did, with a good outcome for us).
What a disgusting attitude.
How is this different from "Why bother treating cancer patients? Most are going to die early anyway"? Do you think old and sick people simply provide no value to society?
I think you're trying to argue that it's worse if a young, otherwise healthy person dies, but it's really not necessary to rank lives against each other in this way.
This attitude seems to be what's largely made this pandemic so bad: it was viewed as "just the flu" and "only affects people with pre-existing conditions" and so rather than fast, decisive action (reducing burden on healthcare system, preventing deaths, reducing the need for lockdowns and shortening the time they take), many countries instead delayed and did half-measures, causing an exponential increase in cases, which causes everything to be worse. The completely obvious outcome of willing to let old and sick people die to "save the economy" was an economy that's in turmoil as well as a massive death toll.
No, the GP is pointing out the well-established social-psychology theory that people already implicitly rank things this way, and that this is why the death toll doesn’t have more of a mental impact on people in changing their decisions, even when they hear about it.
It’s the same reason that news like “baby of suburban WASP nuclear family gets kidnapped” turns into a whole-community man-hunt with special ribbons that gets remembered for years, while news like “baby of urban black single mother gets kidnapped” never even gets acknowledged by the community.
When people who are high-status to society go away, the whole of society mourns. When people who are low-status to society go away, only those directly affected mourn.
Any death-toll number, in the mind of most human beings (or rather, of any human being who’s only engaging with the problem using System 1 thinking), isn’t interpreted as “raw numbers” of lives lost, or even QALYs lost — instead, it’s felt as an aggregate of social-status lost, subjective to the listener’s personal social-status ranking function.
For the same reason that people don’t tend to worry much about disasters half-way across the world (the aggregate social-status weight computed through their status ranking function still sums low), people won’t tend to worry much about the impact of a local disaster if it’s only directly hurting local low-status people. Even if it’s indirectly impacting high-status people by taking away people they care directly about, that still doesn’t generate the sort of performative shame for not having acted that comes when high-status individuals are taken†.
And since that very performative shame is what policy-makers rely on as a group impetus to for getting changes pushed through on a society-wide level, a lack of it means that nothing can really change, even when there are clear rational reasons to implement change.
——————
† Evo-psych just-so hypothesis (i.e. take this with 50 grains of salt): people are expected to sacrifice to protect high-status people; people who do so are rewarded by the high-status people; and so, over generations, it became a eusocial instinct to feel an urge toward performative shame when you “fail to protect” a high-status person in your community—even one you never personally knew.
But people aren’t expected to sacrifice for low-status affiliations of high-status people (since it’d “only” be the high-status person, and not the rest of the community, enforcing the norm on you), so a similar eusocial instinct toward performative shame for failing to protect those people never arose.
> rather than fast, decisive action
It is worth noting that even if there had been the "fast, decisive action" that epidemologist advisers wanted, that would have still imposed border closures in perpetuity. Life might have gone on "like normal" within a country, but people could not interact with their neighbors.
We see already some Australians advocating for hotel quarantine to be obligatory even after COVID, because a year of closed borders has made them regard outsiders as dirty. How long before border closures awaken old nationalist conflicts that freedom of movement and actually getting to know the other side had largely put to rest?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_rationing_in_the_Un...
And global warming might as well not exist as far as lawmakers are concerned. The comfort of the old is our nation's top priority.
You do realize that every day we decline to treat cancer patients because they are close to dying anyway, right?
Locking down the near-entirety of life has long-term physical and mental health implications that we probably don't fully understand. There have already been suicides directly attributable to COVID-imposed isolation.
It's possible -- and even likely -- that the lockdowns are the right move overall, but the lockdowns themselves have destroyed lives too. Taking measures to protect against something that overwhelmingly affects one segment of the population has a big negative effect on everyone else as well.
Mostly we're choosing to take our chances on the unknown long-term consequences over the fairly well-understood risks we face now. The people who pay the cost will be different.
'at least they're old'
This has wiped out FAMILES. 2.4M worldwide and nearly 500k in the US. And it flies past people due to fatigue and habituation.
One would have thought that by now we wouldn't be comparing fatality rates of a disease that propagates exponentially when left unchecked, with a more or less stable family of diseases that isn't contagious, but here we are, apple pies to orange sorbets.
Regardless, areas of the US that have mask and social distancing mandates still have high case rates. It seems like the driver of surges in those areas are mainly due to people violating other restrictions, like having indoor gatherings.
It's a hell of a thing for someone who only had a few short and precious years left, to have those ripped away from them as well.
I'm hard of hearing - people joke that there's no point in wearing ear protection since I'm already deaf. No, the opposite. Because I have only a little hearing left, it's so much more precious to me than normal hearing is for most people. I protect it jealously.
I get your point, but I can't forget the human part of that equation.
Or maybe not even that. The 6pm BBC radio news just read out the latest 500+ dead and apparent R number. It's just ... not important to the discourse somehow?
Approximately 0.2-0.3% of the UK population has died due to coronavirus.
But my personal risk of psychosis as a result of lockdown is far higher than that, it's starting to approach 1, and when it happens, it doesn't matter if those figures are 10%.
Maybe it's just me, but I really doubt it is. Social unrest is coming if we do this for much longer, I can't see any other way.
I can't live in a world that doesn't allow me to have a friend over for a cup of tea indefinitely; compromise really needs to happen soon.
This might be exactly situation where you might desperately need to go out to keep sanity, to escape the family.
I've more had the mindset that everything I normally do can put other people in danger and potentially kill them or someone close to them. Or leave them with lingering side effects from illness for who knows how long.
But yeah, also kind of going crazy.
And unsafe, too. I'm not not going to restaurants because I'm not allowed to (they're actually opening back up a little bit here now), but because under the present circumstances it's not safe to do so.
I don't know anything about your personal situation, but if you're healthy and relatively young the risk from Covid (first catching it, then having a bad time with it) in resuming these aspects of normal life may be extremely low, even compared to activities you wouldn't think twice about doing pre-pandemic - like taking a short car ride for example.
I think there are probably a lot of people struggling with this sort of thing. Cognitive behaviour therapy incorporating aspects of exposure therapy could be useful here.
This kinda falls into the 'social obligation' column. Just because it doesn't affect you personally, doesn't mean you shouldn't be part of the solution. Sooner or later something WILL happen to you and you'll benefit from being a member.
Your local government may not care about you. I'd look to respected civilian experts or at least government agencies staffed by respected experts.
I'm basing this on Texas' Lt. Governor Dan Patrick being willing to tolerate a lot of death for the sake of the economy:
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/04/21/texas-dan-patrick-ec...
I mention local guidelines since I wouldn't want anyone to get in trouble with the state.
The economy is not an abstract thing, it represents living people and their lives. People who feel its important to prioritise the economy and a return to relative normality generally don't think that way because they're callous about Covid deaths, they're simply more concerned about the death, ill health and strife that result from a long term economic downturn. We can discuss the degree to which those views represent reality without impugning people's characters.
Many of these states couldn't even get on board with masks, let alone anything else more stringent (like reducing capacity).
But I wonder what claim to authority or special knowledge you are using to feel confident your own attitude is purely rational, and uninfluenced by your political beliefs and personal biases?
Moreover, whatever you think about the balance of scientific evidence, science should not be used to directly drive policy. Elected politicians create policy, and science is one sort of advice that feeds those decisions. Policy created purely from scientific advice would be a recipe for arbitrary decisions, and technocratic undemocratic rule. The politically motivated aspect is a feature not a bug!
That's a very selfish way of looking at things. The problem with being a communicable disease is that even if I'm fine, others I give it too might not be. I'm trying to be a team player here.
Also, I'm not in a low-risk group personally anyway.
I'm going to go back to my normal life once I've been vaccinated. At this rate there's only a couple more months to go. I've already made it 11 months, I can do a couple more.
It guarantees a horrible outcome (psychosis), versus a slight risk of a bad outcome.
I'm not going to put myself into a coma for multiple years on the off chance that someone else gets ill. Best of luck.
It boils down to: "Shut up, stay in your pen". I'm not a crazy person and I agree with herd immunity and generally think we should strive for it and not fight it for the sake of the unhealthy, but excuse the language, holy-shit people... it's been a year of "flatten the curve", "lockdowns" and "stay at home orders"!! I stand by this fully: This disaster could have been solved in a month with closed borders, tracking and a dedicated, absolute and draconian effort. But, we didn't get that and instead treated the potentially "misbehaving" people like cattle because they threatened the wider herd.
It all rests on what happens after a wide rollout of the vaccine.
You're not crazy, but you are incorrect. Herd immunity only works for COVID if a) you can get 60-70% of people infected, and b) getting the disease confers immunity, and for a meaningful amount of time.
Getting to that 60-70% in the time frame that most people would tolerate would absolutely destroy our health care system, resulting in many more deaths (due to people being unable to get the treatment they need). Consider that hospitals in many areas were overwhelmed without most people going out and trying to get the disease.
And the immunity bit is still an open question. Many people have suffered re-infection, and it's not clear that post-infection immunity lasts more than a few months, which might not be good enough for herd immunity to stick.
The second bit is a bit of a gamble, so I'm totally open to argument there as to whether it's a gamble worth taking, but the first bit includes unacceptable outcomes. I'm not saying our current outcome is acceptable, but trading one bad thing for another isn't clearly better here.
Citation needed. Every source I’ve heard has said reinfection is rare in both percent and absolute terms. And resistance to the disease is proven to last at least ~9months and estimated by the medically knowledgeable to last much much longer.
My wires are coming loose
Basically one less thing to be neurotic about, although the fact that of my two real friends one is hard to talk to because of a subtle cultural difference and the other clearly only tolerates and has clearly reached the stage where a friendship bifurcates and people trying to hurt each other suddenly, has been cruelly exposed to me.
It helps that I built a healthy lifestyle, and have no problems giving structure to my attention. Long walks in nature, hours of dedicated reading of offline books (the medicine of the mind) help immensely. And my studies in areas like ancient Greek philosophy, psychology, neuroscience all help, and continue to provide some relief. But it's strenuous to keep grinding through it, without access to much of humanity, in the normal sense. So far, it's been a potent stress-test of resilience.
When in reality the lockdowns ask us to give up everything that makes us human - closeness and interaction with other people, hobbies, and many people can't even work or see their families any more. And we're making this effort without even being sure it's worth it - sure, there's a vaccine now and that's an amazing achievement but we still have the risk of vaccine resistance so long-term not sure how we can avoid the (mitigated) risks.
On other hand, my wife really didn't like socializing on Zoom. So she didn't socialize as much. Also she really misses in-person gatherings. And my biggest issue been trying to cheer her up.
Free societies don’t have lockdowns. Prisons do. One would think that the government would come up with a better term, if only out of self interest.
But then perhaps that’s the point.
It should require a huge amount of justification, and people should have little patience with it. The euphemisms some places use are Orwellian.
New cases, daily deaths, and hospitalizations have all been falling rapidly for weeks now.
The current estimate is for 50% of the US population to have received their first shot of vaccine by June 28:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-19-vaccine...
That's at the current pace. The pace will almost certainly continue to accelerate. You also need to add in the unvaccinated who have immunity from prior infection.
We're on track for a quasi-normal (as far as restrictions go) Summer, and there will be an enormous push to get kids back in school full time and people back in the office regularly right after Labor Day.
I have seen this claimed a lot, but is it really true? In some countries the authorities ended restrictions (or ostensibly maintained restrictions but stopped enforcement of them) because the population simply wasn't observing them. In those cases just "giving up" really worked in terms of the majority of people being able to get back to normal socializing.
But, truth be told, come late spring especially younger people are going to be out and about and restrictions are going to start to be widely ignored even if they're still officially in place.
In several countries with lockdowns there is definitely collusion between ruling parties and mainstream media on which the ruling party has a close relationship or outright tight grip. In Poland, independent media across the ideological spectrum have been reporting that the majority of the population opposes lockdown, and support for business owners opening their restaurants regardless has risen. Yet you won't hear a word about this in state-controlled media. The ruling party is, however, aware of sentiment turning against them, because party functionaries have privately expressed to independent media that they fear that lockdown might cost them the next election.
The problem, however, is that when mainstream media refuses to report common sentiment, the average person feels that he or she is all alone in feeling that way. This prevents people from organizing and pushing together for change (which is just the way that many ruling parties like it).
Sadly, this is a self-inflicted problem. Instead of trying to understand the purpose of the imposed measures and trying to maximize their impact to get us through this as fast as possible, lots of people saw them as pure nuisance instead. They tried to bend the rules to work around them and so we are still stuck with these measures for far longer than would have been necessary otherwise.
Now we all reap what they sowed.
So... i myself side with freedom and (risk of) death.
Yes, I believe that's the case. Most people have not witnessed these things first hand. Nor should they.
And it's still an indication of early/strict lockdowns. People in China, Vietnam, Taiwan and New Zealand are enjoying social contact, punctuated by periodic lockdown. Some countries are basically placing the burden of reducing R0 on volunteers.
We're all tired. This is a crappy situation. And if complaining about lockdowns help people feel better, well we all do what we need to try and feel a bit better I guess. But, in our more calm and reflective and honest moments, we should remember that the psychological toll here is from the pandemic, and there's not some magical other option where the pandemic is anything other than a very difficult situation.
How do you know? I think this claim, if it is to be believed, deserves some solid and objective evidence.
How come the pandemic is the deadly one? Why not put some of the blame on the millions of people who died from this thing, who probably could have lived through it had they lived healthier lives? There has been ZERO discussion of how to improve the body's natural immunity to viruses, which is without a doubt the most efficacious way to prevent death from coronaviruses.
> I think railing against lockdowns is a coping mechanism
This is so condescending I have a hard time believing you're being honest. No business owner would choose to completely shutter their enterprise as so many have had to do under threat of government violence. The complete upending of normal life was not something anyone did because it was the right thing to do. We did it because we were all under threat of fines, violence, and losing our freedoms even further if we didn't.
> But, in our more calm and reflective and honest moments, we should remember that the psychological toll here is from the pandemic, and there's not some magical other option where the pandemic is anything other than a very difficult situation.
The "pandemic" has done absolutely nothing to me. All of my difficulties have been tied to the complete shutdown of my local, state, and federal government. I haven't gotten sick nor have any of my close friends and family. I have, however, been assaulted by random prisoners let out of prison too early, have been price-gouged by corporations, and have had my basic liberties stripped. Those were all lockdown policies causing those things - not the pandemic.
To me, it's overwhelmingly obvious that our infrastructure is failing and the government is using ridiculous histrionics regarding the virus and regarding "anti-racism," to cover it up.
I agree that there's going to be an ambient level of anxiety from knowing that there's a nasty disease out there, but are you really saying that not being able to see your friends and family, or losing your job, or having to scramble to work from home while managing your children's remote "learning" has no additional impact?
there's not some magical other option where the pandemic is anything other than a very difficult situation
Lockdowns aren't binary. We're allowed to consider the costs and benefits of individual measures. Banning large indoor events: probably worth it. Forbidding people from leaving their homes: probably not. And then you get into the more controversial areas like shutting down schools and trying to forbid small gatherings, where different governments have made different choices and it is not at all clear that stronger measures lead to better Covid outcomes.
Of course it has an impact. If we didn't have social restrictions and consequently had much higher rates of infection, death, and long term disability, that also would have an impact. There's no world where, given a global pandemic, there are no severe impacts. Most arguments against social restriction that I've seen don't acknowledge this though. I mean, the other reply to my comment said "why not put some of the blame on the millions of people who died from this thing, who probably could have lived through it had they lived healthier lives", to which I can only reply "what?" For at least the most vocal opponents of social restrictions, they seem to have a radically different understanding of how respiratory infections work than I do.
>Lockdowns aren't binary. We're allowed to consider the costs and benefits of individual measures
Absolutely. It's not the people who are able to do nuance I'm taking issue with here.
> it is not at all clear that stronger measures lead to better Covid outcomes.
Well, I think the evidence is pretty clear that taking either none or very few measures has led to worse outcomes. Among places that have taken measures, I agree it gets hazier as you then have to go from the general "lockdown or freedom" argument into "which specific measures work best." The latter discussion is where we should be; the former one is, to my mind, based on an unrealistic set of assumptions.
My friends and I could not possibly care less about the virus even if we tried, and half of us were even infected with Corona. The only thing affecting anyone in my friendgroup mentally are these lockdowns that are keeping us from living our lives, because I can guarantee you that every single one of us would rather be sitting in a crowded, closed space without even wearing masks than being forced to deal with god-knows how long of not being able to do anything, so I really wouldn't say the pandemic has any effect on us other than the fact that it brings with it lockdowns that none of us want.
That mentality can actually be helpful, and provided it stays metaphorical, it is called for. We're coming up on the one year anniversary of authoritarian rules. We accepted them because we were (rightfully) scared. The facts are that it is now getting under control, and it would be healthy and cathartic to assert normalcy again. We're rightful in being optimistic now, and should reclaim our rights and freedom. The craziness comes from trying to contain it.
Seeing that disingenuous planning on the part of state authorities, I would simply prefer to go back to normal behavior right now, allow young people to have their big social coming-of-age and courtship rituals and open the borders so that Europeans aren’t separated from their fellow Europeans, and simply accept all the deaths that would result in the in-between time.
What exactly is "authoritarian" about them? These rules were imposed and enforced[0] under authority granted to the government through democratic processes. And if enough people don't like it, most states have recall/impeachment processes that can allow the citizenry to remove the elected officials and replace them with people who will take a different path.
The fact that none of that has happened shows that the people who truly believe the measures taken were incorrect are in the minority, likely a small vocal minority.
If you want to talk about authoritarianism, look to actual authoritarian states, where curfews, lockdowns, and quarantines were implemented, along with severe restrictions on people's movement... with no avenue for citizens to oppose these measures (and if they try, they get arrested). That is not at all what has been happening in the US, UK, and similar nations.
[0] Also consider that many of the rules imposed on individuals have essentially been voluntary and under the honor system. In most (but not all) places in the US you don't get ticketed or arrested for failing to wear a mask or socially distance, or for violating a quarantine or curfew.
Not in many countries. Courts have overturned some rules, finding that the government did not have authority to impose those rules. For example, in Poland the ruling party ordered that masks be worn in public spaces and that restaurants have to close, but courts have already found that this law was void because the government did not pass a formal state of emergency (which would have enraged the population and cost them the next election).
Similarly, in the Netherlands their curfew was overturned by courts. It was hastily reinstated through parliamentary vote, but this reinstatement is questionable when this curfew appears designed to prevent the ruling coalition’s position from being challenged before the upcoming election. In France, Macron has clearly resorted to harsh anti-COVID measures because they can help stamp out the Yellow Vests movement that was bothering him pre-COVID. Dishonest strategems like this – even if not the most blatant example of an authoritarian state – leave a bad taste in one’s mouth.
Thus, lockdown has not impacted me negatively in the slightest. At least not directly (it has indirectly through the mental health of those around me). I really do not care about going out. Even more so than I thought.
I like it this way, and I think that while I knew I could stay "home" for long periods, and liked it, I was never aware just how much I really am not affected by "staying home". I have basically been living for almost a year in a "leave the house on average 0.75 times per week", and for at most 4 hours. In a week, I go out an average of 3 hours. I live just fine.
Some of my close friends who considered themselves to be just like me are slowly going a bit crazy. I guess it's not even their need to go out, but the fact that they _know_ they can't.
I understand other people function in other ways. I'm sorry if you're in this group (or your loved ones). Nevertheless, to me, I just really don't feel the impact at all. If anything, having other people "live more like me" has made my life somewhat better, because they can empathize with me more and because the whole world has become "easier to live in", more adapted to my ways of living.
Mind you, this doesn't mean I can live anywhere because I live "mostly remotely, and mostly in my head". I live 5 minutes from my parents (and for a while I was living 1h away from them). Even though I may not go there every day, not even every week or every two weeks, the fact that I'm here gives me immense happiness and calmness. Staying at home does not mean not caring about my immediate and even my "nearish" surroundings.
I quite frankly hope business travel never returns. Better for the environment too.
I did notice a bunch of people who got really anxious. They were pro lockdown then against, then again pro and they were noticeably nervous and unhappy.
When relatives ask how I’m doing, I immediately say, “Great!” But then I realize - oops, I should probably give a less selfish response, and acknowledge that the grandma I’m speaking to is perpetually bummed because she can’t see her daughter (which I absolutely believe sucks).
On the original topic: I’ve always thought that Baldur’s Gate did a good job with their atmospheric music. That’s usually my go-to when I want to listen to “tavern sounds.” It basically sounds like the Prancing Pony from Fellowship. And there are lots of similar options on YouTube. It’s fun background music!
---
For most people, (...) 2020 was a mostly terrible year. A dark spot in the book of life, filled with misery, missing loved ones, habit changes and an overall feeling of “this is too bad, too fast”. For some, it’s like we’re still in 2019, ending in a shitty way. For others, it’s like a pit of awfulness that’s been going on forever and doesn’t seem to end.
I can’t say I relate, though. I’m sorry if you’re reading this and you’re one of those people, but I just can’t relate.
(...)
2020 sucked for these people. Some lost their job. Some lost their routines — and to some people routine _really is important_.
But 2020 didn’t suck for me. Or, rather, it didn’t suck as much. Sure, 2020 still sucked in many ways, but they’re not really that related to the pandemic we’re living. Maybe they are indirectly (...), but I cannot personally say that I felt really negatively affected by the pandemic. Some things still hit me, but many didn’t.
It feels like I’m committing some kind of heresy by saying this, but it’s true. I _feel bad_ that 2020 didn’t _make me feel bad_. But, really, it didn’t.
(...)
This was 2020. COVID didn’t really mess with me directly. I already worked remotely most of the time. Here’s how COVID has impacted my life, in the most blunt honesty I can have: - It enabled me to be much more easily socially accepted when I wanted to do remote meetings. - It enabled me to multitask: I can do many tasks at home (dishes, clothes, etc) while having remote meetings without my camera on. - It made it so that instead of going every weekend to visit (...) family, we started doing it much more sporadically (...). - It reduced the amount of traffic on the street, noise around the house, etc.
(...)
Personally, COVID didn’t do much for my life. You could very fairly make the point that, in terms of my _direct personal life_, it bettered it. I didn’t really stop doing things I liked. Sure, we can’t really go out or go to concerts, but I don’t need that. I have never needed that. Similarly, I stopped hanging out with my friends, and while I’d like to do that, I’m at a stage of my life where I don’t need it. It’s not a part of my personality. I don’t need to go out. I don’t want to go out most of the time. (...) I don’t _need_ to go out. I can stay for months inside my home just fine.
---
indeed it is:
The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
On a weekly basis, I miss "camping out" at my Starbucks and reading, growing slowly more wired on caffeine. This is the lack that seems to have put me off of my game the most, despite it not having a whole lot of personal interaction.
May you find a way to move about freely in the near future.
Based on their website, GP is likely in the UK. There’s vague hope based on vaccination rates, but given the number of self-inflicted own-goals by this government, anything more than vague hope now feels like setting oneself up for disappointment.
It's illegal for me to have a friend over because they made it illegal.
We have adverts trying to scare people into working from home, as if that's a choice.
The government is literally trolling us, just showing us that we'll do whatever as long as there's propaganda backing it.
Fuck this reality.
Especially the part about government trolling us.
Fuck this reality.
Now the bars have been closed for 3 months. Think anyone would remove that now useless limitation on selling alcohol after 20:00? Think again!
It seems that most people are catching coronavirus in private homes.
makes pubs shit to be in with distancing rules and masks etc
people start to socialise at home more
It seems that most people are catching coronavirus in private homes.
closes pubs earlier
people start to socialise at home more
It seems that most people are catching coronavirus in private homes.
close everything else, make meeting up outside illegal
people start to socialise at home more
It seems that most people are catching coronavirus in private homes.
I literally cannot come up with an explanation for this that isn't conspiratorial. For all of Boris' fluff, I don't believe that our Government is this incompetent or stupid - there has to be an ulterior motive here.
Wow now that everything is closed, 60% of infections are happening at home! Let’s restrict that!
Its just dumb.
Our government demonstrably is this incompetent. Not just on coronavirus.
I do believe the PM is this incompetent and stupid. He's demonstrated a total lack of belief in anything, and is utterly spineless.
(Un)fortunately, the same cannot be said for some of his staff. There's a certain special advisor who drove to a castle (and got a raise) who has an interesting history when it comes to his views on eugenics.
It comes as no surprise to me that, if one person in a household gets infected, everyone else would too.
What's the government supposed to do about that? Social distancing on the sofa?
* quarantine the infected person outside the home * develop protocols to avoid infection of the others * use medication that blocks people from getting infected * use measures to block infecting the others
It is kind of strange that in this situation somehow the government is justified in taking no action. While in others apparently they are obligated to act.
Never thought I'd say that in a positive manner though.
Wish you the better and best.
Minimizing contact and travel, together with masks and sanitation，is proven to work and currently the only solution- unless hey you have a non tyrannical alternative then please let me know
In some places, ruling parties have complained that they simply couldn’t prevent people from leaving even if they wanted to, because freely leaving and re-entering is enshrined in the country’s constitution. The UK, Australian, and New Zealand prevention on even leaving the country is much harsher than in most other developed countries.
"Minimizing contact and travel" is not the only solution, just perhaps the only solution you personally find palatable. Keeping borders open and simply accepting deaths works for me. Deaths are bad, but a new wave of nationalism and wall-building is worse.
Thats at least I gather from a Norwegian news site, but my Norwegian is not up to snuff.
I don't know, indefinite lockdown.
It's currently illegal to sit on a park bench.
I'll do it anyway, of course, but it might not be legal.
[redacted] 97 days since it was last legal for me to have a friend over for a cup of tea.
You know in the movies where at some point the psychotic main character thinks "I'm not the crazy one, it must be them"? I flip flop on this every other hour.
However, it didn't have to be this way. The UK practically beat the pandemic over summer, and then snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by persistently ignoring reality. Reopening schools, Eat Out To Help Out, failing to stop international travel - these are the things that led to the current situation.
Get mad, by all means. But place the blame where it belongs. We are doing the right thing now, in order to deal with the idiocy of before.
For me, it's the risk of death and/or a chronic condition, or the certainty of psychosis.
Hourly reminder that it's been almost 100 days since it was last legal for me to have a friend over for a cup of tea.
Best of luck, glad you're holding up well; sorry that I've failed you.
UK having what seems to be the most potent variant of the virus doesn't help, and the island factor either. Try to be strong, and don't let cabin fever tell you otherwise.
When is the last time you have even looked at one of them closely, let alone formed a close relationship?
It is something we humans have done our entire existence, until recently, yet many today go their entire life without such an experience.
I grew up outside a small rural town, running barefoot all over creation every chance I got, and most of the time by myself. These days I'm a wildlife photographer by avocation, and over the last couple of years I've gotten deeply into macro - I take pictures of wasps while they're doing wasp things, and as a result of that, I'm not only no longer afraid of them, I've kind of fallen in love with them. They are at this point by far my favorite insects, and high up among my favorite animals overall. I like them better than most mammals at this point, and some of the best pictures I've ever taken of a spider wasp, I got in my backyard last October. Aside from that, research papers on wasp ethology have been a gateway into entomology as a special interest, to an extent where if I had it to do over I might go into that instead of software engineering. I've even learned to make and bind books from scratch, initially because I wanted paper textbooks instead of PDFs.
All of that means a great deal to me. None of it makes up for the fact that, over the course of the last year, I've only been able to spend a few hours in the company of a friend, and none in that of colleagues. I'm somewhat solitary by inclination, and I think that makes it less hard on me than on most. But even for me, it's been hard. I can't imagine what it's been like for anyone who came into this both alone and without the good fortune of knowing how to be satisfied with their own company. These aren't good circumstances under which to have to learn that, and even the most cursory glance at the comments in this thread overall is enough to show that the success rate has probably not been high.
Yes, every so often you get someone like me, who can feel good for days about the pompilid wasp who turned up in his home office for an impromptu visit. Every so often you get a Birdman of Alcatraz, too. To suggest that everyone should just instantly be a Birdman - I mean, I get that you're trying to help, and I respect that. But you seem not to have given any thought to how to make your advice potentially useful to someone whose perspective differs greatly from your own.
It's an easy mistake to make - I do it often enough myself. But it's still a mistake, and it's why the criticism you're getting is warranted. The intention is obviously good, but the execution needs a deal of improvement.
Perhaps, then, it is worth re-evaluating how much we allow our lives to be controlled by threats and mass media messages.
I think it’s very healthy to avoid some government funded “services”, such as having children far away from government schools. If you are not paying, you are the product.
Would you recommend spending a couple of weeks on it? If so, are there translations to modern English, or is the original easy to understand for us in this century?
There was an article in the BBC a while back about two friends that met up for a walk in the country side, they drove to the meetup point. It wasn't the closest place they could have walked so they got fined.
Also IIRC, they were carrying a cup of coffee each so the police said technically they met for a picnic.
> if the police want to be arses
This is what's completely wrong about the situation.
Police officer had an argument with their spouse that morning and is in a shitty mood? Police officer was bullied at school and is using their power to punish the kind of person that looks like their bullies? Any number of entirely random things can change the "rules". Not good.
It's both sad and hilarious that going for a picnic is currently a criminal act.
We flew from Northern Europe to South Asia a week ago and the flights were filled 60-70%.
The pervasiveness of the UK variant in Europe would have been contained or at least decelerated with travel restrictions.
A living proof of this is both New Zealand and Australia. These countries still allowed for sea and air freight but banned travel. Both countries are roughly back to normal life, while we in Europe are still trying to blame pharmaceutical manufacturing vaccine output, as if that is the sole cause of our problems.
Also, because some EU countries are claiming that crossing their borders is only allowed for essential reasons proven by documentation, the airport in the country of origin will prevent many people from even being able to board the plane in the first place.
Bay Area Counties are starting to extend eligibility to essential workers.
Same time noises are that the amount of vaccine shipped is going to double in the next few weeks.
No shit. The problem is that when you get into the habit of drinking 2-3 drinks every night you’re bordering substance abuse. Also, “a few glasses” is enough to be arrested for drunk driving, so you might not be the caricature of a drunk but you’re drunk nonetheless.
Severance is a great way to understand your relationship with alcohol. The only reason it even seems weird is because the shit is so deeply embedded in our society. If you give up caffein, nobody gives a shit. Give up alcohol and suddenly people express incredulity at the very notion!
If you're drinking 3 bottles of beer a night, 7 days a week, you're likely consuming 6 units of alcohol a day, or 42 a week.
The NHS (UK health service) recommends less than 14 units a week, spread across at least 3 days (so less than 5 units a day, 3 days a week, tops).[0]
Drinking 3 beers a day 7 days a week results in you drinking more than 3 times the maximum weekly recommended allowance.
I think we're largely in agreement about how one can drink, but 2-3 drinks a day is not 'bordering' on substance abuse from a health perspective. Societally we've normalised drinking to this level, but it's not healthly, and is absolutely substance abuse.
It took me tracking my alcohol consumption daily before I realised that my 1-2 beers a weekday / 4-6 beers a weekendday was so far beyond what is healthy, that I stopped entirely for 6 months. I've since backslid back into 1-2 beers a day. I know it's wrong, but most of life is right now anyway that it doesn't seem like that big a deal anymore.
[0] https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/alcohol-support/calculating-alc...
Alcohol is embedded in our society because it is the traditional way for people to let off steam.
You have those backwards. It’s only the “traditional way” because we pretend it’s not just “getting high” like every other drug and we push it everywhere (on flights, in restaurants, on trains, during dress/suit fittings, at sporting events, etc etc etc).
It could just as easily have been any other drug.
If beer is your poison.
I suggest you should try to have a soft in a situation where you would have a drink. See if you're missing something, is it the taste ? the lack of alcool ? It really puts the relationship with the substance in the light, moderation doesn't mean you have total control, even if it does the trick for the body health.
It makes it easier to draw a line between work and leisure time. The alcohol signals to me and my brain that now it's time for some relaxed activities ... well, youtube, netflix, mubi, reading (hacker)news.
Work wise I'm probably working on the most important project of my life there's nowhere to offload that stress. Can't meet any friends not even allowed to meet outside, everyone stopped doing virtual meet ups months ago and just became introverted instead so what else is there.
While I didn't give up booze I introduced a rule that I won't drink during work week unless I'm in company and pretty much stuck to it.
That was before the whole mess started. But this, and sticking to a rigid daily work schedule (rigid in terms of time, in which I really fully work) helped me a lot to cope with it all.
Alcohol (and other drugs) may help to keep boredom away, but it comes with a heavy cost.
Not affiliated. Just like to put it on sometimes with a good indie playlist while I'm drinking coffee and doing work.
Here's some links, but searching for the right mood is fairly straightforward on YT:
Summer ambiance : https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=summer+ambience
Aircraft Carrier ambiance : https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aircraft+carrie...
'Epic' music : https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hero+music
Cafe ambiance : https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cafe+ambience+
Hufflepuff ambiance : https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hufflepuff+comm...
Such is the width of YouTubers that you can pretty much find anything you'd like!
cheers!
The opener. What a tune https://open.spotify.com/track/6uDF1hOBaZmVNRGZm1NE7g?si=RQz...
Though you're right grocery shopping is a pain.
And if they're actually going to a bar instead, then just close the bar at 6pm. A general curfew seems like a chainsaw approach, instead of a scalpel.
They survived the first lockdown but this one will surely have killed them off. Probably result in the historical buildings being sold off to be turned into luxury apartments.
I work from home more then I did before, but I still need to go do work in-person on our servers occasionally. I go get groceries on Saturdays (although I need to stand in line now). I wake-up, work, eat supper, watch something on TV and/or have computer time, goto bed, repeat.
My wife hasn't left the house since March or so. But she's an introvert like me.
But by any measurable metric, my life hasn't been inconvenienced. And I know that I am lucky.
But for me, this sort of thing just sends me further into a deep depression.
It ain't right. Pictures of food don't fix hunger.
I hope that we snap out of all of this soon. Writing these comments, just to leave a log, in case someone cares, if it all goes wrong.
I miss having the ability to miss. Having the feeling that others exist. Right now I feel that other people stopped existing.
<3
People are still people, we are just being told that people are unsafe, with an invisible enemy attacking. I think these lockdowns are too far, I think we can't hide from danger. Most people disagree with me. I can't say I've found a way to deal with this. I am depressed. I take medicine, but that only worked when things were normal. I am more depressed than I can remember, but it feels numb. When I was depressed in the past, I was actively sad, actively self-harming through excessive drug use. Now I am just, existing, like you said. But there is hope. We can get out of this mess, things are getting better. Hopefully things will be better soon.
Still, I'd love to go to this bar! Or the pub down the street.
Sure our rates are ‘high’ but are on par with places like California and New York who have very strict lockdowns.
I really miss just having a cup of coffee and talking to other people about nothing at all. Sure you can call people but it's hard to talk about nothing or just sit and look at the people going by on the phone.
(It's telling a lot about the state of the internet that this site loads google malware, but won't remember where I let the sliders when I refresh the page though.)
Point is, we paid for a year's membership we never used. And we're going to pay again this year just so the place stays in business (Eastside Gym for you Redmond, WA folks). One of these years we'll actually darken the doorstep of the place. In the meantime, our garage now has a new treadmill and rowing machine, and I finally tracked down some adjustable dumbbells. I'm a distance runner, so that should tide us over. If you're a lifter and don't have a big stack of plates at home already, my sympathies.
The gyms have finally opened up again two days ago, and while most of my body is hurting now, my mental well-being is going up again.
There is something about ambient noise from people that helps me work and focus. Offices and coffee shops closing has saved me a ton of transit and coffee money but it's hurt my productivity a lot.
With Youtube 1hr mixes of ambient people sounds and Pomodoros, I'm doing a bit better.
This is where an office or a commute happens, by the time you get home you really missed everybody, at least when everything is going right ;)
I don't miss commercial society, I don't miss their tropes and their rituals. Fake friendship and banter from people hanging around to get some of my money in exchange of half a glass of ice and a dribble of liquor.
Bonus annoyance this year: the eternal covid lamentations of bar and restaurant owners, as if governments purposely wanted to destroy their businesses, as if one's bar is more important than other people lives, as if they didn't paint themselves and their stupid restaurant for years as an example of entrepreneurship (apparently the free market is a good idea only when your business goes well).
To hell with paid service, picnics and aperitivi in the main square with cheap liquor and (honestly) friendly smiles.
"I command this dump to wither, board its doors and windows forever" as Dan Feeder says.
Does that make it acceptable in your country?
We really didn't. Had we done that, we may have succeeded in controlling this thing. Instead what happened was too little, too late, over and over again the government shut the stable door after the horse bolted.
The last lockdown was imposed when it was, essentially, because the powers that be wanted christmas retail open, and christmas day to happen, when cases were already massively on the rise. I'm not saying "it wasn't harsh enough", I'm saying that every time it's been done too late, and ramped up too slowly. It could have been shorter and well controlled had it been sooner, like it has been in other countries.
There's no need to be so incivil. Perhaps think about your own words.
I'm sorry you're so upset about this. It's not easy on any of us and it's been handled appallingly. But there really is no need to call someone that disagrees with you a "lockdown ####" and fantasise about violence upon them.
I'm not saying this as some sort of point of argument or to belittle you - it really sounds like you could use someone to talk through this with.
I'm calling for less locking down, but done earlier so that it can be shorter, and I'm largely talking about how it could have been done better last year. If that's enough for you to want to physically harm me, I really think you need to get that support.
I'd rather we go back in time and not normalize draconian, authoritarian restrictions on everyday life.
You may not like bars and the fact that they exchange services for money, but that doesn't mean you don't have to show sympathy for people who are losing everything because of a force majeure.
Nah, it’s almost certainly (at least in this context) your privilege. I should hope that you’d never have your income, overnight, ganked out from under you. Not to mention the dozens of other hard working, honest humans on your payroll.
I also hope nobody has the completely disconnected uppity spirit to post paragraphs of text telling you why you’re worthless, as you’re inhaling water and drowning. Because that would be shitty.
My tech job is very safe. My financial situation has not changed. But many of my friends own and work in bars and restaurants, and I have seen firsthand how their lives have been so negatively impacted by all of this.
In all sincerity: go fuck yourself.
I made myself resistant to THIS specific problem by decades of choices, losses and failures. My time to drown will come again as it did in the apat and hopefully won't blame others for that.
> Do you think the state should give you money or leave you to your enterprise?
I haven't taken a dime from any government entity, including the unemployment pool that I 100% qualify for and have spent the last 15 years paying into. I also have ~4 other streams of income, so yeah, leave me to my 'enterprise, I'm good.
> Do you think that taking things from businesses was some sort of conspiracy plan against business owners
No...
> or the result of something terrible
Correct.
> plus bad management
Nah we run an extremely dialed joint that pays all state & federal taxes with all cash components (door cover, tips, etc) on the books. My round of ownership (I'm 1 of 3) dug the place out of ~$100k in debt from prior ownership (primarily to other local vendors, and the IRS) and hard course corrected the place inside 24 months time. I'd argue we're a great example of fantastic management – in this business and plenty of others.
> plus decades of no preparation
I've been in this business for ~5 years, so I can't speak to decades.
> even when the scientific community was proactively warning everyone of this problem?
This is so wildy out of pocket, I can't even respond with anything reasonable.
Are you suggesting that restaurant/bar/venue owners should fall to zero and grind it out on the streets because they weren't accounting for scientific research that presented the possibility of a pandemic that'd stop all economic activity across the globe for 6+ months, and their businesses for 2+ years? Are you high?
> I made myself resistant to THIS specific problem by decades of choices, losses and failures.
Like I said, I'm good. But I also have a responsibility to a payroll of 18+ humans, and I'm not a large enough piece of shit to tell them that I win, they planned poorly, I am superior, and to hit the line at the fuckin' food bank.
> and hopefully won't blame others for that.
Nope but you'll blame the ones drowning as you stomp on their heads and flex on them with your wild time traveling foresight that makes you better than all of them and worthy of watching their lungs take on water with an 'I told you so' attitude. Hope that works out for you, boss.
The free market is a (sort of) good idea when acts of god don’t interfere.
Here in the UK we're not really even allowed to see friends outside.
Fuck off into the sun. Of course people are going to lament when their jobs vanish and the business they built over years of hard work is in a very real danger of tanking. I should know, my food service business is down quite a bit - and we're one of the lucky ones that is doing well enough to stay afloat given that we had a strong takeaway focus even before the C-19 hit. An entire segment of jobs blown away - what do those people do? Shit like "learn to code" is not a helpful answer, and history suggests that what they do end up doing after a long enough period of hopelessness is not pretty.
This statement is so confusing. Forcing millions of businesses which were previously legal to shutter under questionable authority is literally the opposite of a free market.
Things are starting to open up a bit in Chicago, but it won't be the same for a long time.
Meaning, all this stuff I usually try to tune off or ignore when I am(was) out.
I must be missing something?
Adjusting the sliders does nothing, such as changing the playlist. What am I missing?
On mobile, the play/pause buttons work but the sliders don’t do anything.
I miss the PEOPLE.
I used to go to "bars" and the like, but it was only to meet women and get laid. Now that I've secured the means to reproduction I don't have to force myself through that hell any more. Sites like this suggest there is something attractive about such places even if you take the sex away. I'm so happy, happier than I've ever been, that I don't have to go to bars or drink alcohol ever again.
A lot of people, especially in pub cultures like the UK socialise at their locals, they don’t just go there to aggressively pursue sex with strangers. It’s where they meet their friends after work, where they go to watch sport on the weekend etc.
> Sites like this suggest there is something attractive about such places even if you take the sex away.
It implies that you don’t know what that “something” is. This is what the replies to your comment are addressing.
I used to have "sex" and the like, but it was only to experience certain transmitters firing in my brain. Now that I've discovered my right hand I don't have to force myself through that hell any more. Comments like this suggest there is something attractive about such acts even if you take the pleasurable transmitters away. I'm so happy, happier than I've ever been, that I don't have to interact with another human ever again.
You are very, very lucky to have been able to find true happiness alone. You'll always have yourself and you won't be responsible for anyone else or have to worry about them. Some people might look down upon on you because you're not "doing your part" or something, but remember Stockholm syndrome is a real thing and you don't owe anyone anything.
Erm, you don't just like going to a pub or a bar with friends? Even if you don't, lots of people do. Perhaps what's different about you is that you assume your own tastes are universal... actually that's all too common with humans!
Bars/Pubs are an integral part of both socializing and unwinding with your work colleagues and also a destination to meet up with your close friends. In many places, it's actually far more about socializing.
Especially in this age where all of our interactions are through text, and there lingers the possibility that everyone else does not exist, solipsism is becoming increasingly true.
During this Pandemic i've lost three 'Friends' (Social Media acquaintances I knew from HS) to suicide and have not heard of a single person who's had any long-term damage from Covid and the majority of my friends have has it at one point in time by now. I got it in early March in SF and again in July in Miami. Both times i caught a little sniffle. I got tested and quarantined but it did not stop me or scare me away from living my life. Most of my friends have the money, willpower and social distain for authoritarian governments to move to wherever state is not trying to follow China's example. (Mainly Socal, Florida, even Mexico)
Smoking cigs, riding motorcycles, and a million other things can kill you in this life. Live your life and anyone who tells you "You must do this for the saftey of others" can go fuck themselves. You have no right to tell me what I can and can't do as long as i am not causing DIRECT harm to you. If you're scared of COVID stay inside, but let the rest of us live our lives.
Do you not count spreading a virus & possibly infecting others as causing direct harm?
As we are getting more and more data, the infection rate to death ratio is dropping lower and lower. At what point does Forcing people to lose their job and their entire lively-hoods, Taking on massive amounts of national debt that MY GENERATION will have to pay for, massive suicide increases going to be counted as direct harm? When we find out in the future after scrubbing all the data that the death toll was less than 1% but the suicide rate spiked by 30%, increased our total debt by 20% and fueled a massive recession in 5 years; how will future generations feel about the decisions we made?
> but the suicide rate spiked by 30%
Neither of these have happened.