We are likely going to see a rise in infant and maternal mortality rates as well. Most of the states that outright banned abortion are also ones where they didn’t expand Medicaid and have fewer hospitals
Not to mention all the obgyns fleeing those states. Doctors want to help people, but they don’t want to be thrown in jail for life (and they certainty can’t help anyone from there). The procedures used for abortion are an integral part of reproductive medicine and save many lives. In these states prosecutors and judges are breathing down doctors necks, second guessing their judgment on when someone is critically ill enough to warrant an abortion. There’s already women in those states who know their pregnancy is non viable, know they need an abortion, know that continuing on with the pregnancy will put their lives at risk, but the doctors that still remain have their hands tied to help until they start decompensating when it may already be too late.
Residents being trained in those states are already having trouble getting experience with these important life saving procedures. In some cases programs are trying work around like sending residents to train in other states for a time. But getting a short temporary rotation with just a few procedures is not the same, and surgeries are safer the more repetitions a surgeon has had. Abortion bans are making the entire country less safe, especially so if they get their way and ban it across the entire country and it becomes near impossible to get good training anywhere. Besides all the other obvious implications.
Under the Maryland law, an applicant for a handgun license must meet four requirements. They must be at least 21 years old, a resident of the state, complete a gun safety course and undergo a background check to ensure they are not barred under federal or state law from owning a firearm.
An applicant must then fill out an application, pay a processing fee, and wait up to 30 days for a state official to issue a license.
The appeals court ruled that requiring applicants to wait up to 30 days for a handgun permit violated the constitutional rights of citizens, and “the law’s waiting period could well be the critical time in which the applicant expects to face danger.”
Critical time where the applicant expects to face danger
I needs my guns the minute I needs them. Vending machines full of guns should be on every street corner so I have access to the firepower and ammunition I need at all times.
Or it’s because you’re a minority trying not to be killed by white supremacists…or a 5’ 120lb woman with a stalker…but noooo by all means it’s just because someone is angry.
Maryland also required fingerprints, which is a huge hassle and will likely cause the law to stay invalidated. It costs money, and requires you to go to a jail or sheriffs office, which is only open from 9-4 with lunch blocked from 11:30-1:30.
The constitutional right to acquire arms immediately and without precondition, I see. Just like the constitutional right to say anything, at any time, without any consequences.
This doesn’t remove all background checks, so “immediately and without precondition” is facetious.
I agree with not selling weapons to known maniacs, but I also believe that if the govt knows someone’s dangerous enough that they shouldn’t own a gun for self defense, they already should have been removed from the general population and arrested/imprisoned etc, as they are still very dangerous to the general population without said firearm.
Why do you think law abiding citizens should be gassed, arrested and shot at for exercising their constitutional right to petition the government against grievances? Because Trump sure enjoyed doing those things and he says he’s going to do it even more if he gets re-elected. And then there’s the Republican love of cruel and unusual punishments. And, of course, there’s Mike Johnson and other Republicans denying that there is or should be a separation between church and state.
Seems like maybe the people who are supposed to protect your constitutional right to own a gun don’t really care about other constitutional rights.
So do you vote for the people who promise to protect your gun rights at all cost or do you vote for the people who feel there needs to be sensible gun regulations?
Are you going to be voting for the people who claim to be preserving gun rights or are you going to vote for the people who want sensible gun regulations?
Now you see the crux of the issue it seems, on either side someone is attacking the right to something, there is no champion of all rights, everyone wants to control their neighbor.
Yes. Both clearly seek to limit different civil liberties, and supporters of each fight about why what they want to limit isn’t actually a civil liberty.
Are you denying that the democrat party seeks to limit the right to bear arms? Because by being purposefully obtuse and attempting to deflect (which appears to be your typical MO), you seem to be saying that.
Yes, I know, one side seeks to regulate firearms like they were regulated for pretty much all of the 19th century and the other seeks to violate the Constitution in every way possible. No different.
I never claimed they had one, I claimed they also are attempting to limit other rights, and this little deflection of yours is adorable but irrelevant, so yes I ignore it.
Same way as law abiding citizens need to wait 21 years, goes through firearm training, and gone through background check to exercise their constitutional rights. If 30 days is such a long time to wait and considered unconstitutional, why not lower the age requirement to 12 years old? Why need firearm training? Why need background check?
That’s what Republicans want. No gun control regulations at all. Anyone, according to them, should be able to buy a gun at any age at any time anywhere.
Children are basically retarded and we already limit minors' rights. I'd honestly include a good number of 21 year olds in that group.
Not a huge fan of crazy gun control but some limits make sense - we're literally talking about a (fun) murder machine. Hopefully folks can see how that might be just a little different than say... Words?
Because it makes the world safer. Same reason you need a fence around a pool, even though the pursuit of happiness is protected by the constitution (for me, happiness is unbridled access to a pool).
Oh so you have no idea what you’re talking about and have no business publically sharing opinions on this, or really any aspect of the Constitution. You simply don’t have the requisite knowledge to be credible.
You can wait, bud. In OR it’s already a ~2 week wait to pick one up from an FFL, it didn’t affect me in the slightest. It’s clear we need more in-depth preprocessing before granting weapon ownership. It’s a deadly item, just like a car is. You gotta register and have a license and all this shit before you can hit the road. Whats the diff?
Also, you actually have to wait to exercise lots of constitutional rights. What you gonna advocate for voting whenever the fuck you want? It’s our constitutional right after all!
The issue you should have with any of this is with licensing it likely puts a financial barrier to that same constitutional right.
I’m an attorney so I think you’re basically illiterate in comparison. Why don’t you go read it again, you absolute donkey. Tell us all why a militia is even necessary in the eyes of the framers. The text on this could not be more clear.
Second Amendment True Purpose Revealed: True Secret the Framers Don't Want You to Know“the security of a free state”
This is basically how gun laws have worked in Canada for ages. Treating access to guns the same way you do cars just makes sense. Of course the ease of being able to smuggle weapons bought from the unregulated US sources has meant that gun crime here is still a major problem compared to countries who share borders with others with similar gun control laws. The majority of gun crime in Canada happens with illegally sourced weapons 85% of which has been sourced to guns purchased in the US. Mexico experiences a similar issue.
Gun pollution spreads over our borders and the US is simply big enough and self obsessed enough to not care. Every democratic nation has it’s own version of the US Constitution and unlike when the US Constitution was written, democracies now make up the majority of government systems on the world stage. There are now a lot of democratic societies who have been stable and just fine without massive amounts of citizen gun ownership. In a very real way American gun law structured as it is interferes with our country’s ability to address guns on our own democratic and constitutional grounds.
Democracy and freedoms of the kind the US bills itself on is now considered pretty basic worldwide. Anyone operating on an originalist veiw really needs to unbury their head from the sand and realize how much the world has changed since it was written.
I am more offended by them saying you have to be 21 years old. If you are old enough to be drafted for the military then you should be old enough to have a firearm. Same with the right to vote.
Typical rich person mentality. How easily they forget they don’t create wealth in a vacuum. People are only that rich off the hard work of other people
“Our AI data science projections state we won’t lose money until musk really gets into white supremacy, so let’s keep those ads pumping until that happens.”
The scary part though is blockchain is actually a buzzword when it comes to profiting within a business. Having an impermeable ledger that’s computationally expensive really doesn’t further profits outside of being a shitty product that can be offered.
Having an AI that can do in 5 seconds what took a set of PhD data scientists with no morals to do in 5 weeks is more frightening. (Yes I know the data scientists are the ones now training and using the AI)
Immediate pricing model to determine maximum profit every few seconds based on aggregate sales, market conditions, and demographic targeting? Check
Determining minimum viable wages and benefits to keep employee retention while continuing to grow profits? Check
Figuring out every tax and legal loophole to avoid paying taxes by going through trillions of transactions? Check
Determining “maximum cost of human life” or “maximum environmental impact” that won’t be detrimental to profits? Check
Planning product launches specifically around planned obsolescence? Check
Sabotaging competitors through social media and other means? Check
The list goes on and on, but AI is by no means a buzzword in business circles. It is a way to hyper-accelerate capitalism.
The big investors in AI don’t give a shit whether or not it makes for a good chatbot. They want a drop-in CEO that can accelerate quarterly profits per compute cycle.
Included in the video is the response by the capital police and lawmakers trying to get out of there. the Captial building is built like a warren maze, in large part as additional security. one of the reasons that we didn’t have any lawmakers (or pence,) get seriously hurt was because most of the insurrectionists couldn’t find their way.
I really can’t see much coming from this. Security relies on capital police, national guard, water cannons, rubber bullets, etc. You either have those or you don’t.
*Actually more relies on FBI infiltration, informants, information tapping, etc. This is all wayyy before anything happens at the Capitol grounds.
The security tapes reveal how [all the people you mentioned] responded to the first attempt. It’ll also show the evacuation routes, which are extremely difficult to change, where the safe rooms are, which is also incredibly difficult to change, where all the cameras are, the weak points.
from the insurrectionist point of view, it’s intelligence material to use for training. From the point of view as someone whose spent a lifetime in contract security, releasing it is a fucked up thing to do. It’s basic common sense that you don’t release broad swaths of your security recordings to the general public. We all watched it happen live on the news. There’s absolutely no reason to release the vast majority of these recordings.
They intentionally weren’t in place the first time thanks to Trump. They will be from Biden. If Trump wins again, he won’t rely on this Hail Mary method again. He’ll seize power a different way.
*I’m not saying it’s good to release them, I just can’t see all that much coming from it.
Eh. there will be changes, sure. nat guard will be in place. they’ll probably have insurmountable fencing instead of the stupid event-crowd-control stuff; they’ll probably have more bodies actually on duty, etc.
most of the reasons you don’t want to release the tapes remain the same- especially evacuation routes and shelters. Would a second attempt be successful? probably not. but that’s why they want it- and why we shouldn’t give it to them.
I do think you give Trump too much credit. he doesn’t care how many people he gets killed as long as he gets power. and he’s not exactly… intelligent.
I agree you don’t want to compromise any security info, but this is the last, last, last, last line of defence. If it gets to that point you had several colossal fuck ups that all aligned. What happened on Jan 6 was an ad hoc defence from the scattered mess that happened to be around (and which did not actively open the doors to “protestors”).
I edited my first comment, you have FBI operations, wire tapping, infiltrations, etc. Security starts way before it gets to the Capitol grounds.
As for Trump, he’ll start the hunt way before Jan 6.
Your logic is like a like that of a Bond villain. Sure I revealed the evil plan to the one guy who can stop me, but he was totally tied to a laser beam table about to be sawed in half. But what ends up happening every time? The guy gets out of the laser beam table and stops the villain's plans, none of which would've been known if they would've just shut up.
It’s more like knowing there are layers. It’s like a construction hard hat being the absolute last safety measure, not the first. It won’t save you from a huge beam falling on your head. Instead you have safety plans to make sure that doesn’t happen in the first place.
What revealed here is like an ad hoc hard hat. It’s not the layers and layers of security before that.
A warren typically refers to the series of interconnected holes that rabbits dig and live in. Part of the defense they provide is the difficulty that predators like foxes have when navigating them.
In this instance warren maze just refers to a deliberately difficult to navigate floorplan.
Maybe the far-right Republicans, thinking that a mob of angry Trumpers can do no wrong, believe the footage will exonerate them and are wanting the footage released for that reason? (And if that’s correct, they’ll find out otherwise soon enough.)
This is 100% it, there’s already so much “bad” footage out there that no one is going to change their mind about jan 6 if more comes to light. But they’re hoping to find a few clips that make it look good that they can play on a loop on fox News
The footage is already out there. These seems like an information dump under the guise of transparency. It’s like when a corporation gets sued and has to release records so they send 20 million pages of documents to the plaintiff, far too much to actually wade through.
Yeah there’s plenty amateur detectives out there with time on their hands who will absolutely find shit that the GOP doesn’t want found. This seems all kinds of reckless.
Was fairly tongue in cheek, but when I fired up kbin and hit the 12 hour filter (as is my usual) I think three or four of the top ten posts were about Ohio abortion rights. Had to dig further to find this one.
I'm not really grumpy about it being mentioned here though, just a playful early morning comment.
Yeah it’s just that this headline was the only one I saw for a while, and I didn’t see anyone mention it in the comments either! So I’m happy to spread the word. Glad to mention it here. Surely some people saw one or the other first, and we’re gonna be shouting out in the streets.
The only answer that democrats have: “Who else are you going to vote for – Trump? 😏”
This is why the US will inevitably slide into fascism. You’ve got a party of fascists and then another party that helps out fascists in a number of ways: salon.com/…/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentio…
Democrats like to position themselves as “the thin blue line” that separates civil society from a fascist hellhole, but just like “the thin blue line” known as the police, they’ve got fascist tendencies if they’re not simply full-blown fascists. To think that this is called a democracy.
That’s a bingo. I was elated when I had that realization, but also sad that there was nothing we can do about it. It’s what leads me to accelerationist tendencies, that I struggle with. It’s a facet of the ratchet effect in the 2 party system. But when you explain this to people you are called a pessimist and defeatist. It’s reality. On the bright side, after fascism comes a “golden” period, but climate change will limit its possibilities.
On the bright side, after fascism comes a “golden” period
I’m not so sure about that, there are plenty of countries that have been dictatorships for generations. Modern developments in weapons technology and surveillance also gives the governments of today, and tomorrow, a lot more alternatives to suppress a population than in the past.
There is no such thing as a perfect democracy. To cut off your nose in spite of your face is not the path forward. I want more support for the Palestinians but you also got extreme radicals that are protesting for Palestinian freedom and to establish a caliphate like in Germany. The other side of this conflict is so fragmented my arguments for human rights gets drowned out by religious extremest on both sides. This war didn't start this year, it started decades ago. Where were all the SJWs then?
I wish it was simply a matter of “it’s not perfect” but the problem is actually “it’s not a democracy”. Just take a look at the approval rate of congress: news.gallup.com/…/congress-job-approval-drops-low…We’re supposedly in a representative democracy but the representatives have an approval rating of 13%. Tell me how that makes sense.
You’re right, the war didn’t start this year, as Israel has been committing human rights violations and taking more and more Palestinian land for decades. Support for Palestine has only increased as more people have seen the truth and I attribute part of that to social media and the ability to share another side of the story (complete with recorded video, thanks to phones) instead of the narrative being dominated by large mainstream media outlets.
We’re supposedly in a representative democracy but the representatives have an approval rating of 13%. Tell me how that makes sense.
Not trying to justify things as they stand, but an impprtant caveat is that’s for Congress as a whole. Ask people how they feel about their rep and you get much different numbers. Basically, everyone else is the problem.
To your point about the US slide into fascism, thats why I think that this election is very very very important. Imagine what a post-second-term Trump presidential race would look like for a second. Trump is winning as the strong man. You think Dems would counter with someone reasonable? No. Both parties are putting up new people. And guess what? Neither are good and both are populists and both are young and hungry for power. I don’t need to tell everyone that someone like DeSantis would be absolutely insane, but I will. That’s the up and coming from republicans. That’s who sits behind trump next.
I have good news though. The house of cards that republicans are playing is obvious. It can and I’d say probably will crash if trump loses. If he loses, there is zero reason to pay him attention. Literally ignore him, doesn’t matter. Don’t have to follow his orders.
And trump is a fascist that will actually kill the platform itself in my view. I think he could topple the whole tower back down to where republicans can’t agree with each other. He also has the power to split the party.
Basically, the longer that the republicans fail or split, that’s when you’ll get to know the democrats better.
I’d love nothing more than for the republican party to slide into complete irrelevance, but I heard the same thing after Bush’s two disastrous terms culminating in a once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis and after Mitt Romney lost, people were saying that republicans are having a demographic crisis and that they’re at risk of never winning another election. The problem is that democrats themselves have said they don’t want this:
Both Biden and Pelosi said that the country needs the republican party. When was the last time the republican party wasn’t horrible? Just like how whenever democrats get a majority, the exact number of senators turn heel to prevent anything progressive from moving forward, I’m sure democrats will find a way to keep the republican party relevant.
It’s entirely possible that democrats will try to hold together what’s left of the Republican Party after 2024. Let me state some points first: -Trump is a massive populist, he has created new issues for voters and completely skewed the stance of the party -Trump also has demanded loyalty from congress. He has people in power who are far far far more dedicated to him than the party -It is unlikely that whatever happens in 2024 will be uneventful. Be it jail, re-election, whatever.
That all being said, Bush was incompetent and this road is long but yes the republicans have been losing for awhile now. They are unpopular and have arguably lost the majority of the vote for 30 years. Their issues are failing them. Their leader is morally bankrupt.
Another big reason is demographics. Their demographics have been aged older and older with time. But instead of fluctuations or slow decline, we’re seeing massive unpopularity with younger crowds.
This makes it very hard to pivot. They don’t have many ways to appeal to young voters without losing their older base. They lost themselves entirely over trump in 2016 and in 2020. Senators who didn’t support trump lost their support. So it’s clear that a lot of the future of the party hinges on trump winning 2024. And I view that as unlikely.
She could even hire a SE Asian worker directly instead of using the middleman slaver. They’d never send a Saudi. She could even be nice and let them keep their passport but that would take having a conscience.
Fearmongering ain’t freedom. This is America. We don’t trade freedom for safety like bitch ass Europeans, we ride rockets like bucking broncos for fun. Life is cheap, freedom is priceless.
But genuinely, sometimes the EU is just overly cautious. And in the case of the point I was making, again, just because the EU made a regulatory decision doesn’t mean they were right to do so.
You can’t use MOST of our candy flavorings in the EU. Do you genuinely think our candy is poisoning just because it’s artificial, or is that just the naturalistic fallacy talkin
Don’t worry about the downvote, this is true, especially with their harder stances against GMOs and nuclear power that are based on fearmongering rather than science. We need GMOs and nuclear to reduce climate change.
That said, this isn’t a comment on whether or not BVOs are bad, just that the EU banning something isn’t alone a reason to ban it here
While it’s true that their stance against GMO was largely unfounded, they’ve generally made better calls with most things when it comes to food safety. In some sense, their stance against GMO was still valid, given that it was new technology - the real issue is how readily they move back on that when more evidence comes out.
Absolutely, I mean just look at the new privacy bill, which the very latest revision has them hijacking website certificates so they can spy on people as they please.
However, when it comes to food safety, the EU has been far ahead of the US. The US basically dismissed a bunch of concerns back in the 1970s, and outside of California they’re only now just reviewing them and accepting that they aren’t that great. Things under the classification “Generally Recognised As Safe”, or GRAS, which are unlikely to cause accute harm when taken in normal doses, however for many of them there is strong evidence of harm when taken frequently over a long time.
Suffice it to say, food in Europe is generally of a higher quality and standard than the US, because the EU has better regulations in this field.
The governor of Virginia’s son committed voter fraud, got caught and turned away, waited half an hour, came back, and tried to commit voter fraud a second time. The governor said that there would be no legal consequences for his son despite having committed voter fraud twice.
So, for those of you keeping score at home, if Governor Youngkin likes the way you vote you can try to vote illegally as many times as you want, but if he doesn’t like the way you vote he won’t let you vote even if you’re legally allowed to.
So fucked up masks became politicized: I had hoped that the pandemic would help normalize them so people would just mask up whenever they feel sick. It could’ve mitigated the spread of all sorts of airborne disease.
Instead, they’ve been demonized by insane fascists. What a stupid world we live in…
Sometimes I just wear a mask to piss them off lol.
The problem is the cdc basically lied at the start and killed all their credibility before things even got started. Then you had apologists claiming they didn’t lie, making everything even worse.
The political body responsible for messaging and action during a pandemic immediately ruining it’s credibility is a pretty big problem. It creates the opening for a masks don’t work campaign, when the cdc opens with masks aren’t useful.
I can’t recall their exact messaging anymore, but I know at the time I got the impression that they said to save the limited supply of masks for the people that really need them. I remember constantly arguing on the internet at the time that that was what they said. They didn’t say that they don’t work, they just said not to start buying and hoarding them away from the people that need them.
But I guess one specific sentence caught “the other side’s” attention more than the rest of the message. Probably because they never actually check the source for what was actually said, and only read small clips from it that they have been told to react against.
Now you are lying. Just like CDC blatantly lied saying masks don’t help, against any common sense. What kind of medical group would ever say this in the face of an airborne novel respiratory virus. It’s inexcusable. They lied, you are now lying.
It literally says “does not recommend for the general public” implying it is recommended for people that are actually in need if it, yes that is indeed the post everyone cherry picked from and never read the whole thing. Good find and good job reminding me of those idiots from years ago.
The video in that link even says they are recommended for medical professionals and other people in close contact with the infected. Literally saying, yes masks do work, but the general public shouldn’t be hoarding them yet, save them for people that need them.
Opens with “at this time” not recommended for public, yet. Like they will be at some point.
Nowhere at all does it say masks don’t help. In fact it says the opposite several times… but if you cherry pick parts of individual sentences, not even any one full sentence, you can misconstrue the message, I guess.
They did not provide the context, which was misconstrued as lying.
Everyone did not need to wear a mask at first because it was not widespread enough for them to be effective for the general population compared to making sure medical staff who were far more likely to be exposed had masks. Masking by the general public at the very beginning was a waste of masks compared to just reducing the time spent in groups. It became effective as time went on and the mask supply ramped up.
That context doesn’t make it not a lie. They could have said mask supplies were needed for medical professionals first, but they chose a convenient lie.
The context makes it like saying life jackets won't keep you from drowning in a boat. They will if the boat starts sinking.
That is not a lie. What you are doing is twisting the first statement into the second to call it a lie.
They were trying to keep it simple, and while I agree that they should have said it was for medical professional use first I can see why they would leave it out to avoid panic buying since so many people are idiots.
I don’t necessarily think someone wanting to protect themselves against a potentially deadly infection makes them an idiot. I don’t think it’s fair to shame people who want to protect themselves and others by wearing a mask. Having a limit per customer prevents panic buying fairly well, at least it did during the pandemic where I live.
I also don’t entirely fault people for not believing the CDC when they said that masks weren’t effective for the general public, they could have said that they were for medical professionals first who were more likely to be exposed to the virus. They weren’t being entirely upfront and I could see why people would feel burned about that. Personally I’m not huge on the way they framed it either.
I basically agree with you but I’m not huge on the way you’re wording it, whatever I’m probably in the wrong here but I still wanted to get my thoughts out there.
With that said, even as early as the middle of 2020 they recommended mask usage for the general public.
People aren't idiots for wanting to protect themselves.
They are idiots who panicked and hoarded toilet paper when there was no indication there would be a toilet paper shortage. Of course they would do the same thing with medical supplies.
The worst part is, in the actual post, there is a 30 second video explaining that they do indeed recommend medical professionals and others in close contact with the infected wear masks. So it even specifically had that context, and somehow people got the message that masks don’t help from it.
But I’m willing to bet most people who thought it said masks weren’t effective never saw the actual source. Just had one snippet of one sentence read to them on fox News with the “hosts” filling in what they should think about that half sentence.
The post also only say “not recommended -for the general public- at this time” which is not at all saying they wouldn’t work. Just don’t hoard them away from the people that need them, at this time. So, literally not even a lie anywhere in there. Directly stating exactly the message everyone that actually read the post took away from it.
They initially stated masks weren’t effective for general population use. This was a lie. There were reasons at the time for the lie, but it doesn’t make it not a lie.
I remember that now. Yeah, no idea why they said such at the beginning. It’s not like masks were a new invention with covid. Asian countries regularly use mask with flu.
They did it because the US didn’t have enough masks if they said anything positive about masks. So they lied initially to prevent people trying to buy masks, so they could go to hospitals first.
Initially the CDC didn’t know how much asymptomatic spread was going to be a factor: that definitely changes the math on advising everyone to mask up. By July of 2020 they were unequivocal: www.cdc.gov/…/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html
Also, they never actually lied, you can see the post here in some of the other comments, people were just idiots at the time and didn’t actually read the full post, just saw “not recommended for general public use at this time” and somehow took that to mean masks didn’t help. Instead of that they do help, but save them for the people in need, not general use. The post actually has a video in it that also specifies masks should be worn by medical professionals and other close contacts with the infected. Which is very much specifically saying masks do actually help.
But of course, at the time, the detractors wouldn’t link the actual source, they would just pick one sentence and “…quote…” it, completely removing all the context and making it look like it said the opposite.
Also it’s not like the idea of masks helping was ever in doubt among educated people. It’s literally been a go-to for more than a hundred years already. It was only the uneducated that needed to be told.
They literally didn’t lie, the post is linked in this thread. Of course at the time people weren’t linking the source, they were quoting part of one sentence and getting inflamed that half of a sentence seemed to say the opposite of what the actual post said.
It literally says “not recommended -for the general public- at this time” how is that miscontrued to “they don’t work”? It doesn’t say that at all. In fact the video in that post, I know it’s a full 30 seconds long and slow and boring… but the video specifically says to save them for medical professionals and others in close contact with the infected. Again very much stating specifically that they do help.
Covid has reached a ubiquitous state where it’s a constant presence around us. Similar to how cold and flu virus are. So in a sense, the high concern and detailed tracking is over. And we must simply accept that there is one more virus as part of our lives. It’s not over in the sense that it’s gone. That certainly will never be now.
It is over in the same way that the Spanish Flu is over, still around but not a massively infectious and deadly threat in the way it was originally due to vaccinations and herd immunity.
Which was what experts said from the start. Small chance it could get worse. But likely it’ll become endemic? And when it does it’ll just be like the cold. All we need to do is make sure we keep deaths low until it does by following some things like distancing and masking. Shut downs were terrible for many but it saved lives. Meanwhile everyone I knew kept telling me how they were lying about those steps and really it wouldn’t be temporary it was ushring in a NWO under the WHO
Yes, it no longer impacts our comings and goings meaningfully anymore, so now it’s just one of the boys (influenza, sars, those and more here) Let’s hope, someday, it can join this list.
I mean, COVID isn’t over lol: It didn’t go anywhere, we’re just dying from it a little less often. Must be nice avoiding colds and flu if masks are common in your area though, getting sick sucks.
I wore a mask in crowded places for three and a half years without getting sick. Then I stopped and two weeks later I got COVID. It wasn’t much fun and it took weeks to get over. Maybe that was coincidence, but now we’re back into flu season I’m wearing masks in crowded places again. I figure each person who wears one makes it a little easier for those who would like to but don’t want to go against the social tide.
Right at the beginning of the pandemic, masks were being recommended by the CDC and everyone just sort of did it. COVID was novel and we were still trying to wrap our heads around it and being over cautious.
Weeks earlier, Trump was lamenting his polling numbers and complained that he didn’t have a “Katrina” that would rally his favorables.
Trump could have done something simple and just worn the damn mask. He could have told people that until they had better data, let’s be cautious and following the CDC guidelines.
But when he was asked point blank, he said he wouldn’t wear one.
Before that, conservatives and liberals were wearing masks. It wasn’t a “tribal” signal. But the second he said it, it was. You could tell immediately after that who conservatives were.
The funny thing is had Trump handled COVID better, he probably would have won re-election. Or at least it would have been closer.
He could have made a MAGA mask and told his cultists that it was more effective and blessed with holy water or something, and then go on to make piles of cash. At the time, that’s what I was expecting to happen, but sadly I was wrong.
There was so much happening around this time. There was a story that didn’t get a lot of runtime about some company that he or someone who was connected to him set up where the federal government purchased masks bought a bunch of boxes from them but never got delivered.
The internal audit found that they basically the funds were misappropriated. The whole management of funds were so…shady to say the least.
Unfortunately, the recommendations from most (all?) top-level officials in the US right at the beginning of the pandemic was for the general public NOT to wear masks (including Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, etc). This absolutely didn’t help matters when later they had to change their tune and recommend then mandate masks, after they had said that they were not needed.
Here’s a nice compilation video of these statements over the first couple of months of the pandemic: piped.video/watch?v=tRE59LJc6CA
This is not what happened, they recommended people not to wear masks at the start. This might have undermined their later recommendation to wear a mask
This is true. They didn’t want to cause a mad rush for N95s and other medical masks, because they knew medical professionals needed them more. Because then as soon as they recommended the masks, there was a huge shortage.
But some people took the changing recommendation as some kind of conspiracy, that the government is just making it all up.
Is a cookie million different than a regular million? Like, does it have to be a million cookies? $1 million worth of cookies? A $1 million cookie made of, like, platinum and diamonds and whatnot? Like a Faberge Egg, but a cookie and worth $1 million?
What would the State of New York even do with that?
10’000 is to a billionaire what 10 is to a millionaire. Or cents to some random person.I hope that gets the point across just how irrelevant that number is.
I looked it up, and the penalty is imprisonment until the fine is paid. If the fine is never paid, it ticks down with time served (looks like double-digit dollars forgiven per day).
Let’s say Trump is worth $1 billion. (He claims he’s worth much more, but reports say he’s worth much less.) The super rich skew the average net worth, but it looks like the median American is worth $193,000.
At those amounts, $10,000 for Trump is like $1.93 to the “median American.”
I can only hope that the fines increase by a lot more or jail time starts getting added to the mix.
They were laughing at Californians when it was happening to us (very very recently) thinking that it was the result of “liberal policymaking”.
Well, how does it feel, Florida? Are you ready to put aside our differences and go after our real common enemy, the for-profit insurance industry and climate deniers? Because I promise you, this is only going to get worse unless we force them to change things.
Insurers aren’t really to blame here. Florida is a fundamentally high-risk place to build and live now, and will continue to get worse for the foreseeable future due to climate change. Even a non-profit insurer would need to price Florida insurance at a premium, lest its funds be exhausted when the inevitable category-6 hurricane hits the state.
Arguably the ones most to blame (after the fossil fuel industry, for putting us in this position in the first place of course) is corrupt politicians and developers who allow such shoddy construction in the state in the first place.
We don’t just allow construction in risky places, we subsidize it. If you’re an owner or developer and you wanna put your own money at risk by building in risky places, you should be allowed to do that. Just don’t expect me to pay for it through taxes and FEMA flood insurance.
Maybe it’s not quite comparable to the situation in California, now that I think about it. Florida has always been in the path of devastating hurricanes for as long as I can remember. There is a degree of assumed risk living there. In California, these massive wildfires almost never happened and now suddenly it happens every year without fail no matter how hard we try to contain them. I live in an area that has never been hit by a wildfire, but because California as a whole has been hit so hard so many times recently, rates get raised to untenable levels and State Farm won’t even write you a policy. It’s completely mad.
Like, I get it, it’s not the insurance company’s fault that we live in the path of predictable destruction, but there has to be a better solution than “move somewhere else if you don’t like it”. I wonder if we can learn something from studying the insurance models of other countries that are prone to disaster (Island nations in Asia that are frequently hit by typhoons, for example) and adapting that to how policies are tailored here?
Good. Subsidizing risky behavior, as we do with some kinds of disaster insurance, encourages risky behavior. Rising insurance costs are the market telling people to stop living in certain places. We’d do well to listen and stop living in places like Florida so much.
Lord, don’t even get me started on NC property insurance. Their solution to increasing rates for many years was to mandate that rates couldn’t exceed x, based on what they believed was appropriate.
Protip: It wasn’t appropriate. I’ve been out of that game for long enough now that I don’t know if they ever fixed it, but it was bad - basically if you couldn’t write a policy within x% of the expected rate, the risk had to be ceded to the state’s reinsurance facility, which drastically limited the available coverage.
Honestly I’m on team insurance in these cases. The US is filthy rich and we have tons of highly habitable land. Why are we wasting resources subsidizing some people choosing to live in comfortable, risky locations?
For those stuck in poverty: that does suck but I consider that an independent issue.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.