Where do you stand on "living with Covid", "getting back to normal"

[RetiredAt63]

I don't think the United States agrees in the slightest whether there is any mutual obligation to one another at all.

If there is obligation, we disagree about its extent.

If we were to agree on the extent, we disagree about whether the government should enforce it. 

And if the government should enforce it, whether that enforcement should be state or federal.

Our current reality would be much different if we agreed that (1) we have basic mutual obligations, (2) expert knowledge is an accepted way of articulating the best way to implement those obligations, and (3) the federal government should use the force of law to require the behaviors that experts think best respects our mutual obligations.

But we agree on none of those points, and so we just keep muddling through.

You know, as your next-door neighbor this is scary.  When this is how your politicians think, it doesn't bode well for how you treat other countries, and how well you adhere to treaties.   Hey everyone, my next door country is a narcissistic sociopath!

Sorry*, but you said it.


*Of course I said I'm sorry, I'm Canadian and I mean it.

[OtherJen]

@nereo Good to know.  Seems like we might need to update the triage protocols for voluntarily assumed and anti-social risk, in the same way that the alcoholic should be at the back of the line for a liver transplant.

I'd hope (foolishly of course) that we could take some of the heat out of this debate if we could all be a lot clearer on what anti-covid measures were actually for. 

I don't think the United States agrees in the slightest whether there is any mutual obligation to one another at all.

If there is obligation, we disagree about its extent.

If we were to agree on the extent, we disagree about whether the government should enforce it. 

And if the government should enforce it, whether that enforcement should be state or federal.

Our current reality would be much different if we agreed that (1) we have basic mutual obligations, (2) expert knowledge is an accepted way of articulating the best way to implement those obligations, and (3) the federal government should use the force of law to require the behaviors that experts think best respects our mutual obligations.

But we agree on none of those points, and so we just keep muddling through.

Yes, I adamantly disagree on this point. American is a representative republic, not a technocracy. Experts are just as human as the rest of us and have their biases and agendas. Fauci lied repeatedly about funding the research that almost certainly led to the release of this pandemic into the world. Why should he get to decide how we get to live our lives? I'm thankful to not live in a dictatorship like China, or a quasi-dictatorship like Australia, where the federal government can restrict my movements, or right to free speech, or arbitrarily shut down my business.

If everyone's opinion is equal, what's the point in becoming an expert in anything, or encouraging others to become experts? Why bother?

[Jon Bon]

Well if we had a new normal it sounds like we rapidly will be accepting a "new new normal"

Everything about O sounds like its just contagious as hell. I was reading everyone is going to end up being in contact with it at some point. Not much we can do about that. Hopefully the vaccines hold this thing back pretty well.

I just hope business are able to stay open and kids can stay in school. It would be a shame to shut those things down again. The international effect of this is also going to be pretty terrible.

[Chris22]

@nereo Good to know.  Seems like we might need to update the triage protocols for voluntarily assumed and anti-social risk, in the same way that the alcoholic should be at the back of the line for a liver transplant.

I'd hope (foolishly of course) that we could take some of the heat out of this debate if we could all be a lot clearer on what anti-covid measures were actually for. 

I don't think the United States agrees in the slightest whether there is any mutual obligation to one another at all.

If there is obligation, we disagree about its extent.

If we were to agree on the extent, we disagree about whether the government should enforce it. 

And if the government should enforce it, whether that enforcement should be state or federal.

Our current reality would be much different if we agreed that (1) we have basic mutual obligations, (2) expert knowledge is an accepted way of articulating the best way to implement those obligations, and (3) the federal government should use the force of law to require the behaviors that experts think best respects our mutual obligations.

But we agree on none of those points, and so we just keep muddling through.

Yes, I adamantly disagree on this point. American is a representative republic, not a technocracy. Experts are just as human as the rest of us and have their biases and agendas. Fauci lied repeatedly about funding the research that almost certainly led to the release of this pandemic into the world. Why should he get to decide how we get to live our lives? I'm thankful to not live in a dictatorship like China, or a quasi-dictatorship like Australia, where the federal government can restrict my movements, or right to free speech, or arbitrarily shut down my business.

If everyone's opinion is equal, what's the point in becoming an expert in anything, or encouraging others to become experts? Why bother?

It used to be that the expert was an expert in a certain subject matter, but elected officials’ jobs were to take the experts’ advice and then balance that with all other factors to make decisions. Not to just cede all control to them.

[RetiredAt63]

@nereo Good to know.  Seems like we might need to update the triage protocols for voluntarily assumed and anti-social risk, in the same way that the alcoholic should be at the back of the line for a liver transplant.

I'd hope (foolishly of course) that we could take some of the heat out of this debate if we could all be a lot clearer on what anti-covid measures were actually for. 

I don't think the United States agrees in the slightest whether there is any mutual obligation to one another at all.

If there is obligation, we disagree about its extent.

If we were to agree on the extent, we disagree about whether the government should enforce it. 

And if the government should enforce it, whether that enforcement should be state or federal.

Our current reality would be much different if we agreed that (1) we have basic mutual obligations, (2) expert knowledge is an accepted way of articulating the best way to implement those obligations, and (3) the federal government should use the force of law to require the behaviors that experts think best respects our mutual obligations.

But we agree on none of those points, and so we just keep muddling through.

Yes, I adamantly disagree on this point. American is a representative republic, not a technocracy. Experts are just as human as the rest of us and have their biases and agendas. Fauci lied repeatedly about funding the research that almost certainly led to the release of this pandemic into the world. Why should he get to decide how we get to live our lives? I'm thankful to not live in a dictatorship like China, or a quasi-dictatorship like Australia, where the federal government can restrict my movements, or right to free speech, or arbitrarily shut down my business.

If everyone's opinion is equal, what's the point in becoming an expert in anything, or encouraging others to become experts? Why bother?

It used to be that the expert was an expert in a certain subject matter, but elected officials’ jobs were to take the experts’ advice and then balance that with all other factors to make decisions. Not to just cede all control to them.

 

What I see in too many politicians (take my Premier - please) is that business interests far outweigh the advice from other expert sources.  Not a lot of balancing of various factors there.

[deborah]

@nereo Good to know.  Seems like we might need to update the triage protocols for voluntarily assumed and anti-social risk, in the same way that the alcoholic should be at the back of the line for a liver transplant.

I'd hope (foolishly of course) that we could take some of the heat out of this debate if we could all be a lot clearer on what anti-covid measures were actually for. 

I don't think the United States agrees in the slightest whether there is any mutual obligation to one another at all.

If there is obligation, we disagree about its extent.

If we were to agree on the extent, we disagree about whether the government should enforce it. 

And if the government should enforce it, whether that enforcement should be state or federal.

Our current reality would be much different if we agreed that (1) we have basic mutual obligations, (2) expert knowledge is an accepted way of articulating the best way to implement those obligations, and (3) the federal government should use the force of law to require the behaviors that experts think best respects our mutual obligations.

But we agree on none of those points, and so we just keep muddling through.

Yes, I adamantly disagree on this point. American is a representative republic, not a technocracy. Experts are just as human as the rest of us and have their biases and agendas. Fauci lied repeatedly about funding the research that almost certainly led to the release of this pandemic into the world. Why should he get to decide how we get to live our lives? I'm thankful to not live in a dictatorship like China, or a quasi-dictatorship like Australia, where the federal government can restrict my movements, or right to free speech, or arbitrarily shut down my business. 

Sorry, but Australia IS NOT a quasi-dictatorship. Last I saw, we were a FULL DEMOCRACY rather than a FLAWED DEMOCRACY or a HYBRID REGIME or and AUTHORITARIAN regime. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index for the democracy index. Part of the requirement of a full democracy, in my opinion is valuing your fellow citizens. Democracies vote for their government, and the ones whose candidates don't for government accept that this has happened and accept the laws that the government passes, no matter whether they disagree. Their candidates may argue in parliament about proposed laws, and compromises may be made. The next time, their candidates may form government, and change the laws. Obviously, some people in this forum who live in FLAWED DEMOCRACIES are not familiar with the need to value your fellow citizens.

[PDXTabs]

@nereo Good to know.  Seems like we might need to update the triage protocols for voluntarily assumed and anti-social risk, in the same way that the alcoholic should be at the back of the line for a liver transplant.

I'd hope (foolishly of course) that we could take some of the heat out of this debate if we could all be a lot clearer on what anti-covid measures were actually for. 

I don't think the United States agrees in the slightest whether there is any mutual obligation to one another at all.

If there is obligation, we disagree about its extent.

If we were to agree on the extent, we disagree about whether the government should enforce it. 

And if the government should enforce it, whether that enforcement should be state or federal.

Our current reality would be much different if we agreed that (1) we have basic mutual obligations, (2) expert knowledge is an accepted way of articulating the best way to implement those obligations, and (3) the federal government should use the force of law to require the behaviors that experts think best respects our mutual obligations.

But we agree on none of those points, and so we just keep muddling through.

Yes, I adamantly disagree on this point. American is a representative republic, not a technocracy. Experts are just as human as the rest of us and have their biases and agendas. Fauci lied repeatedly about funding the research that almost certainly led to the release of this pandemic into the world. Why should he get to decide how we get to live our lives? I'm thankful to not live in a dictatorship like China, or a quasi-dictatorship like Australia, where the federal government can restrict my movements, or right to free speech, or arbitrarily shut down my business.

If everyone's opinion is equal, what's the point in becoming an expert in anything, or encouraging others to become experts? Why bother?

It used to be that the expert was an expert in a certain subject matter, but elected officials’ jobs were to take the experts’ advice and then balance that with all other factors to make decisions. Not to just cede all control to them.

 

What I see in too many politicians (take my Premier - please) is that business interests far outweigh the advice from other expert sources.  Not a lot of balancing of various factors there.

But the weighting of competing interests from experts will always have a moral component. How many people in Madagascar are you willing to let starve to death due to climate change in exchange for a more gradual ramp up in carbon taxes? How much are you willing to let consumer goods inflate in price to save another human on the planet be they Canadian of Malagasy? The answer to that question is not purely technical in nature. It is not even purely moral in nature because politicians function in the realm of realpolitik. 

[OtherJen]

@nereo Good to know.  Seems like we might need to update the triage protocols for voluntarily assumed and anti-social risk, in the same way that the alcoholic should be at the back of the line for a liver transplant.

I'd hope (foolishly of course) that we could take some of the heat out of this debate if we could all be a lot clearer on what anti-covid measures were actually for. 

I don't think the United States agrees in the slightest whether there is any mutual obligation to one another at all.

If there is obligation, we disagree about its extent.

If we were to agree on the extent, we disagree about whether the government should enforce it. 

And if the government should enforce it, whether that enforcement should be state or federal.

Our current reality would be much different if we agreed that (1) we have basic mutual obligations, (2) expert knowledge is an accepted way of articulating the best way to implement those obligations, and (3) the federal government should use the force of law to require the behaviors that experts think best respects our mutual obligations.

But we agree on none of those points, and so we just keep muddling through.

Yes, I adamantly disagree on this point. American is a representative republic, not a technocracy. Experts are just as human as the rest of us and have their biases and agendas. Fauci lied repeatedly about funding the research that almost certainly led to the release of this pandemic into the world. Why should he get to decide how we get to live our lives? I'm thankful to not live in a dictatorship like China, or a quasi-dictatorship like Australia, where the federal government can restrict my movements, or right to free speech, or arbitrarily shut down my business.

If everyone's opinion is equal, what's the point in becoming an expert in anything, or encouraging others to become experts? Why bother?

It used to be that the expert was an expert in a certain subject matter, but elected officials’ jobs were to take the experts’ advice and then balance that with all other factors to make decisions. Not to just cede all control to them.

 

What I see in too many politicians (take my Premier - please) is that business interests far outweigh the advice from other expert sources.  Not a lot of balancing of various factors there.

It certainly does seem that business interests outweigh everything else. That, and in my state at least, officials who attempt to make decisions in the interest of public health tend to get death threats.

[RetiredAt63]

@nereo Good to know.  Seems like we might need to update the triage protocols for voluntarily assumed and anti-social risk, in the same way that the alcoholic should be at the back of the line for a liver transplant.

I'd hope (foolishly of course) that we could take some of the heat out of this debate if we could all be a lot clearer on what anti-covid measures were actually for. 

I don't think the United States agrees in the slightest whether there is any mutual obligation to one another at all.

If there is obligation, we disagree about its extent.

If we were to agree on the extent, we disagree about whether the government should enforce it. 

And if the government should enforce it, whether that enforcement should be state or federal.

Our current reality would be much different if we agreed that (1) we have basic mutual obligations, (2) expert knowledge is an accepted way of articulating the best way to implement those obligations, and (3) the federal government should use the force of law to require the behaviors that experts think best respects our mutual obligations.

But we agree on none of those points, and so we just keep muddling through.

Yes, I adamantly disagree on this point. American is a representative republic, not a technocracy. Experts are just as human as the rest of us and have their biases and agendas. Fauci lied repeatedly about funding the research that almost certainly led to the release of this pandemic into the world. Why should he get to decide how we get to live our lives? I'm thankful to not live in a dictatorship like China, or a quasi-dictatorship like Australia, where the federal government can restrict my movements, or right to free speech, or arbitrarily shut down my business.

If everyone's opinion is equal, what's the point in becoming an expert in anything, or encouraging others to become experts? Why bother?

It used to be that the expert was an expert in a certain subject matter, but elected officials’ jobs were to take the experts’ advice and then balance that with all other factors to make decisions. Not to just cede all control to them.

 

What I see in too many politicians (take my Premier - please) is that business interests far outweigh the advice from other expert sources.  Not a lot of balancing of various factors there.

But the weighting of competing interests from experts will always have a moral component. How many people in Madagascar are you willing to let starve to death due to climate change in exchange for a more gradual ramp up in carbon taxes? How much are you willing to let consumer goods inflate in price to save another human on the planet be they Canadian of Madagascan? The answer to that question is not purely technical in nature. It is not even purely moral in nature because politicians function in the realm of realpolitik.

Of course it will have a moral component.    But weren't we talking about Covid?  Where the discussion only concerns people who are living in those politicians' jurisdictions?  What I do has no effect on someone living in Madagascar (or only very indirectly).  What I do directly affects how busy/overwhelmed medical care is, how well my fellow citizens do, how fast each variant spreads.  What my mayor and premier do directly affects everyone in my city and province.  And there has been quite a bit of support for businesses and people whose jobs have been affected, they haven't been forgotten.

[PDXTabs]

What I see in too many politicians (take my Premier - please) is that business interests far outweigh the advice from other expert sources.  Not a lot of balancing of various factors there.

But the weighting of competing interests from experts will always have a moral component. How many people in Madagascar are you willing to let starve to death due to climate change in exchange for a more gradual ramp up in carbon taxes? How much are you willing to let consumer goods inflate in price to save another human on the planet be they Canadian of Madagascan? The answer to that question is not purely technical in nature. It is not even purely moral in nature because politicians function in the realm of realpolitik.

Of course it will have a moral component.    But weren't we talking about Covid?  Where the discussion only concerns people who are living in those politicians' jurisdictions?  What I do has no effect on someone living in Madagascar (or only very indirectly).  What I do directly affects how busy/overwhelmed medical care is, how well my fellow citizens do, how fast each variant spreads.  What my mayor and premier do directly affects everyone in my city and province.  And there has been quite a bit of support for businesses and people whose jobs have been affected, they haven't been forgotten.

Maybe, I thought we were talking about politicians having to weigh expert advice. But since we are only talking about COVID, did the WHO say to keep your border open and then Canada locked it down tight? What was that about? I can't think that that the business experts thought that it was a good idea. Was that just pure political theater?

[RetiredAt63]

What I see in too many politicians (take my Premier - please) is that business interests far outweigh the advice from other expert sources.  Not a lot of balancing of various factors there.

But the weighting of competing interests from experts will always have a moral component. How many people in Madagascar are you willing to let starve to death due to climate change in exchange for a more gradual ramp up in carbon taxes? How much are you willing to let consumer goods inflate in price to save another human on the planet be they Canadian of Madagascan? The answer to that question is not purely technical in nature. It is not even purely moral in nature because politicians function in the realm of realpolitik.

Of course it will have a moral component.    But weren't we talking about Covid?  Where the discussion only concerns people who are living in those politicians' jurisdictions?  What I do has no effect on someone living in Madagascar (or only very indirectly).  What I do directly affects how busy/overwhelmed medical care is, how well my fellow citizens do, how fast each variant spreads.  What my mayor and premier do directly affects everyone in my city and province.  And there has been quite a bit of support for businesses and people whose jobs have been affected, they haven't been forgotten.

Maybe, I thought we were talking about politicians having to weigh expert advice. But since we are only talking about COVID, did the WHO say to keep your border open and then Canada locked it down tight? What was that about? I can't think that that the business experts thought that it was a good idea. Was that just pure political theater?

The WHO does not have jurisdiction over us, it gives advice.  And we thought they were being too lax.

And, well, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but given the relative rates of infection in the US and Canada at the time (and hell, now as well), most of us were delighted to see the borders shut down.  And since so many Americans seem to take pleasure in evading controls by having false vaccination certificates, I hope they scrutinize each and every one to make sure their vaccination paperwork is valid.  Because we know we will get all the strains anyway, the point is to slow them down.  And tourists get around.

BTW, we opened out borders to the US before the US opened their borders to us.  Governors of Northern States have been upset for ages because people could fly across the border but not drive across the border.  So lots of political business decisions there as well, I am sure. 

[RetiredAt63]

@nereo Good to know.  Seems like we might need to update the triage protocols for voluntarily assumed and anti-social risk, in the same way that the alcoholic should be at the back of the line for a liver transplant.

I'd hope (foolishly of course) that we could take some of the heat out of this debate if we could all be a lot clearer on what anti-covid measures were actually for. 

I don't think the United States agrees in the slightest whether there is any mutual obligation to one another at all.

If there is obligation, we disagree about its extent.

If we were to agree on the extent, we disagree about whether the government should enforce it. 

And if the government should enforce it, whether that enforcement should be state or federal.

Our current reality would be much different if we agreed that (1) we have basic mutual obligations, (2) expert knowledge is an accepted way of articulating the best way to implement those obligations, and (3) the federal government should use the force of law to require the behaviors that experts think best respects our mutual obligations.

But we agree on none of those points, and so we just keep muddling through.

Yes, I adamantly disagree on this point. American is a representative republic, not a technocracy. Experts are just as human as the rest of us and have their biases and agendas. Fauci lied repeatedly about funding the research that almost certainly led to the release of this pandemic into the world. Why should he get to decide how we get to live our lives? I'm thankful to not live in a dictatorship like China, or a quasi-dictatorship like Australia, where the federal government can restrict my movements, or right to free speech, or arbitrarily shut down my business. 

Sorry, but Australia IS NOT a quasi-dictatorship. Last I saw, we were a FULL DEMOCRACY rather than a FLAWED DEMOCRACY or a HYBRID REGIME or and AUTHORITARIAN regime. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index for the democracy index. Part of the requirement of a full democracy, in my opinion is valuing your fellow citizens. Democracies vote for their government, and the ones whose candidates don't for government accept that this has happened and accept the laws that the government passes, no matter whether they disagree. Their candidates may argue in parliament about proposed laws, and compromises may be made. The next time, their candidates may form government, and change the laws. Obviously, some people in this forum who live in FLAWED DEMOCRACIES are not familiar with the need to value your fellow citizens.

Michael in ABQ, are you drinking the cool-aid?  You know (or should) that there are major flaws in the way your government is elected.  Gerrymandering, restriction of voting rights, to name the 2 most obvious.  And you register your party affiliation where anyone can see it! What happened to the privacy of the polling booth?
 
Versus Australia, where voting is mandatory.  Versus Canada, where it isn't but it is easy to register and easy to vote and voter turnout is a lot better than yours.  And for both of us, riding boundaries are done by a 3rd party organization, and our elections are run by third party organizations who do their utmost to make sure everyone who wants to vote can vote.

Let's not turn this into a general political discussion, there is enough to discuss with how various people and areas are dealing with the present reality (hi omicron, big spreader).  But do realise that if you sling mud it will come right back at you.

BTW  I spent a whole day wandering around the legislative building in Canberra.  They took their founding principles seriously. 

[PDXTabs]

The WHO does not have jurisdiction over us, it gives advice.  And we thought they were being too lax.

And, well, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but given the relative rates of infection in the US and Canada at the time (and hell, now as well), most of us were delighted to see the borders shut down.  And since so many Americans seem to take pleasure in evading controls by having false vaccination certificates, I hope they scrutinize each and every one to make sure their vaccination paperwork is valid.  Because we know we will get all the strains anyway, the point is to slow them down.  And tourists get around.

BTW, we opened out borders to the US before the US opened their borders to us.  Governors of Northern States have been upset for ages because people could fly across the border but not drive across the border.  So lots of political business decisions there as well, I am sure.

Indeed, elected officials weighted expert advice from multiple sources while also taking into account the will of the people. Because ultimately in a democracy (even a representative one) the only thing that matters is the people that vote for you. "Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill

BTW, to the best of my knowledge the UK kept its borders open with both of us for the entire pandemic but Canada did not reciprocate.

[RetiredAt63]

The WHO does not have jurisdiction over us, it gives advice.  And we thought they were being too lax.

And, well, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but given the relative rates of infection in the US and Canada at the time (and hell, now as well), most of us were delighted to see the borders shut down.  And since so many Americans seem to take pleasure in evading controls by having false vaccination certificates, I hope they scrutinize each and every one to make sure their vaccination paperwork is valid.  Because we know we will get all the strains anyway, the point is to slow them down.  And tourists get around.

BTW, we opened out borders to the US before the US opened their borders to us.  Governors of Northern States have been upset for ages because people could fly across the border but not drive across the border.  So lots of political business decisions there as well, I am sure.

Indeed, elected officials weighted expert advice from multiple sources while also taking into account the will of the people. Because ultimately in a democracy (even a representative one) the only thing that matters is the people that vote for you. "Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill

BTW, to the best of my knowledge the UK kept its borders open with both of us for the entire pandemic but Canada did not reciprocate.

"Indeed, elected officials weighted expert advice from multiple sources while also taking into account the will of the people".  Apparently the will of the people here is for more active measures against the virus.  And given that the Provinces with the worst records are all Conservative governments that delayed restrictions as much as possible and made them as minimal as possible, some cater more to their constituency than the will of the people.

Just because some country keeps its borders open doesn't mean we have to.

Anyway, I am done with politics for now.  And I am grumpy because I am not seeing my DD and SiL and Grand-daughter for Christmas, because of Covid.  Because Canadians are  being encouraged to self-isolate as much as possible, and I think that is sensible. 

So go back to discussing Covid.

[K_in_the_kitchen]

  And I am grumpy because I am not seeing my DD and SiL and Grand-daughter for Christmas, because of Covid.  Because Canadians are  being encouraged to self-isolate as much as possible, and I think that is sensible. 

So go back to discussing Covid.

Whereas we in the United States aren't encouraged to self-isolate, and while one side of the family agreed that getting together isn't wise at this time, short of an official lockdown the other side won't even consider not gathering.  It will be three households -- ours (4), BIL (1, who lives in co-housing with Covid deniers), and my 77YO MIL who has several underlying conditions (she lives with a vaccinated partner and my unvaccinated SIL, who will be in Europe).  My family is vaxed and boosted, as is MIL.  BIL is anti-vax, but believes he contracted Covid in late October based on symptoms.  Anyway, we're doing at home rapid tests the morning of.  I still think it might not be worth the medical risks, but at this point it isn't worth the social risks or worth making my DH tell his mother and brother they can't come over.  And I guess it doesn't help much for us to try to protect MIL when she lives with an unvaccinated person who lives her life as if Covid doesn't exist.

I do think my family will all be exposed to Omicron at some point, despite taking precautions, and will have varying levels of illness, but I really don't want us ill during the Christmas break.  I wish we were in lockdown.

[Chris22]

I wish we were in lockdown.

Good news!  You can be! 

But don’t force it on the rest of us.

[nereo]

I wish we were in lockdown.

Good news!  You can be! 

But don’t force it on the rest of us.

…and therein lies the problem.  If even a large minority don’t, it doesn’t work on a community level.

[PDXTabs]

I wish we were in lockdown.

Good news!  You can be! 

But don’t force it on the rest of us.

…and therein lies the problem.  If even a large minority don’t, it doesn’t work on a community level.

Why would a majority of the population consent to a lockdown two years into a pandemic?

As a slight aside, CNN: Biden admin eyes a potentially stark shift in messaging around ending the pandemic.

[seattlecyclone]

American is a representative republic, not a technocracy.

Why do you see this as an inherent contradiction? I could easily envision a representative democracy where the majority of voters recognize and revere the work that our most learned citizens have put into becoming experts in their field, where the voters see politicians implementing policy heavily informed by the latest research and say "more of this please." The fact that this doesn't describe our population is not something to be proud of.

[K_in_the_kitchen]

I wish we were in lockdown.

Good news!  You can be! 

But don’t force it on the rest of us.

Actually, that's my point -- without a "forced" lockdown we have relatives who will make our lives hell if we don't get together.  BIL in particular has been laying down guilt trips for more than a year -- we haven't seen him in person since pre-Covid because he refused to get vaccinated, and indeed didn't believe it was real until he recently (potentially -- he didn't get tested) got it.  And while we've seen MIL many times since we all got vaccinated, including twice in November, she's moping about the holidays as usual and can't bear to have another Christmas cancelled.  There's no way to protect her without a lockdown, which also means there's no way to protect many other vulnerable people.  I stand firmly in the camp of those of us who can help protect others doing our best to do so.  If Omicron hadn't surfaced I would likely have a different opinion, but it's here.  Not only do I think we should protect the vulnerable, I believe we should consider the people who work in healthcare and help flatten the curve if we can.

[Michael in ABQ]

American is a representative republic, not a technocracy.

Why do you see this as an inherent contradiction? I could easily envision a representative democracy where the majority of voters recognize and revere the work that our most learned citizens have put into becoming experts in their field, where the voters see politicians implementing policy heavily informed by the latest research and say "more of this please." The fact that this doesn't describe our population is not something to be proud of.

If an unelected bureaucrat makes a decision the majority don't like, there's nothing we can do. With politicians we can at least vote for someone else. It doesn't always work (i.e. the chance of San Francisco electing a Republican to any office is essentially zero) but there's at least the possibility of being held accountable at the ballot box.

[PDXTabs]

American is a representative republic, not a technocracy.

Why do you see this as an inherent contradiction? I could easily envision a representative democracy where the majority of voters recognize and revere the work that our most learned citizens have put into becoming experts in their field, where the voters see politicians implementing policy heavily informed by the latest research and say "more of this please." The fact that this doesn't describe our population is not something to be proud of.

What's the opposite of a technocracy? I think that we might have that. But I don't know if it helps the COVID situation if your healthcare technocrats are pushing lockdowns and your economic technocrats are pushing to keep the economy open and pointing out that old sick people don't add much to the economy. You still need a human to make a judgement call that is based on human things not technocracy.

[seattlecyclone]

American is a representative republic, not a technocracy.

Why do you see this as an inherent contradiction? I could easily envision a representative democracy where the majority of voters recognize and revere the work that our most learned citizens have put into becoming experts in their field, where the voters see politicians implementing policy heavily informed by the latest research and say "more of this please." The fact that this doesn't describe our population is not something to be proud of.

What's the opposite of a technocracy? I think that we might have that. But I don't know if it helps the COVID situation if your healthcare technocrats are pushing lockdowns and your economic technocrats are pushing to keep the economy open and pointing out that old sick people don't add much to the economy. You still need a human to make a judgement call that is based on human things not technocracy.

True enough! Experts provide as good a prediction as possible about what might happen if a certain course of action is taken. It's up to the leaders to take that information into account while also taking the pulse of the electorate and deciding which of the many competing priorities need to take precedence that day.

[trollwithamustache]

I wish we were in lockdown.

Good news!  You can be! 

But don’t force it on the rest of us.

…and therein lies the problem.  If even a large minority don’t, it doesn’t work on a community level.

Actually it does. You can lock yourself down and get 100% safety.  Same as abstinence!

[Captain FIRE]

All of those things sound great, but can we just stop mask mandates?  That's all I really care about in the end.

Can you explain why masks are such a key issue for you?
As someone who’s had to wear masks for much of my work I have a hard time understanding why some people object to it so strongly

Is the mandate part?

It's the mandate part.  I should not have to pretend that I am sick for the rest of my life wearing a mask while in public places in the offchance I am asymptomatic a virus that we an effective vaccine for.  It just does not make sense anymore... it did for a short time, but no longer.  I'm all for wearing a mask, staying home from work when you are actually sick... that would be a great thing to come out of this.  But telling everyone to wear a mask from here on out regardless of if it's actually useful is dumb and the mandates have got to go.  Especially as pointed out above, restaurants and airplanes are proof that we really don't care as much as some people seem to think we do.

How about at a minimum at least till we actually have an effective vaccine for everyone?  Again, I would reiterate there is no vaccine for the under 5 population.

Not really clear why restaurants and planes are considered proof we really don't care.  The people going in there may not care, but there's a large segment who aren't flying or dining in restaurants precisely because of this risk and caring about contracting COVID and/or passing it others.

[GodlessCommie]

Actually it does. You can lock yourself down and get 100% safety.  Same as abstinence!

Just make sure not to need any medical care.

[GodlessCommie]

You know, as your next-door neighbor this is scary.  When this is how your politicians think, it doesn't bode well for how you treat other countries, and how well you adhere to treaties.   Hey everyone, my next door country is a narcissistic sociopath!

Sorry*, but you said it.


*Of course I said I'm sorry, I'm Canadian and I mean it.

It's tempting to blame politicians, but they are merely a conduit for voters. Conduit that's deformed by the design flaws of our political system - but still, it all flows bottom up, not the other way around.

I fear for you, too. And the biggest threat isn't that we would not adhere to treaties, it's the cultural influence. If enough of your people consume our media long enough, you'll become like us.

[GodlessCommie]

Most here operate on the assumption that we in the US do a lot to protect others, and bear tremendous cost due to that.

So it was interesting to find this tidbit from a place where people do more:

"In Australia, in a similar vein, they calculate that we have had many thousands fewer deaths in the past (almost) two years than we should have (probably because of mask wearing and social distancing, people didn’t die of flu, and just about every other disease, so the pandemic has decreased the death rate). As a result of that and lockdowns, the private health insurance funds haven’t spent as much as they should have during this time. As private health insurance here is subsidised by the government, the health funds have to give back the excess to their customers. I received a letter a few days ago saying I now have six months extra health insurance."

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/how-much-will-non-vaxxing-by-gop-reduce-the-population-of-voting-age-republicans/msg2949578/#msg2949578

[nereo]

Most here operate on the assumption that we in the US do a lot to protect others, and bear tremendous cost due to that.

Is this Actually a commonly held belief? It seems to me that we very intentionally do much less than most other wealthy nations, and it’s a frequent flash point in discussions about whether we should be more like these other questions.

[GodlessCommie]

Most here operate on the assumption that we in the US do a lot to protect others, and bear tremendous cost due to that.

Is this Actually a commonly held belief? It seems to me that we very intentionally do much less than most other wealthy nations, and it’s a frequent flash point in discussions about whether we should be more like these other questions.

I think so. However little (compared to other wealthy nations) we do, it's a lot. Get your shit together, and stop being sick, poor, or old.

[GodlessCommie]

It's rather disheartening to know that we are surrounded by such an incredible amount of idiocy.

I see it as cruelty more than idiocy - but you are 100% right.

He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.

[simonsez]

Most here operate on the assumption that we in the US do a lot to protect others, and bear tremendous cost due to that.

Is this Actually a commonly held belief? It seems to me that we very intentionally do much less than most other wealthy nations, and it’s a frequent flash point in discussions about whether we should be more like these other questions.

I think so. However little (compared to other wealthy nations) we do, it's a lot. Get your shit together, and stop being sick, poor, or old.

I'm very confused by this as an American.  Is this sarcasm?  Or are you basing this differently than how I would?  I would frame it in terms of a relative comparison to other similarly wealthy countries' overall infrastructure and social programs incl. healthcare as provided by a central institution (e.g. federal government) and would say of that group we've got to be near the bottom.  Granted, being at the bottom in a wealthy country comparison group can still have very positive connotations and I certainly would not argue that more gov spending is always a good thing.  If you're talking from an absolute point of view or a "we police the world and thus are protecting others" vantage, perhaps we're just using very different definitions.

If you were saying it to stir the pot a bit, it certainly worked!

[LongtimeLurker]

Assuming this is correct, the end could be near as we have a non-vaccine method of treatment:

When taken early, Pfizer's treatment was 89% effective at reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization and/or death from COVID-19, according to the company.

Just throwing this out there, its been 2 years, and the healthcare system has been overburdened above normal(which is already more than ideal), due to staff shortages, etc...

Why hasn't the US deployed the military to help with hospital shortages? Almost all military enlisted personnel are in the very low risk category, and they are required to have been vaccinated. The chance they die of COVID is about as close to zero as you can get. Imagine, ~50,000 soldiers doing intake, moving patients, transporting patients, doing testing, providing basic services, doing paperwork, etc... Plus military doctors and nurses helping do the hard work. I mean, we spend $700BLN a year, you would think we could use a fraction of that to dramatically increase the staff at our hospitals.

[nereo]

Why hasn't the US deployed the military to help with hospital shortages? Almost all military enlisted personnel are in the very low risk category, and they are required to have been vaccinated. The chance they die of COVID is about as close to zero as you can get. Imagine, ~50,000 soldiers doing intake, moving patients, transporting patients, doing testing, providing basic services, doing paperwork, etc... Plus military doctors and nurses helping do the hard work. I mean, we spend $700BLN a year, you would think we could use a fraction of that to dramatically increase the staff at our hospitals.

My state has activated the national guard to assist our healthcare system. They are doing non-medical secondary tasks to help front line health care workers do actual health care.

Part of the problem is both cost and scope. 50,000 soldiers sounds like a lot, but it’s ~0.5% of our healthcare force. Deploying cost money and of course it would divert them from normal training and “mission critical” duties.

[GuitarStv]

Assuming this is correct, the end could be near as we have a non-vaccine method of treatment:

When taken early, Pfizer's treatment was 89% effective at reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization and/or death from COVID-19, according to the company.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were higher than that last year, weren't they?

[LongtimeLurker]

Assuming this is correct, the end could be near as we have a non-vaccine method of treatment:

When taken early, Pfizer's treatment was 89% effective at reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization and/or death from COVID-19, according to the company.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were higher than that last year, weren't they?

Yeah, 95%. But the Pfizer pill is supposedly just as effective against omicron.

[nereo]

Assuming this is correct, the end could be near as we have a non-vaccine method of treatment:

When taken early, Pfizer's treatment was 89% effective at reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization and/or death from COVID-19, according to the company.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were higher than that last year, weren't they?

Yeah, 95%. But the Pfizer pill is supposedly just as effective against omicron.

The above is talking about Pfizer’s new medicine meant to treat after infection.

To state the obvious, though, we have absolutely zero data on how effective current vaccines are in combating omicron six months later, or how it will do against the next variant of concern.

[GuitarStv]

Assuming this is correct, the end could be near as we have a non-vaccine method of treatment:

When taken early, Pfizer's treatment was 89% effective at reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization and/or death from COVID-19, according to the company.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were higher than that last year, weren't they?

Yeah, 95%. But the Pfizer pill is supposedly just as effective against omicron.

The above is talking about Pfizer’s new medicine meant to treat after infection.

To state the obvious, though, we have absolutely zero data on how effective current vaccines are in combating omicron six months later, or how it will do against the next variant of concern.

Yes, that was kinda my point.  I've got my fingers crossed, but don't see why history wouldn't be likely to repeat itself.

[Arbitrage]

It's rather disheartening to know that we are surrounded by such an incredible amount of idiocy.

A bit of a tangent, but I had a fairly long conversation at a grocery store bike rack with a dyed-in-the-wool Qanon conspiracy theory nut.  The conversation started innocuously enough, about biking around town and my e-bike, but he started spouting more and more nonsense.  I could have walked away at any point, but I actually was kind of interested to see what was going to come out of his mouth next, because it was mind-boggling to me that he really believed this stuff.  Among the gems:

- COVID-19 is nothing more than the common cold, go to this website and the numbers won't add up
- The internet news is all fake.  You need to go to this website where the real stories get posted before "the algorithms" take them down and post the fake stuff.
- Donald Trump is an all-powerful businessman who will have you killed if you wrong him
...which led to
- Bill Gates is dead (convicted, tried, and executed at Guantanamo Bay)
- Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton are all dead
- George W Bush and Dick Cheney are currently in the middle of their trial at Guantanamo for orchestrating the 9-11 attacks
- Joe Biden is in a coma
- All of the above people have been replaced by Hollywood lookalikes who train on their various mannerisms to fool the fake news media
- At some point he started on a tangent about "these pedophiles..." but caught himself and then went in another direction (I believe the Clintons were next on his hit list)

This dude was evangelizing, straight up.  He claimed that he was a science major in college (50 years ago) so he was trustworthy on these sorts of matters. 

[LongtimeLurker]

I took a science class at community college 50 years ago, so you can trust me.

What about actual scientists who finished their degrees?

They are lying!!!! All of them!

[RetiredAt63]

It's rather disheartening to know that we are surrounded by such an incredible amount of idiocy.

A bit of a tangent, but I had a fairly long conversation at a grocery store bike rack with a dyed-in-the-wool Qanon conspiracy theory nut.  The conversation started innocuously enough, about biking around town and my e-bike, but he started spouting more and more nonsense.  I could have walked away at any point, but I actually was kind of interested to see what was going to come out of his mouth next, because it was mind-boggling to me that he really believed this stuff.  Among the gems:

- COVID-19 is nothing more than the common cold, go to this website and the numbers won't add up
- The internet news is all fake.  You need to go to this website where the real stories get posted before "the algorithms" take them down and post the fake stuff.
- Donald Trump is an all-powerful businessman who will have you killed if you wrong him
...which led to
- Bill Gates is dead (convicted, tried, and executed at Guantanamo Bay)
- Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton are all dead
- George W Bush and Dick Cheney are currently in the middle of their trial at Guantanamo for orchestrating the 9-11 attacks
- Joe Biden is in a coma
- All of the above people have been replaced by Hollywood lookalikes who train on their various mannerisms to fool the fake news media
- At some point he started on a tangent about "these pedophiles..." but caught himself and then went in another direction (I believe the Clintons were next on his hit list)

This dude was evangelizing, straight up.  He claimed that he was a science major in college (50 years ago) so he was trustworthy on these sorts of matters.

Bless his heart.  (because there is no brain present to bless).

[Cannot Wait!]

I also let a lady "talk at me" for about an hour just to see how her brain worked.  Wow.  Much the same gems as above, plus apparently Trudeau has also been replaced by an actor, more vaccinated people have died than non, it's the vaccinated folks that are taking up all the hospital beds, and this will all come to a head in 2030 when the new world order takes over.  When I pressed her as to who "THEY" (the ones doing all this) were...she said, "Well, they're not exactly human".   I would not want to live in her world.

[OtherJen]

I also let a lady "talk at me" for about an hour just to see how her brain worked.  Wow.  Much the same gems as above, plus apparently Trudeau has also been replaced by an actor, more vaccinated people have died than non, it's the vaccinated folks that are taking up all the hospital beds, and this will all come to a head in 2030 when the new world order takes over.  When I pressed her as to who "THEY" (the ones doing all this) were...she said, "Well, they're not exactly human".   I would not want to live in her world.

I've heard the same things about how more vaccinated people have died than non-vaccinated people, although it went a step further. For example, my mom's coworker refuses to be vaccinated because he claims that the vaccine killed three of his relatives, whereas he doesn't know anyone who died of COVID.

Unfortunately, we all have to live in their world, as the rising case numbers demonstrate.

[former player]

I also let a lady "talk at me" for about an hour just to see how her brain worked.  Wow.  Much the same gems as above, plus apparently Trudeau has also been replaced by an actor, more vaccinated people have died than non, it's the vaccinated folks that are taking up all the hospital beds, and this will all come to a head in 2030 when the new world order takes over.  When I pressed her as to who "THEY" (the ones doing all this) were...she said, "Well, they're not exactly human".   I would not want to live in her world.

I've heard the same things about how more vaccinated people have died than non-vaccinated people, although it went a step further. For example, my mom's coworker refuses to be vaccinated because he claims that the vaccine killed three of his relatives, whereas he doesn't know anyone who died of COVID.

Unfortunately, we all have to live in their world, as the rising case numbers demonstrate.

But as the rising case numbers also demonstrate, quite possibly not for that much longer.

[Cranky]

Honestly, the one requirement I *do* want maintained at this point is masking in places like the grocery store, drugstore, medical settings and public buildings.

Beyond that, if you want to go to a crowded indoor event, that’s on you.

[PDXTabs]

Honestly, the one requirement I *do* want maintained at this point is masking in places like the grocery store, drugstore, medical settings and public buildings.

Beyond that, if you want to go to a crowded indoor event, that’s on you.

That's sort of what Scotland is doing but with "passports" for things like nightclubs. Though they do have a three week cap on large events to deal with Omicron.

[dmc]

My wife and I both have had the booster shots.  I’m 64, she is 62.  Most of the things we do are outside so no more masks.  We do go out to a restaurant, but usually eat outside.  And we wear mask when required, airport, doctors office.

We do get together with friends and family, some of who are not vaccinated.  But that is their choice, we have also started traveling some again, and have a big trip planned for April.

[dmc]

We live in SW Florida so there are few mask requirements.

[GodlessCommie]

Bless his heart.  (because there is no brain present to bless).

I had a friend - wicked smart and educated. There wasn't a conspiracy theory he didn't like.

(Please don't feel like I'm going extra mile to contradict everything you say! I actually agree with you, like, 99%)

[RetiredAt63]

Bless his heart.  (because there is no brain present to bless).

I had a friend - wicked smart and educated. There wasn't a conspiracy theory he didn't like.

(Please don't feel like I'm going extra mile to contradict everything you say! I actually agree with you, like, 99%)

It's ok, I hope the sarcasm was evident.  It's my northerness, having trouble getting the bless his heart idiom correct.

Smart and sensible are 2 different words.  And I've known lots of smart people be incredibly stupid about things.  Including me (blush).