The ultimate COVID thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted59964
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
crash2500 said:
The 'benefit' is equal rights. It's not just about police shootings but being treated and viewed as equal in all aspects of life. You can not put a number on equality. It is so much more than that.

It's like those old mastercard commercials...
Click to expand...

Well everyone’s an equal in the eyes of SARS Cov-2, so they’ve got that goin’ for ‘em.
 
SaltyDog said:
That's some hardcore rationalizing you guys undertaking there.

You wanna talk risk benefit - even if the end result of the protests was that unjustified police shootings went to zero (which is impossible), how many hundreds of lives were saved versus how many thousands were just exposed to Corona?

Any way you slice it, 10’s of thousands of people running amok in the streets is a much greater public health risk than 6000 screened MAGA buffoons in an arena.
Click to expand...

First of all, you're just making up some numbers for how many lives would be saved vs exposed to scov2 (what's the timeframe for each?- racism lasts for hundreds of years, COVID may last for 2), so it's kind of pointless without data. Even putting aside the fact that the rate of mask wearing is extraordinarily high at most protests, being outside does appear to confer some significant degree of protection (just two confirmed cases out of hundreds of people pool partying with no distancing at Lake of the Ozarks).

Secondly, even if you did have some numbers regarding Y protest-related COVID deaths vs X police brutality deaths, the kind of utilitarianism where we plug the raw numbers into a calculator and see which is higher is not automatically the superior philosophical stance with which to approach every moral problem.

But Mill also argues that it is sometimes right to violate general ethical rules:

... justice is a name for certain moral requirements, which, regarded collectively, stand higher in the scale of social utility, and are therefore of more paramount obligation, than any others; though particular cases may occur in which some other social duty is so important, as to overrule any one of the general maxims of justice. Thus, to save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by force, the necessary food or medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to officiate, the only qualified medical practitioner.[2]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SaltyDog said:
Again, so is your plan to go door to door forcibly testing everyone??

I'm not sure what you have in mind here as far as testing all these asymptomatic people.
Click to expand...
not sure what you mean by "again"?

anyway

no - i just suggest you copy what has worked in other countries.

social isolation as much as possible
make it possible to socially isolate by making sure people can afford it
encourage people to get tested if they have any symptoms
encourage good hand and cough hygiene / ettiquette
 
JobsFan said:
not sure what you mean by "again"?

anyway

no - i just suggest you copy what has worked in other countries.

social isolation as much as possible
make it possible to socially isolate by making sure people can afford it
encourage people to get tested if they have any symptoms
encourage good hand and cough hygiene / ettiquette
Click to expand...

Not shocking but COVID19 has become very politicized in the US. Making it possible to socially isolate by ensuring people can afford it means government handouts. That'll always be a political issue. COVID19 also hits the poor and elderly the hardest (mostly the elderly...) so there's been a real push by conservatives to get back to work for the sake of the economy. Masks have also become a political issue. Our mighty president never wears a mask, and while a mask was required for his poorly attended rally the other night, in my opinion when I'm out in public you can relatively easily delineate political belief based on mask on/off. America....
 
JobsFan said:
i just suggest you copy what has worked in other countries.

social isolation as much as possible
make it possible to socially isolate by making sure people can afford it
encourage people to get tested if they have any symptoms
encourage good hand and cough hygiene / ettiquette
Click to expand...

I agree with all of these points.
 
chocomorsel said:
“The American Museum of Natural History has asked to remove the Theodore Roosevelt statue because it explicitly depicts Black and Indigenous people as subjugated and racially inferior,” de Blasio said in a written statement. “The City supports the Museum’s request. It is the right decision and the right time to remove this problematic statue.”
You might want to ask your wife what she thinks of the native American next to the president. Maybe she doesn't have a problem. Maybe she does.
Click to expand...

I have a major problem with the removal of all traces of slave owners and “bad people” monuments based on current feelings of the population. While I agree that they should not be prominently lauded as heros without some qualifiers, I would like to see them collected and displayed in some manner. Those statues, showing the casual racist mentality of historical figures, should be seen as an opportunity to prompt discussion for generations to come. It just requires reframing the exhibit.

When I take my kids through a place like Monticello, we discuss the great things that were done by the founding fathers, as well as the bad. Burning that site to the ground would get rid of a lot of the history there. I still remember going there as a young teen, and learning for the first time about his life including some of the less pristine spots on his record. It introduced to me the fallibility of historical figures and cemented a number of thoughts on how trust of the “common sense/prevailing opinion” ideas of the population are often times routes to horrible conclusions. This happened because my parents took the time to discuss those sides of the visit, but probably would not have been either prompted or as effective without seeing the memorials as they were.

I don’t know the perspective of a black or other minority person, so maybe these visages are so disgusting that they can’t be redeemed in their eyes. I would hope that reframing the exhibits would be a way to serve both purposes without losing those teachable moments. My fear is that generations to come will get the “whitewashed” textbook version of history to an even greater degree without these concrete (or bronze) examples of where we have been.
 
pjl said:
I have a major problem with the removal of all traces of slave owners and “bad people” monuments based on current feelings of the population. While I agree that they should not be prominently lauded as heros without some qualifiers, I would like to see them collected and displayed in some manner. Those statues, showing the casual racist mentality of historical figures, should be seen as an opportunity to prompt discussion for generations to come. It just requires reframing the exhibit.

When I take my kids through a place like Monticello, we discuss the great things that were done by the founding fathers, as well as the bad. Burning that site to the ground would get rid of a lot of the history there. I still remember going there as a young teen, and learning for the first time about his life including some of the less pristine spots on his record. It introduced to me the fallibility of historical figures and cemented a number of thoughts on how trust of the “common sense/prevailing opinion” ideas of the population are often times routes to horrible conclusions. This happened because my parents took the time to discuss those sides of the visit, but probably would not have been either prompted or as effective without seeing the memorials as they were.

I don’t know the perspective of a black or other minority person, so maybe these visages are so disgusting that they can’t be redeemed in their eyes. I would hope that reframing the exhibits would be a way to serve both purposes without losing those teachable moments. My fear is that generations to come will get the “whitewashed” textbook version of history to an even greater degree without these concrete (or bronze) examples of where we have been.
Click to expand...
Take them and put them in museums where people who want to see those figures or symbols of racism or whatever they are can go see them on their own time.

We shouldn’t have to look at them as we go about our business.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
chocomorsel said:
Take them and put them in museums where people who want to see those figures or symbols of racism or whatever they are can go see them on their own time.

We shouldn’t have to look at them as we go about our business.
Click to expand...

Smithsoniam Museum of American Atrocities has a nice ring to it.
Wait...edit:
Museum of America’s Greatest Atrocities is just so much better
 
pjl said:
I have a major problem with the removal of all traces of slave owners and “bad people” monuments based on current feelings of the population. While I agree that they should not be prominently lauded as heros without some qualifiers, I would like to see them collected and displayed in some manner. Those statues, showing the casual racist mentality of historical figures, should be seen as an opportunity to prompt discussion for generations to come. It just requires reframing the exhibit.

When I take my kids through a place like Monticello, we discuss the great things that were done by the founding fathers, as well as the bad. Burning that site to the ground would get rid of a lot of the history there. I still remember going there as a young teen, and learning for the first time about his life including some of the less pristine spots on his record. It introduced to me the fallibility of historical figures and cemented a number of thoughts on how trust of the “common sense/prevailing opinion” ideas of the population are often times routes to horrible conclusions. This happened because my parents took the time to discuss those sides of the visit, but probably would not have been either prompted or as effective without seeing the memorials as they were.

I don’t know the perspective of a black or other minority person, so maybe these visages are so disgusting that they can’t be redeemed in their eyes. I would hope that reframing the exhibits would be a way to serve both purposes without losing those teachable moments. My fear is that generations to come will get the “whitewashed” textbook version of history to an even greater degree without these concrete (or bronze) examples of where we have been.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you are saying.

I think a big issue is the fact that these people are lauded in our history disproportionately to the black and other people of color that played significant rolls in this country's history.
 
crash2500 said:
The whole point of this movement is to try to see things from others' perspectives...
Click to expand...

Please try to pay attention and not turn this debate into something it's not (ironic that you are failing to see my perspective). I'm not against BLM. The protestors certainly have legitimate grievances. My problem is with the shameless hypocrisy of allowing one group to gather and protest violating social distancing guidelines while at the same time trying to prevent another group from doing the same thing (all because one side is aligned with you politically while the other is not). I would be just as peeved if MAGAtards were flooding streets all the while trying to stop a Biden rally.
 
vector2 said:
First of all, you're just making up some numbers for how many lives would be saved vs exposed to scov2 (what's the timeframe for each?- racism lasts for hundreds of years, COVID may last for 2), so it's kind of pointless without data. Even putting aside the fact that the rate of mask wearing is extraordinarily high at most protests, being outside does appear to confer some significant degree of protection (just two confirmed cases out of hundreds of people pool partying with no distancing at Lake of the Ozarks).

Secondly, even if you did have some numbers regarding Y protest-related COVID deaths vs X police brutality deaths, the kind of utilitarianism where we plug the raw numbers into a calculator and see which is higher is not automatically the superior philosophical stance with which to approach every moral problem.
Click to expand...

First off, see my post above.

Second, please don't try to pretend like there was some science based decision on the part of the Left to endorse protests while trying to shutter a rally because one is outdoors. These are the same people that shutdown beaches and arrested lone paddleboarders.

The numbers are actually easy to figure out. Whats the mortality rate for COVID v. incidence of being wrongfully killed by police as a person of color? I don't want to get hung up on that point though. Again, my problem is not with allowing protests. It's with allowing protests for one cause but not another. That's horses*** hypocrisy and you know it. Either everyone can gather in the face of the pandemic - social distancing be damned, or no one can. The cause is irrelevant when we are talking about a virus that doesn't care what your political affiliations are.
 
SaltyDog said:
Please try to pay attention and not turn this debate into something it's not (ironic that you are failing to see my perspective). I'm not against BLM. The protestors certainly have legitimate grievances. My problem is with the shameless hypocrisy of allowing one group to gather and protest violating social distancing guidelines while at the same time trying to prevent another group from doing the same thing (all because one side is aligned with you politically while the other is not). I would be just as peeved if MAGAtards were flooding streets all the while trying to stop a Biden rally.
Click to expand...

Where are people being prevented from gathering?
If anything the police have seemed to be harsher towards equality protestors than the we don't need to wear masks/open my business protestors. But obviously I haven't seen every news story out there.
 
It's
SaltyDog said:
Please try to pay attention and not turn this debate into something it's not (ironic that you are failing to see my perspective). I'm not against BLM. The protestors certainly have legitimate grievances. My problem is with the shameless hypocrisy of allowing one group to gather and protest violating social distancing guidelines while at the same time trying to prevent another group from doing the same thing (all because one side is aligned with you politically while the other is not). I would be just as peeved if MAGAtards were flooding streets all the while trying to stop a Biden rally.
Click to expand...

It's not about 'allowing' one group and not another. Obviously both scenarios are risky.

Maybe it is 'political' but gathering for the sake of civil liberties is still different than gathering for the sake of gathering.
 
Southpaw said:
Masks have also become a political issue. Our mighty president never wears a mask, and while a mask was required for his poorly attended rally the other night, in my opinion when I'm out in public you can relatively easily delineate political belief based on mask on/off. America....
Click to expand...

A nearby county health officer had to quit because she was getting death threats and protesters at her home for trying to mandate masks in public.

losangeles.cbslocal.com

Orange County Health Officer Nichole Quick Resigns After Facing Threats For Issuing Face Mask Order

Orange County's chief health officer has resigned after facing backlash over her countywide mask order in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
losangeles.cbslocal.com losangeles.cbslocal.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaltyDog said:
First off, see my post above.

Second, please don't try to pretend like there was some science based decision on the part of the Left to endorse protests while trying to shutter a rally because one is outdoors. These are the same people that shutdown beaches and arrested lone paddleboarders.

The numbers are actually easy to figure out. Whats the mortality rate for COVID v. incidence of being wrongfully killed by police as a person of color? I don't want to get hung up on that point though. Again, my problem is not with allowing protests. It's with allowing protests for one cause but not another. That's horses*** hypocrisy and you know it. Either everyone can gather in the face of the pandemic - social distancing be damned, or no one can. The cause is irrelevant when we are talking about a virus that doesn't care what your political affiliations are.
Click to expand...

It seems like you’re really unable to understand the false equivalency that you’re making, so I’ll simplify it for you. Fighting for civil rights vis a vis BLM protests is a moral cause. Going to a 100% political, for-entertainment-purposes-only, indoor, circus master clownshow is not. If Biden was hosting similar indoor clownshows and I said nothing about those, then maybe you’d have a point. If you were bringing up 2A statehouse rallies where people (no matter how misguided) are demonstrating for what they believe is an existential threat to their life and liberty and I was trying to complain about their lack of social distancing, then maybe you’d have a point. Currently though, you’re just ridiculously misguided trying to call out “horse**** hypocrisy” when we’re talking about apples and oranges.
 
SaltyDog said:
You see apples and oranges, COVID just sees fruit.
Click to expand...

Social distancing is not a moral imperative which automatically outweighs every other moral imperative. We would both agree that “it’s ok” to break social distancing if you had to get medicine for your kid, right? You may not see the BLM movement on that same level- just understand that many do. And if you want to say that people who believe in a once-in-a-generation civil rights protest to effect lasting change against systemic racism are just as dumb and irresponsible as the people who purposely crowd themselves indoors with no masks for a 2 hr stage show, then I guess that’s your prerogative.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
vector2 said:
Social distancing is not a moral imperative which automatically outweighs every other moral imperative. We would both agree that “it’s ok” to break social distancing if you had to get medicine for your kid, right? You may not see the BLM movement on that same level- just understand that many do. And if you want to say that people who believe in a once-in-a-generation civil rights protest to effect lasting change against systemic racism are just as dumb and irresponsible as the people who purposely crowd themselves indoors with no masks for a 2 hr stage show, then I guess that’s your prerogative.
Click to expand...

The MAGA brigade has strong feelings that the progressive Left will destroy America. That's not my viewpoint, but it is there's, and they feel the need to rally around Trump for that reason. Those folks feel just as strongly about this as the BLM folks do about police reform and social/racial injustice.

You don't get to be the moral police and decide whose side has merit and whose doesn't.

Political protests are either an "essential" activity, or they're not. They are not "essential" for one group but not another.

If a person dies from COVID as the result of coming into contact with someone carrying the virus they picked up from a BLM protest, they are equally as dead as if they caught it from someone who was at a Trump rally.
 
SaltyDog said:
You see apples and oranges, COVID just sees fruit.
Click to expand...

You are of course correct that COVID doesn't care of the cause of the gathering. Any gathering, whether its a BLM protest or a Trump rally or college kids at a bar is going to spread the virus. There are of course degrees, more people is worse then less, inside is worse then outside, less masking is worse then more masking, but any large gatherings = opportunity for viral spread.

Where the disconnect comes in is in assigning the value to these events, i.e., the benefit, to decide if the benefit outweighs the risk of viral spread. Should we allow restrictions in social distancing to get the economy moving and let people work in the office or factories? People in restaurants (both economy moving and leisure)? Non-essential stores? To support political candidates? To protest systemic racism and police brutality? Where do we draw the line? Of course your answer will depend on numerous factors, but many individuals, myself included, feel that the protest of systemic racism is a worthy cause that may be worth running the risk of COVID transmission.

Do I wish these protests were happening at a different time? Of course. But the time in history is now. And quite frankly, it is not up to you, or me, or any individual about to tell POC and their allies how and when to protest systemic racism and brutality. Raising a fist on the podium was panned. Taking a knee was panned. Sit ins and marches and walk outs and strikes all get panned. At some point you need to realize as I did that by standing against the methods of protest and ignoring the substance, you are tacitly supporting what is being protested against.
 
SaltyDog said:
The MAGA brigade has strong feelings that the progressive Left will destroy America. That's not my viewpoint, but it is there's, and they feel the need to rally around Trump for that reason. Those folks feel just as strongly about this as the BLM folks do about police reform and social/racial injustice.

You don't get to be the moral police and decide whose side has merit and whose doesn't.

Political protests are either an "essential" activity, or they're not. They are not "essential" for one group but not another.

If a person dies from COVID as the result of coming into contact with someone carrying the virus they picked up from a BLM protest, they are equally as dead as if they caught it from someone who was at a Trump rally.
Click to expand...

As I said, it’s your prerogative. And yea, I do get to decide which side has merit. As do you. As does the rest of society. So far most of America has agreed that BLM protests have a moral imperative which outweighs social distancing and thus they’ve been allowed to continue, just as the Tulsa local government did with the MAGA rally. And as long as you think both those things are 100% equivalent, then no one is gonna force you to retract your hypocrisy claim.

But as the poster above described, there are degrees of acceptability and a line is drawn somewhere. We have some set of shared values where your “you don’t get to be the moral police” zinger becomes absurd, right? Neo-nazis might very well have a moral imperative against “White Replacement” that necessitates them holding a huge indoor genocide planning rally. Are you going to try to throw your zinger in my face because the skinheads “feel very strongly” that their political cause has “merit” ?
 
vector2 said:
Social distancing is not a moral imperative which automatically outweighs every other moral imperative. We would both agree that “it’s ok” to break social distancing if you had to get medicine for your kid, right? You may not see the BLM movement on that same level- just understand that many do. And if you want to say that people who believe in a once-in-a-generation civil rights protest to effect lasting change against systemic racism are just as dumb and irresponsible as the people who purposely crowd themselves indoors with no masks for a 2 hr stage show, then I guess that’s your prerogative.
Click to expand...
It's interesting to me that you still can't seem to grok the concept that those people you hate so much in the arena have their own deeply held beliefs they hope to effect via re-election of Trump. They think gathering to be heard is worth the risk they think they're taking.

"You may not see the BLM movement re-elect Trump on that same level- just understand that many do."

We argue this point a lot, it seems.

As a white guy I don't really identify with or claim any common experience with any of the BLM protesters. As an overeducated guy who's lived 100% of my life within 30 minutes of an ocean, I don't really identify with or claim any common experience with these flyover state Trump rally-goers. But I listen to both and feel like I have some understanding of why they're angry and what they care about, and I don't hold either in contempt even though I don't fully agree with every bit of either side's positions.
 
pgg said:
It's interesting to me that you still can't seem to grok the concept that those people you hate so much in the arena have their own deeply held beliefs they hope to effect via re-election of Trump. They think gathering to be heard is worth the risk they think they're taking.

"You may not see the BLM movement re-elect Trump on that same level- just understand that many do."

We argue this point a lot, it seems.

As a white guy I don't really identify with or claim any common experience with any of the BLM protesters. As an overeducated guy who's lived 100% of my life within 30 minutes of an ocean, I don't really identify with or claim any common experience with these flyover state Trump rally-goers. But I listen to both and feel like I have some understanding of why they're angry and what they care about, and I don't hold either in contempt even though I don't fully agree with every bit of either side's positions.
Click to expand...

I’ve lived most of my life in deep red flyover country, so believe me, I get where they’re coming from. My main point of contention is that the hypocrisy argument from Salty is really only intelligible if he was comparing the intentions and risks of a MAGA rally to something that was actually equivalent, aka a Biden rally.


Also, I don’t hate the people at MAGA rallies- I pity them.
 
DoctwoB said:
Do I wish these protests were happening at a different time? Of course. But the time in history is now. And quite frankly, it is not up to you, or me, or any individual about to tell POC and their allies how and when to protest systemic racism and brutality. Raising a fist on the podium was panned. Taking a knee was panned. Sit ins and marches and walk outs and strikes all get panned. At some point you need to realize as I did that by standing against the methods of protest and ignoring the substance, you are tacitly supporting what is being protested against.
Click to expand...

I’m not trying to tell anyone how or when to protest. I’m just saying that if it’s OK for one group to gather and protest, then it’s OK for all groups.

Funny how many people are trying to put words in my mouth.
 
pgg said:
It's interesting to me that you still can't seem to grok the concept that those people you hate so much in the arena have their own deeply held beliefs they hope to effect via re-election of Trump. They think gathering to be heard is worth the risk they think they're taking.

"You may not see the BLM movement re-elect Trump on that same level- just understand that many do."

We argue this point a lot, it seems.

As a white guy I don't really identify with or claim any common experience with any of the BLM protesters. As an overeducated guy who's lived 100% of my life within 30 minutes of an ocean, I don't really identify with or claim any common experience with these flyover state Trump rally-goers. But I listen to both and feel like I have some understanding of why they're angry and what they care about, and I don't hold either in contempt even though I don't fully agree with every bit of either side's positions.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your premise, the problem isn't with the really goers. I don't fault them. The problem is with Trump, the president of this country, deciding that having a rally is important enough despite the risks of an ongoing pandemic. It's narcissistic to a whole other level.
 
vector2 said:
comparing the intentions and risks of a MAGA rally to something that was actually equivalent
Click to expand...

The risks ARE equivalent.

The intentions are a matter of perspective.

Again, if political protests/rallies are “essential” in the time of COVID, then that status should be afforded to all, not just those causes with which you yourself identify.
 
Southpaw said:
Not shocking but COVID19 has become very politicized in the US. Making it possible to socially isolate by ensuring people can afford it means government handouts. That'll always be a political issue. COVID19 also hits the poor and elderly the hardest (mostly the elderly...) so there's been a real push by conservatives to get back to work for the sake of the economy. Masks have also become a political issue. Our mighty president never wears a mask, and while a mask was required for his poorly attended rally the other night, in my opinion when I'm out in public you can relatively easily delineate political belief based on mask on/off. America....
Click to expand...
i know it’s political, it is outside the US too. somehow all the has to be paid for.

in the mean time, if you don’t hand over the cash so poor people can socially isolate they will go to work, and spread the virus ... including to rich people.

problem is - having a mass pandemic is expensive no matter what you do
 
SaltyDog said:
I’m not trying to tell anyone how or when to protest. I’m just saying that if it’s OK for one group to gather and protest, then it’s OK for all groups.

Funny how many people are trying to put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

Thats just the point. It’s NOT ok for all groups to gather for any reason. My point is that gathering is bad, but gathering for moral purposes at least in part mitigates the immorality of said badness. And while opinions of what is moral vary, morality isn’t relative.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
SaltyDog said:
I’m not trying to tell anyone how or when to protest. I’m just saying that if it’s OK for one group to gather and protest, then it’s OK for all groups.

Funny how many people are trying to put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

It would be one thing if a pro-Trump group decided to hold a rally for the things that they care about, sans-Trump. I could on some level consider it equivalent to a BLM/civil rights rally. But I actually think that the President of the United States should be held to a wee bit of a higher standard. E.g. not holding or encouraging a political mass gathering during a pandemic. Of course my standard of a good day for this President is not wanting to facepalm at something that he said.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaltyDog said:
The risks ARE equivalent.

The intentions are a matter of perspective.

Again, if political protests/rallies are “essential” in the time of COVID, then that status should be afforded to all, not just those causes with which you yourself identify.
Click to expand...
Twiggidy said:
Slam dunk.

This is not even arguable
Click to expand...

How is it a slam dunk? We agree that many if not most fatalities are bad, but don't we also agree that some are more justifiable than others? I'm sure we can both think of a dozen examples.

I'm still waiting for Salty to address breaking social distancing to get medicine for your kid, or breaking social distancing so neonazis can have a hate rally, since apparently ALL "political" causes are the same and we've somehow transitioned into a state of total nihilistic moral relativism. And never anyone mind that an actual apples to apples comparison of a Trump vs Biden rally or full blown RNC vs full blown DNC doesn't exist.
 
vector2 said:
How is it a slam dunk? We agree that many if not most fatalities are bad, but don't we also agree that some are more justifiable than others? I'm sure we can both think of a dozen examples.

I'm still waiting for Salty to address breaking social distancing to get medicine for your kid, or breaking social distancing so neonazis can have a hate rally, since apparently ALL "political" causes are the same and we've somehow transitioned into a state of total nihilistic moral relativism. And never anyone mind that an actual apples to apples comparison of a Trump vs Biden rally or full blown RNC vs full blown DNC doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Salty is just calling out the hypocrisy, which is legitimate. You’re no more “right” to disobey social distancing at a protest then you would be at a rally. In either case you’re breaking distancing and risking getting COVID
 
Twiggidy said:
Salty is just calling out the hypocrisy, which is legitimate. You’re no more “right” to disobey social distancing at a protest then you would be at a rally. In either case you’re breaking distancing and risking getting COVID
Click to expand...

Sad thing is people have already broken social distancing rules regularly, even in blue states like NY. If social distancing has to be violated, might as well use it for good reasons like protesting for social change.
 
Twiggidy said:
It's cancel culture on steroids
Click to expand...

Still, it'd be better if all Confederate statues and flags were destroyed now and completely renaming everything related to Confederates. That should be the major focus now before doing anything else
 
Lawpy said:
Still, it'd be better if all Confederate statues and flags were destroyed now and completely renaming everything related to Confederates. That should be the major focus now before doing anything else
Click to expand...

Not destroyed. Placed in museums to remind us of who we were and what we were capable of and what many of us chose to honor for 150+ years after the end of the civil war.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Twiggidy said:
Salty is just calling out the hypocrisy, which is legitimate. You’re no more “right” to disobey social distancing at a protest then you would be at a rally. In either case you’re breaking distancing and risking getting COVID
Click to expand...

It's not about the people at the rally. It's the narcissistic president that decides to have a rally in the middle of a pandemic.
 
dr doze said:
Not destroyed. Placed in museums to remind us of who we were and what we were capable of and what many of us chose to honor for 150+ years after the end of the civil war.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Click to expand...

I can be ok with that as a sort of compromise. I also support protesters vandalizing the statues and property. It's just irritating to think anyone will view statues of racists, traitors and war criminals with high regard.

The thing is, if i put a statue of Sherman or Grant in the South, the proud Confederate lovers will vandalize or destroy them easily because the statues to them represent war criminals who destroyed southern pride.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Lawpy said:
I can be ok with that as a sort of compromise. I also support protesters vandalizing the statues and property. It's just irritating to think anyone will view statues of racists, traitors and war criminals with high regard.

The thing is, if i put a statue of Sherman or Grant in the South, the proud Confederate lovers will vandalize or destroy them easily because the statues to them represent war criminals who destroyed southern pride.
Click to expand...
Radicals and anarchists do not believe in compromise. The idea to put the Confederate statues into museums is an acceptable idea to me, but it's not good enough for the unhinged rioters. They want chaos, destruction of Western culture, and control. Besides, just look at what they're upset about in NYC. A Teddy Roosevelt statue that sits at the entrance to a museum.
 
Twiggidy said:
I’m mean not really abnormal since we are still in a pandemic and the candidate is an a high risk age bracket.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a sign that he doesn't have the physical fortitude for the job?
And you really believe the pandemic is why he is isolated?
 
Says Houston is approaching ICU bed capacity. Anybody know if elective cases are paused again there?


apple.news

Virus surges across U.S., throwing reopenings into disarray — Bloomberg

Newly diagnosed cases of Covid-19 and other indicators of the pandemic’s spread soared in hot spots across the U.S., driving city and state officials to consider slowing or reversing reopening plans.
apple.news apple.news

www.tmc.edu

TMC ICU Bed Capacity and Plans - Texas Medical Center

Located in the heart of Houston, Texas Medical Center campus is home to leaders in research, medicine, and innovation in healthcare.
www.tmc.edu www.tmc.edu
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump at his empty arena rally in OK: I told them to ramp down testing.

White House: He was just joking! Come on, you gotta be kidding me. No one would be crazy enough to actually do that.

2 days later:
 
nimbus said:
Says Houston is approaching ICU bed capacity. Anybody know if elective cases are paused again there?


apple.news

Virus surges across U.S., throwing reopenings into disarray — Bloomberg

Newly diagnosed cases of Covid-19 and other indicators of the pandemic’s spread soared in hot spots across the U.S., driving city and state officials to consider slowing or reversing reopening plans.
apple.news apple.news

www.tmc.edu

TMC ICU Bed Capacity and Plans - Texas Medical Center

Located in the heart of Houston, Texas Medical Center campus is home to leaders in research, medicine, and innovation in healthcare.
www.tmc.edu www.tmc.edu
Click to expand...
Incredible. TMC is an absolutely enormous medical center and right now about 30% of its ICU beds are being filled by just the Covid patients. And they're not even close to their peak. I am hearing Dallas and Austin are both getting close to capacity as well. This is gonna get ugly.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DrAmir0078
10-Second Anesthesia Pearls — Feedback Thread
Replies
4
Views
1K
DrAmir0078
DrAmir0078
U
Covid vaccine Jama
Replies
32
Views
3K
Arch Guillotti
Arch Guillotti
B
2024-2025 ACCM fellowship thread
Replies
1
Views
2K
NicholasPavona
N
C
New, annoying debate thread?
2
Replies
84
Views
6K
arsene19
A
Doc mu
What's the deal with the disrespect for anesthesiologists by surgeons/ancillary?
Replies
46
Views
5K
pgg
pgg
Top Bottom