No, but thanks. I am of the opinion that if a provider is going to blacklist me because of my choice of resolver, then they just are not worth my time working around. I am quite happy with quad1 as my DNS provider, and these archive services don't provide enough incentive for me to switch.
Every economic system is fragile and has dysfunction. The question is: how do we have less fragility and dysfunction; but I suspect you're getting at something else.
> The United States has a whole lot of wounds from decades of racist policies and the criminalization of the poor. In 2011, Columbia did a study that we’ve updated: At least 250,000 people die every year from poverty in America. Now, in a pandemic, that’s an open fissure.
That’s an astounding figure, likely much higher than the final death toll for American C-19 cases will be. If we accept that kind of annual figure without collectively reflecting on our current system and its inequalities, what hope do we really have long-term? So much of the country is still denial that this is a real pandemic, we can’t even agree on that.
Reflect, please, but do not think so highly of yourself to assume that whatever solution you have in your head won't cause more death and unnecessary suffering.
We're not the first people who thought we could change the world for the better.
samatman has a good angle on questioning the accuracy of that number. Still, there's no question that poverty does in fact kill people - if not as bad as Columbia's study says, then still significantly more than zero.
The problem is, doing nothing was going to lead to 250,000(ish) people dying in America from Covid, without reducing the number dying from poverty. So that probably is not the right answer.
The trick is going to be keeping people from dying from Covid without making poverty a lot worse for a lot of people. I don't have a good answer, but I know that "not stopping everything" wasn't the answer.
I keep thinking last few days, we need a communist mode. Basically, a way to change all of the normal rules to option B when necessary. Instead of making random laws that make no sense. A method of completely putting all existing loans on pause - effectively not due and not late and the next payment is effectively delayed until the communist mode is turned off. Communist mode should go a lot farther, but you get the idea.
The risk, so to speak, is that people will be so fond of communist mode that they'll reject attempts to turn it back off. Any laws for this would be drafted in a hurry under crisis scenarios, so they would likely have many vulnerabilities that could be exploited, ones that wouldn't necessarily exist in non-crisis bills aimed at achieving the same goals.
A more concrete example:
We could pass a "communist mode" bill that makes everyone's health expenses free (covered by the federal government) during the duration of the crisis, to ensure all covid-19 victims get treated and possible cases get tested so we can trace their contacts and control the spread.
Alternately, we could introduce a national health program instead, not a crisis one. As it turns out we've had lots of prototype "medicare for all" legislation already and had debates about it.
Upsides to the crisis bill: Potentially easier to pass, because we can tell nay-sayers that it's an emergency measure. Any resistance from industry types can probably be defused in the same way - after all, hospitals are actually struggling revenue-wise right now, so having a steady flow of patients funded by the government potentially helps them.
Downsides to the crisis bill: Once people are used to it, they'll be very angry if it disappears. There will be political incentive to extend it. Industry may grow used to the federal money and get familiar with ways to raise prices and make more off the crisis system than they did before. Any actual changes will likely be uneven, on a state-to-state basis or targeting specific groups that can't fight for themselves, similar to how many US states simply opted not to take free federal money to expand programs like medicare to more residents. The duration of this crisis is unknown, so you risk setting your end date too early (and having to fight over an extension, like the debt ceiling), or setting it too late and carrying high expenses forward for a potentially disastrous program.
Also keep in mind that it being a mode means it can be turned on or off for political reasons. People on either party could definitely hold the populace hostage through that means, just like how the debt ceiling (and resulting cuts to programs and services) has been used in the past.
Historical examples would lead one to think people might not be very fond of communist mode and eager to get out of it. Perhaps having a system that was designed to flip from capitalist to communist and back again could alleviate the harsh realities of either system.
Communism when times are bad (because perhaps central planning is needed to weather a storm) and capitalism when times are good so as to maximize the capturing of opportunities.
Such a mode would likely provide the unprecedented power to America's leadership. It also seems likely that the next election will be delayed. Still think this is a good idea?
How about instead of a "communist mode" and "capitalist" mode, what if we do what the rest of the civilized world does and have a "socialist" mode which operates alongside capitalism and provides a robust social safety net, and we considered actually funding and competently staffing government programs rather than opting for the Grover Norquist model of constantly trying to reduce government to "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" and expecting the free market to pick up the slack in providing for the general welfare?
And how about we finally realize that trying to run the American government like a business and electing "CEOs in Chief" is a bad idea?
We don't need safety nets, most people have good jobs and are only having trouble because they have no savings and didn't otherwise plan for a crisis. Good lesson in personal responsibility, keep my tax money elsewhere please.
We need 20 to 30 million tests a day to "restart" America. We can produce at that level, but we're not. We can debate the moral choices once someone in charge shows some competence. Until then it's basically insanity to have a defined solution and not attempt it. We're in a hole and debating throwing other people into holes instead of mass producing ladders.
We're barely testing anyone. I know of only two people tested among my NYC friends. One who is still in the hospital after surgery to improve his breathing. One who is a healthcare worker exposed to a known carrier. Two other friends exposed to a known carrier who got sick couldn't get tested because there weren't enough tests. Nor could the 5 others I know who had COVID-19-like symptoms. Nor could I.
While I don't think anyone would argue that we are testing anything approaching "enough" people in the US, I would certainly not say we're testing "almost nobody". Looking at Politico's testing tracker ( https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/coronavirus-testi... ), most states outside of the hotspots in the Northeastern US have administered about 10x as many tests as they have positive cases.
New York and the surrounding areas are obviously a different matter, but at this stage I suspect that even if they did have enough physical tests and capacity to process them they would not have anywhere near enough medical staff to physically administer them. There's also the tradeoff that asking hundreds of thousands of people to leave their dwellings to seek testing would do more harm than good in areas where that necessarily involves walking, public transportation, etc.
30 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 45.4 ms ] threadThat’s an astounding figure, likely much higher than the final death toll for American C-19 cases will be. If we accept that kind of annual figure without collectively reflecting on our current system and its inequalities, what hope do we really have long-term? So much of the country is still denial that this is a real pandemic, we can’t even agree on that.
We're not the first people who thought we could change the world for the better.
Presuming the numbers were slightly different in 2011, I have a cynical picture of how that study came to its conclusion.
The problem is, doing nothing was going to lead to 250,000(ish) people dying in America from Covid, without reducing the number dying from poverty. So that probably is not the right answer.
The trick is going to be keeping people from dying from Covid without making poverty a lot worse for a lot of people. I don't have a good answer, but I know that "not stopping everything" wasn't the answer.
A more concrete example: We could pass a "communist mode" bill that makes everyone's health expenses free (covered by the federal government) during the duration of the crisis, to ensure all covid-19 victims get treated and possible cases get tested so we can trace their contacts and control the spread. Alternately, we could introduce a national health program instead, not a crisis one. As it turns out we've had lots of prototype "medicare for all" legislation already and had debates about it.
Upsides to the crisis bill: Potentially easier to pass, because we can tell nay-sayers that it's an emergency measure. Any resistance from industry types can probably be defused in the same way - after all, hospitals are actually struggling revenue-wise right now, so having a steady flow of patients funded by the government potentially helps them.
Downsides to the crisis bill: Once people are used to it, they'll be very angry if it disappears. There will be political incentive to extend it. Industry may grow used to the federal money and get familiar with ways to raise prices and make more off the crisis system than they did before. Any actual changes will likely be uneven, on a state-to-state basis or targeting specific groups that can't fight for themselves, similar to how many US states simply opted not to take free federal money to expand programs like medicare to more residents. The duration of this crisis is unknown, so you risk setting your end date too early (and having to fight over an extension, like the debt ceiling), or setting it too late and carrying high expenses forward for a potentially disastrous program.
Also keep in mind that it being a mode means it can be turned on or off for political reasons. People on either party could definitely hold the populace hostage through that means, just like how the debt ceiling (and resulting cuts to programs and services) has been used in the past.
Communism when times are bad (because perhaps central planning is needed to weather a storm) and capitalism when times are good so as to maximize the capturing of opportunities.
Can you explain how this would be likely?
And how about we finally realize that trying to run the American government like a business and electing "CEOs in Chief" is a bad idea?
New York and the surrounding areas are obviously a different matter, but at this stage I suspect that even if they did have enough physical tests and capacity to process them they would not have anywhere near enough medical staff to physically administer them. There's also the tradeoff that asking hundreds of thousands of people to leave their dwellings to seek testing would do more harm than good in areas where that necessarily involves walking, public transportation, etc.