Uggh it’s so reductive I’m tired of it. There’s so much more wrong with us than just capitalism but nobody likes being called out or needing to take themselves down a few pegs so, let’s blame it all on capitalism yeah!
The greed and selfishness rotting at our societal core is bigger than just capitalism, and we need to stop pretending we don’t all need to change in some BIG ways, if things are going to start improving. Capitalism or not.
Seems like clickbait, stirred up by the fire department.
“This delay, no matter how minimal, contributed to a poor patient outcome,” the fire department wrote.
This was written into what, the EMS call report (“records reviewed by the reporter”)?
Generally EMS reports are not a place to opine as to medicolegal causation, so this is an odd detail to include. I think EMS would report an egregious failure to yield to police. They might note in the call sheet that a vehicle delayed the trip by X seconds, but the inclusion of specific blame is just so out of place.
Further, EMS is a profession of first aid, not pathology, epidemiology, and outcomes. Especially not without reviewing medical records of the subsequent treatment and outcome at the hospital, probably even medical records from prior the event, too, they are not competent to give such an opinion.
The statement itself proves my point. This delay, “no matter how miniminal, contributed to a poor patient outcome.” Sounds like something an EMS driver would say. I’m reading hints of grandiosity and road rage, road indignation, really. Really, no matter how minimal? That’s not logical. My $0.02.
As someone who works in emergency medicine, this article sounds very overdramatic. If the patient was so unstable they died receiving care in the back of an ambulance, odds are they weren’t going to live in the hospital either
I hope that these decisions don’t become more widespread.
Edit: For the sake of clarity, I, of course, respect the fact that a private business is free to make such decisions, and I do understand that the likely reason for this decision was to, as was mentioned, reduce profit loss by keeping employees healthy, but I still do not wish for mask mandates to make a widespread return; their all-too-recent existence is not a memory that I think too fondly of.
I have no desire for someone to force something on me “for my own good”. If something is truly beneficial, then the public will freely adopt it; people generally won’t willingly endanger themselves. What the conversation should be about is if you are endangering the life of another.
Side note, your argument for throwing ice on stairs is lacking scope. If it was one’s personal stairs then by all means; however, an area that is to be expected to be used by the public cannot willfully endanger them; If not a criminal charge, then it is certainly a lawsuit waiting to happen. As for removing car brakes, again that depends on exactly what you mean. If the car is not in such a state that would recklessly endanger the life of another, then why would it matter?
All in all, one should look at things in such a way as to balance public safety, and individual liberty. It is always a trade off. I personally would err on the side of liberty, but this is not without its realistic restrictions.
That question is a little more complicated than one that can be answered by a simple “yes”, or “no”. The simplest answer that I can give is that I’m not opposed to wearing a mask; however, whether or not I would choose to wear one is highly dependent on circumstance.
If something is truly beneficial, then the public will freely adopt it
Hah. Look up how some people fought seat belt laws. Just like masks and vaccines they're not actually doing much most of the time, but you'll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters.
You just left out the rest of the sentence when you quoted “… but you’ll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters.”
And the point is most people don’t get in daily car accidents, and putting on your mask doesn’t necessarily mean you will be exposed to a disease that day. They are a type of safety precaution you sometimes use in situations where they don’t do anything, and that doesn’t mean that they were useless, it means no dangerous stuff happened.
That kind of danger, the kind that only gets you 1/10 times, is the kind people are famously bad at understanding. Our instincts say if someone survived doing something unharmed that it is safe, but sometimes riding in a car is safe and sometimes it isn’t. We get too easily comfortable with things we shouldn’t have because their consequences are delayed or inconsistent, and it happens everywhere.
Eta: I find it odd that the masks bother you more than the spreading disease that they are a “symptom” of. Personally, for over a decade now, I had hoped that sick people around here would start wearing medical masks on their own prerogative, like many other places/cultures already do. It feels on par with washing your hands to me. But then it became a political issue…
You just left out the rest of the sentence when you quoted “… but you’ll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters.”
Why would one “be missing them”? I would assume that whatever one needs to reduce risk would generally be available should they have need.
And the point is most people don’t get in daily car accidents, and putting on your mask doesn’t necessarily mean you will be exposed to a disease that day. They are a type of safety precaution you sometimes use in situations where they don’t do anything, and that doesn’t mean that they were useless, it means no dangerous stuff happened.
Again, though, why should the government force people to do what is wise for their own personal health, and saftety? A person can assess their own risk, and act accordingly.
I find it odd that the masks bother you more than the spreading disease that they are a “symptom” of.
I have no qualm with the use of masks – in actuality, I would encourage it. What I take issue with is the enforcement of their use.
Speed limits, and seat belts are not equivelant examples. A speed limit is a restriction on risk to others, and property, a seatbelt is a reduction on the risk to only oneself, unless one has passengers, but even that has its logical limits. I can perhaps see the parallel you are drawing with speed limits, but I’m not entirely sure that it is necessarily an accurate comparison to make. To speed requires willful intent to endanger. As such, I could see it being argued that it is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Not wearing a mask, however, is really only willful intent to endanger anothor if one is knowingly ill, and willfully spreads it to others (and, if so, it should be punished accordingly); however, if one is not knowingly ill, then there is no aggression.
Hm, that is a fair point. Perhaps it should come down to reasonably articulable suspicion of public endangerment. You are quite right that ignorance of one’s wrongdoing is no excuse. So perhaps I should restate what I had originally said to instead be that one should only be held accountable if they are spreading a communicable disease to others if they could, on reasonable grounds, be aware of their illness prior to spreading it.
Your mask isn’t there for your own good. Wearing a mask may reduce the viral load you may receive if you’re exposed, improving the odds your immune system can stamp out any nascent infection, but that’s just a bonus.
The purpose of a mask in a mask mandate is to protect others from you in the event you’re infected but in the window between becoming infectious and becoming symptomatic and therefore aware (and possibly beyond if you’re the kind of person that knowingly mixes with others and coughs openly when sick). Because it’s for people who don’t know they’re sick, it only works if everyone does it. So it’s mandated for the good of the whole.
This was particularly important with the original strain of SARS-COV-2 because it had a particularly long incubation period.
The more aggressive variants since, along with more sensitive immune responses in most people due to vaccination, exposure, or both have shrunk that window significantly, but it hasn’t disappeared.
General, society wide, mandates aren’t imo necessary under the prevailing conditions, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be situations (close knit group with a spike in cases for example) where reintroducing such rules make sense.
Your mask isn’t there for your own good. Wearing a mask may reduce the viral load you may receive if you’re exposed, improving the odds your immune system can stamp out any nascent infection, but that’s just a bonus. The purpose of a mask in a mask mandate is to protect others from you in the event you’re infected but in the window between becoming infectious and becoming symptomatic and therefore aware (and possibly beyond if you’re the kind of person that knowingly mixes with others and coughs openly when sick). Because it’s for people who don’t know they’re sick, it only works if everyone does it.
This is, indeed, a critical issue to note. When thinking about such types of policy (I’m referring to policy on the government level), I try to follow the “non-aggression principle”. What one must then ask is: “Does not wearing a mask violate the NAP?”. If one is aware of their transmissable ilness and is knowingly spreading it to others by not wearing a mask, then this certainly would be a violation of the NAP. In such cases, one would be required to wear a mask. Now if we are talking about a case where an individual isn’t ill, yet their bodily autonomy is still being infringed upon by being forced to wear a mask, then this would also be a violation of the NAP. That being said, things become a bit more grey if we are talking about the situation where one could transmit an ilness asymptomatically. I’m inclined to say that, in this transition point, it would be best to rely on people’s own precautionary measures like getting vaccinated, and self-masking; however, I agree that I am biased into this line of thought. (Some extra discussion if you are interested)
This was particularly important with the original strain of SARS-COV-2 because it had a particularly long incubation period.
Please forgive me if I am incorrect – epidemiology is certainly not my strong suit – but isn’t this statement contradictory? I have the understanding that “incubation period” means that one is asymptomatic while the virus replicates within themself.
Incubation period (also known as the latent period or latency period) is the time elapsed between exposure to a pathogenic organism, a chemical, or radiation, and when symptoms and signs are first apparent. – Wikipedia:
If one is asymptomatic (no coughing, no runny nose, no sneezing, etc.) then wouldn’t they not be transmitting the virus? The only thing that I can think of is that one may be sluffing off virus through physical contact, but, if so, there are a few issues: the first issue would be that masking would then become pointless, and the other would be that one could simply wash their hands after contact, unless, of course, we are talking about a virus that could hypothetically be absorbed through the skin.
General, society wide, mandates aren’t imo necessary under the prevailing conditions, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be situations (close knit group with a spike in cases for example) where reintroducing such rules make sense.
I have no issue with a closed group deciding to implement such restrictions amongst themselves; people are free to do as they wish so long as it does not infringe on the lives of others. I just, personally, hope that this doesn’t become more widespread, yet again.
If something is truly beneficial, then the public will freely adopt it; people generally won’t willingly endanger themselves.
You’re extremely naive if you think that’s true. Explain the thousands upon thousand of COVID death that were due to people not following the most vanilla guidelines to prevent that from happening in the first place.
I did say “generally”. Also, in the general sense – I’m not specifically talking about Covid – if a person chooses to endanger themself, then that is not of my concern.
TSA mandates will be announced in about a week. It’s already been leaked. Two weeks to slow the spread. Literally. Same playbook as last time. I expect them to stick around for much much longer.
It’s all over the regular places that would report that kind of thing. There’s a coordinated leak and media thing that seems to be going on. I’ve even seen it reported on YT in the last couple of days. They started with the new strain new booster news a couple days ago in mass media, which was another thing leaked 2 weeks ago.
It’s all over the regular places that would report that kind of thing.
I remind you, this is not a source. The entire point of citing a source is so that the reader is not required to assume the information’s origin, nor to place trust in its purveyor.
Just like reddit, giving a specific source turns the discussion to the source. Go use your preferred search engine. I told you there’s fish in that spot. I’m not going to hand you the fish because you don’t like fishing.
Just like reddit, giving a specific source turns the discussion to the source.
I’m sorry, what? This statement makes little sense. Are you saying that you are opposed to citing sources because you think that someone will claim that your source is non-trustworthy? That is litterally the entire point of citing a source.
Ironically, if one does look into your claim, they may come across this article. A nice excerpt from it is as follows:
CLAIM: Transportation Security Administration managers were told on Aug. 15 that by mid-September they, along with airport employees, will again be required to wear face masks and by mid-October the policy will apply to travelers as well. Further, the managers were told that COVID-19 lockdowns will return by December.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No such announcement was made to TSA managers, an agency spokesperson told The Associated Press. A spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued a now-expired travel mask mandate in 2021, confirmed that such rumors are “utterly false.”
THE FACTS: With COVID-19 hospitalizations steadily inching up in the U.S. since early July, some on social media are falsely claiming that federal employees were told that mask requirements and other pandemic-era restrictions will start returning this fall.
The claim originated on the Aug. 18 episode of “The Alex Jones Show,” where its namesake host said an anonymous “high-level manager in the TSA” and an unnamed “Border Patrol-connected” source told him about the alleged announcement. Jones is known for spreading conspiracy theories.
It's been a week, I'm still waiting on those TSA mandates. ... Hell, I'm still waiting on the National Guard's mass round-ups into those non-existent FEMA camps ....
Imagine if you opened a restaurant, and I went around lying to everyone that you spit in the food. As a result, your restaurant loses business. Shouldn’t you have legal recourse to prevent me from spreading such lies about your business, and to recoup the losses you incurred?
I don’t mean to suggest that Musk has a valid case under the law, only to point out that the law in question is actually quite reasonable and necessary.
Whether the restaurant remains profitable is beside the point. If you can demonstrate that even one customer chose not to visit your restaurant as a result of my lies then I could be liable for defamation.
Suppose you were a business making, say, voting machines. It's a good business -- there are a lot of elections, they have to be tabulated, and you have a way of making that tabulation easier to do. You're not going to be Google or Microsoft, but you're in a comfortable niche.
Then comes a bunch of dumbfuck conspiracy theorists who accuse you of rigging the vote against their favored candidate. You're not happy about this, but this is just a bunch of nutjobs. To some extent, what can you do? Then this major news organization takes up what those conspiracy theorists are saying, and they're doing this to enrich themselves by putting out news that these dumbfucks like to hear. This amplification is damaging to your business (because it's costly to defend yourself and you're losing business anyway), and you can prove that this major news organization is doing this on purpose, for their own profit.
You sue that major news organization. Discovery is a delight, because these people really did know that there was no evidence for any of these conspiracy theories, but they kept repeating them over and over again, damaging your business.
Does this sound familiar? That's why we have laws so that victims of libel can recover some of those damages.
Now, I'm not saying Musk is justified. Musk can go threatening to sue, etc., and I'm sure ADL lawyers would be delighted to argue before a judge to tell Musk to fuck off, since he really doesn't have grounds to stand on.
Source of what? Drunk driving? That would probably be the individual, who knowing that the only mode of transportation for the night is to drive themselves and still decided to drink and then drive. Is that specific enough for you or are you still struggling with the concept?
Much FEWER people driving drunk, though, which is the point. Just because the solution doesn’t take the problem from 100 to 0 doesn’t mean that taking it to 20 or whatever isn’t beneficial.
Also, “having some proper punishment won’t hurt you” is ridiculously wrong, based on the US having one of if not THE most punitive “justice” system and amongst the highest rates of crime of all western countries.
Prevention and restorative justice works MUCH better at decreasing crime than revenge-based punishment.
The highest incarceration and punishment rate in the world. If you went by the statistics, Americans are, “apparently,” 4.3 times more likely to be criminals than Chinese citizens, and it just gets worse from there, as every other country in the world has even fewer people incarcerated per 100,000 people.
It’s an interesting article and worth a full read. But I’ll bullet point the main problems with mental healthcare it describes (based on my comprehension of the article):
Over and misdiagnosis - since mental health disorders are based on symptoms which often overlap with other conditions, misdiagnosis is common. Also, diagnosis is inherently subjective and depends on the therapists impressions and the quality of information the patient gives
Therapy itself doesn’t work for everyone, and when it does it often takes a lot of time. People expect to head into one or two therapy sessions and have all their problems solved. Also, some forms of therapy have less evidence of effectiveness.
Since therapy is hard, time consuming, and costly, therapists often resort to prescribing meds. Antidepressants in particular are far less effective than people perceive. At best antidepressants can slightly help improve your mood, but the hard work of therapy is needed to address the underlying issues, which often doesn’t happen.
What often has the biggest benefits are strategies that help people manage the stressors, habits, and circumstances of their lives. Traditional therapy often isn’t geared toward that, and there is only so much any therapy can do because…
A lot of our mental health is based on societal factors and our circumstances, and you can’t just talk your way out living with all of this gestures vaguely at everything
The rise of app based mental healthcare is good in that it expanda access, but the quality is shit.
and you can’t just talk your way out living with all of this gestures vaguely at everything
Chad analysis
The rise of app based mental healthcare is good in that it expanda access, but the quality is shit.
Careful peeps, they leak data too... which could cause a lot of mental health stressors. So got to keep that in mind when dealing unreliable tech merchants or really any of them.
It seems to me there is a very simple answer to the issue pointed out in the article—mental health problems are out of control, and no matter how many therapists and doctors we employ to combat it, there’s just no stopping it.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.