In HN's defense, a HN comment didn't make up a fake rape article to ruin the lives of many innocent young people to push a certain narrative like a rolling stone's writer did.
> It was six years ago. It was retracted. The person responsible was fired and blacklisted from the industry.
Shouldn't the company itself be "fired and blacklisted"?
> What did people like you want to happen?
See above.
> Because EVERY news source has at least one skeleton like this in their closet.
It's not their "closet". They did it INTENTIONALLY to push an agenda. Meaning it's a problem with the institution itself. They intentionally set out to create "news" where it didn't exist to further their agenda. They retracted once they got caught. I wonder if you would be so dismissive of the "sins" of other "news" institutions that don't align with your bias or agenda.
The thing that really gets me about HN comments is the lack of plausible deniability for stupid comments. People say dumb stuff on 2^N-chan and you can just assume they're trolls trying to rile up the extremeists. People say dumb stuff on Reddit and you can chalk it up to them being teenagers without life experience to have a more reality based opinion. People say dumb stuff on HN and you can't really make up any excuse for them because they have "Senior Engineer at X" and a link to a personal website that shows they're not an idiot or a deadbeat and you're left wondering how people so smart can be so stupid. Of course it's well known that most people don't know much about things outside their area(s) of expertise but it's still frustrating nonetheless because you'd expect smart people to know this and either not run their mouth or qualify their statements.
Have you checked the Presidential twitter feed? Stupidity is fashionable. Stupidity is popular. Stupidity is loyalty.
(Other factions are also perfectly capable of this, e.g. the leaked Labour internal documents, but the right are really making a performance out of it these days)
I think the mental toll is more complex than that. This situation changes a lot of things. One example is many couples that used to have regular time apart are now together almost 24x7. One of many things that are different now.
Me and my partner are doing OK. But I have noticed that my single overtly extraverted friends are doing less so while living alone. Some have managed to fill their time with constant zoom parties and the like in order to fulfil their extraverted needs but it's obvious they still crave a lot more than that and it's just enough to tide them over. It's going to be very interesting how that progresses in the coming weeks (and months...?).
Regardless of the validity of systems such as the Myers Briggs personality types I am very interested in how the various corners are handling the situation. Particularly INTP/INTJ's (assumedly a lot of HN...).
And those of us who went into this disaster single and without kids have been separated from nearly everyone, and have absolutely no hope of that ending anytime soon.
And those with partners who are in health care are now fearful of being together because they don't wish to get sick at the same time if they get infected.
This bull shit of social distancing... what are people thinking that they won’t get the virus by staying away for a while? There are close to 20m newly unemployed people that could give a shit about it. There will be risks of riots soon if this goes on. And in the end we’ll get worst of both ends.
I'm not sure it's fair to say that it's just social distancing, but you're absolutely right that economic effects have a potential to destroy this country. (writing from the US)
52% of people under the age of 45 have been laid off, put on leave, or had hours reduced. Putting the people with young families, or who would have been looking to start families in dire straits is a great recipe for high crime and social unrest.
> In a new report, Data for Progress found that a staggering 52 percent of people under the age of 45 have lost a job, been put on leave, or had their hours reduced due to the pandemic, compared with 26 percent of people over the age of 45. Nearly half said that the cash payments the federal government is sending to lower- and middle-income individuals would cover just a week or two of expenses, compared with a third of older adults. This means skipped meals, scuppered start-ups, and lost homes.
There was already a protest in Columbus, Ohio in the US over the shutdown. You can say it was irresponsible of them to gather and protest, but the fact remains that their concerns are legitimate to them.
People do not know what is going to happen, our leaders are not doing anywhere nearly enough to address potential famine and no world leader I have heard to far is even beginning to talk about reconstruction. It's just more endless lockdown without clear metrics for what would even end it.
Democratic leaders must use ideas are currency, and right now, they're not offering people any hope at all.
Something like this can only "destroy the country" if the government lets it.
We have the ability to keep essential workers safe with proper protective gear and guarantee both food and shelter to all for the duration—we just have to decide that we value human life and dignity more than money.
I don’t think we have demonstrated the ability to provide protective gear nor can we guarantee food and shelter. We couldn’t keep toilet paper on shelves and nobody could get proper masks.
Well, toilet paper is not "essential protective gear."
That said, my point is mainly that if the government were responding effectively, we could have had production shifting to ensure proper supplies in January. That could have included toilet paper, too, though I suppose it's possible that even an effective government wouldn't have foreseen that particular oddity of the crisis.
As it stands, our government is hamstrung by the fact that its chief executive cares exactly zero for the wellbeing of the country except inasmuch as it makes him feel like he'll have better chances of winning re-election.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any part of the government respond effectively to anything, to the point of it being an oxymoron. I also fail to believe that the president has much power over anything related. In a state of emergency, the president can get more powers. I am unaware of any that would help. He can imprison, disable services, turn off the Internet, sanction, all sticks and no carrots. I think our president is an ass, but I think it is silly to think “if but for him, our government wouldn’t be hamstrung.”
Edit: clarification on my first post: I was not claiming toilet paper as protective or emergency supplies, but as an example that even trifling things can’t be secured. Let alone things that are actually important such as masks or food.
Well, first of all, I disagree vehemently with your premise (that government, as a concept, is incapable of responding effectively to a crisis). But that's another discussion for another day.
As far as specific powers the President has, there's one that's already been talked about quite a bit—the Defense Production Act. As I understand it, this grants the power to compel manufacturing companies to retool to produce what's needed in a time of crisis, and to take control of logistics to see them routed in an efficient manner to where they are most needed. As a matter of fact, Trump has already used this to order GM to produce ventilators (I think? maybe it was masks?).
As far as the logistics side goes, though, he's been using it solely to punish states whose governors don't lick his boots and reward those who do (eg, seizing shipments of protective equipment arriving at the port in NYC, sending them to FL instead).
The last figures I heard put 2022 as a "worst-case scenario", but I haven't been following that side of things closely, so maybe you're right and it'll be another 2-3 years before we can return to normalcy. If that's the case, it'll be all the more imperative for us to switch to a model of supporting the needs of the people that's not reliant on doing work for money.
If we can provide enough PPE for essential workers for 6 months, I don't see any good reason why we couldn't provide enough for any arbitrary length of time. (This is assuming that those 6 months are going to be too long for existing stockpiles to supply to begin with, so we'll need to ramp up production.) Given that we can keep essential workers safe, and essential workers can keep producing what we need to keep the country running and people fed and safe, I'm certain there is a limit to how long we could continue to operate under social distancing, but I doubt that said limit is imposed by simple economics. It's much more likely to be related to infrastructure deterioration (unless we designate construction workers as "essential" and make sure they have appropriate PPE, which might require different standards)...and, of course, the original subject of this thread, the psychological toll the situation takes on everyone.
Because, again, our choices are not between "destroy the economy" and "people get kinda sick."
The real choices are between "change the economy" and "millions of people die." And, um, if millions of people die in the space of a few months, that's not exactly going to leave the economy feeling healthy. Not to mention the psychological toll that would take on everyone.
Your assumptions are invalid and you present a false choice. The economy is not some magic genie that will grant our wishes if we ask nicely. If we leave large sections shut down indefinitely it will become impossible to restart and we'll drive ourselves into a second Great Depression. Poverty kills people just as surely as the virus. They die over years from suicide, substance abuse, and chronic disease but in the end they're dead all the same.
Also consider that social distancing orders are simply unenforceable as a practical matter. I've noticed a lot of people disobeying already, and compliance will obviously decline as time passes.
The reality is that most of us will be infected before a safe and effective vaccine is available. Focus on what is achievable in the real world, not some idealized fantasy.
On the other hand, if the virus spreads so fast that we can't keep up with burying the dead, then that might also cause social unrest, to put it mildly.
In Ecuador, families have had to keep their dead for over a week while waiting for burial. Some have resorted to dumping them on the street. https://youtu.be/XHsfjnRB-uA
You misunderstand the goal of social distancing. The goal is to have fewer people get sick at a time so the medical system can care for the sick without collapsing.
You will get sick. Ultimately, unless there is a vaccine (or herd immunity), you will get sick no matter what. The difference is whether you get sick now, and become a number in the statistics of people who die alone in their house because there was no room in the hospital, or you get sick a few months from now once all the equipment and tools are in place, and there is a good triage system in the medical centers.
I think if there's a riot, then the medical system will need to take care of the rioters who end up getting sick all at once (and yes, some of the rioters will die because of lack of care).
So go riot, and take the chance that you will die.
Except what we're learning now, hospitals can be a death sentence. If you've under 40 and need a non invasive ventilator, it's nearly a 50/50 chance you'll survive. If you need intubation, that chance drops rapidly.
Yup ! I suggest waiting until there are better treatment options before getting sick!! That's exactly why we're all staying home.
Stay home. keep healthy until there is a vaccine or a better standard of care.
If you want to riot, wait until there's a better thing than just going on the ventilator at the hospital and dying. Unless you want to martyr in protest which is also a valid way to go.
So, if I understand you properly, being sick enough that you need to be in a hospital is bad for your health? And the sicker you are the more likely it is that you won't recover?
Are you positing that the same people would have better survival rates at home?
There is no cure or treatment for covid-19. The standard of care for home patients are: stay home, self isolate from other members of the household, drink lots of fluids, do-or-don't-take-these-several-kinds-of-otc-meds (conflicting findings about anti-inflammatory drugs), etc. and let your body heal itself, or die.
At the hospital, they have additional equipment: the ability to isolate you so you don't infect anyone else, provide oxygen at a higher purity and rate, various drugs and techniques to facilitate your body to heal itself (for ex. medically induced coma), and the ventilator and ecmo's which take over certain body functions so your damaged organs don't have to (ie mechanical lung, mechanical kidney (dialysis), mechanical heart, etc).
None of those items are cures. Novel coronavirus means New to human biology - no body, including evolution, has seen this before and no, we don't have a cure.
Going to the hospital means there are no other options other than to put you on extraordinary measures - of course it means that you might not recover.
Again, there is no cure at the moment, no pill you can take to get better. [edit: the exception is if you get into one of those drug trials at a hospital that is offering experimental treatments - it could be worth it - since you'd be offering your body to science to fight this virus. Pasteur had to infect himself in order to test his vaccines, many of those on experimental trials are just like him - bravely trying things out to see if they work.]
Stay at home everyone, so we can properly investigate.
In IT outage terms, this is the time when all systems are down, and the incident commander is going "I know that all the database servers are down," "no I don't know why," and "could you please stop issuing extraneous replication requests to the master server?? issuing replication right now is no use because the master server is just not there."
I'm enjoying it, I like working from home and I prefer to interact with people in text or voice calls over face to face. I wish society would adapt to this and get better infrastructure for things like shopping in my area so I literally never had to leave the house to interact with another human. I like watching TV shows with my best friend on a discord session, we just press play at the same time.
It's like, finally the rest of society has to abide to how I want things to be, I'm glad that I don't have to say "sorry, got a cold so not shaking hands" anymore, because now we just don't do that, it was gross to begin with, why would I want to touch some strangers hands?
The economy breaking down from this, well, that's not only a bad thing, the economy was broken to begin with, in the best case, this forces us to rethink the systems.
I'm fairly certain that number would be _A_LOT_ higher if nobody isolated.
I'm also speculating that the general amount of people dying from infectious disease will fall, the flu takes a toll every year, we could prevent a lot of those.
Why suffer through the common cold if you can simply avoid getting it to begin with?
As I read your question again, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant in my previous post. I do not think the actual virus is a good thing, I wish for that to be over as soon as possible, but the isolation part, more of that please.
Are you suggesting this should be a regular thing? I get that maybe some aspects of your personal experience are better. I don't like shaking hands either and wish we bowed like some East Asians.
But your words feel like they don't truly understand the ramifications of the life and death struggles going on in hospitals, or that the vast majority of human beings that are not you, evolved to need a good amount of social interaction.
This is not normal and should never ever considered being any type of normal. We can deal with the fatalities, and it is tragic, but the long term effects on society and the erosion of our rights and civil liberties will take decades to recover from.
If people don't stay bloody home, this IS going to be a regular thing.
But that social need that some have developed, is what's going to cost those lives and cause that struggle, so how I could be the one not understanding the ramifications, I fail to see entirely.
I'm basically saying "staying at home is nice, and is doing good for my mental health" and the response I get is "People are dying! Don't you understand that!" I don't see the connection. The underlying cause of WHY people has to stay at home is terrible, but the fact that they do have to stay at home, is what I commented on.
I hate that people are dying, I hate that my parents and wife are at risk, I hate that the healthcare systems around the world are breaking down, and I that people can't just stay home so that those I care about can be safe.
Me enjoying the isolation has no bearing on whether the COVID pandemic will continue for shorter or longer, me not hating to be alone and isolated does not change the course whats happening, and even if it did, it would be in a positive way, because I'm not out there, spreading the virus.
What? Should I feel guilty because something terrible is happening, and it just so happens that a side-effect of that is something I like?
Does that somehow imply that I wish the pandemic to continue or people to die?
Yes, indeed, and I think the article fails to take into account that while some have a difficult time coping with this, others are doing better than normal.
As I eluded to in the thread about the iPhone SE: Choice is king.
Personally, I'm like you. This is my heaven, three weeks "alone", being able to pick my interaction method and being in control of my surroundings means my senses don't get assaulted. Truly it's paradise. (if, a little bit more extreme than I'd like).
However, not everyone is me. I would like people to allow me to exist in this way and for society to accept that I'm not just a recluse or unable to work this way.
But at the same time, I feel for all those who are truly people's people. That feed on social interaction, not just in the office. I used to somewhat envy them, society is basically built for them. But now I'm actually very worried for them.
Yes, indeed, choice is king. What I wrote is from a very selfish point of view.
I regret that some people have it like this against their will, and I wish they could get back to normal asap.
Except, I don't wish that truly, because they would force me with them. Whatever the most people want to do, everybody is expected to do, therein lies the problem.
I don’t get how they would “force you with them.” Nobody cares if you choose to self isolate. If you like this there’s no reason you ever need to go back. For many people there has been no change and will be no change, if things ever do reopen completely.
I don’t feel for them much - after all this time having it their way and forcing us into commutes, events, team lunches (who decided this was a reward for gods sake), Christmas parties, meetings, standups and more without a thought for our mental health, surely they can deal with it our way for a while!
We need some awareness of categories here. You are in a particular category where that feeling is an option.
I am in the category where my spouse and I retained our jobs, but lost childcare. These weeks are a nightmare, but I am fortunate.
More urban co-workers of mine do not have the option of outdoors. I am time-crunched and frustrated, but have plenty of sunshine.
Neighbors of mine in health care have to do intense shift work with COVID patients. Some retained child care options, but some didn't, and if they did, anxiety about it exists.
Many many more people out there have the terrible misfortune of too much time and unsteady finances. I feel the most sorry for these people.
If people weren't messy and went about infecting each other left and right, healthcare workers wouldn't be under this kind of strain, and I wouldn't blame them for just going home and saying fuck it, they didn't start this and they're in my opinion under _NO_ obligation to lift that burden beyond what can be considered a normal call of duty in any other job. It's simply unfair to say "Oh, yes, I get to go home after my 8 hour workday, because I'm not a doctor, but _YOU_ chose to be a doctor so you're have to work yourself to the bone while I sit on the couch and infect my friends while watching the game."
Childcare, if the fact that well educated people with good jobs and (assuming) reasonable income is in need of childcare, is not a demonstration of how wrong a society we've constructed.. Sure, in prehistory, some had to stay back when them while others hunted, but we didn't need to keep that structure in place as we progressed.
How is it not crazy that we have constructed society in such a way that one has to offload them to someone else to be considered "a productive member of society".
How is is not entirely broken that, despite the enormous amount of wealth generated in the world, people still starve, and there's pretty much no help for them if they lose their jobs?
Community does not have to mean that we physically come together, it can mean that we pull the load we can, we contribute and share, we treat each other well and respect each other.
This comment bothers me, given that it's in the top section of the comments list. We need to be having a bit of common sense in order to comment on this. That said, doesn't necessary need to be too thoughtful.
I say, We do need in-person interactions. And share our thoughts with others, I work in technology and often try to do this instead of virtual emoji handshake, because it gives me different perspective about life and how others are dealing with their problems. And more than all, to develop some empathy otherwise, life is just mundane.
I will be not popular here, but I have no problems with this so called social distancing (as it is in Germany). The local newsletters write at lest 3 articles daily how bad it is. But it isn’t bad at all! One may open the door and can have a walk. One can drive to the woods and still have a walk. Phones and internet are working fine. It’s not that families of 4 would be locked down in 25 square meters flats for months. Perhaps it’s my subjective perspective: I was homeless and broken decade ago, but now have supportive wife, side project with bright perspective, still employed and with full fridge.
That’s right, but in Germany you could go to the woods with somebody and it still would be totally fine.
Edit: fellow salesmen still thrive during pandemic on the phone. Looks like their luxury cars and weekly meetings at the client’s location are not needed at the end. These were extreme extroverts talking without a break.
What one values in life is the basis of mental health, unless one has a physical pathology (e.g. depression).
Congratulations on your success. There is a significant part of the world population that refuse to learn how to look at the world as appreciatively as we do. The struggles my wife and I have faced throughout our lives give us the foundation for the joy and inner peace we feel in our lives.
I know there will be a lot of people that are suffering during this through no fault of their own, and I hope they persevere and that they reach out to their communities for caring help, and that they receive it.
But a significant percent of us in the wealthier countries of the world are simply having to adjust to not being able to trod all over the world giving fuck-all about anyone else. I say it's well and truly time for them to appreciate their grocery clerks and hospital orderlies and realize that all people are valuable and that the more they struggle in life, the more we should help.
Personally, I'm very happy with the improvement in air quality from the reduction in society's busyness. Endless growth of GDP was always setting us up for disaster; this seems like a kindof gentle way (if brutally abrupt) to slow down our economies, but we'll see how/if/when we come out of the other side.
Moral fatigue in the article is very much a thing, but moreso for people living together. As someone who fits into what I call the "untroubled loner" category, I'm the source of zoom respite for a lot of people stuck together, which takes energy for me, but nothing compared to what it means to a relationship where suddenly you need to be emotionally present and "on," all the time when previously you didn't. I'm regularly in touch with about 30 people in different places via zoom, slack, etc, and the impact could be described on a Pareto distribution.
Too much mental health concern and sympathy bothers me a bit because it can be a social license to behave terribly, and the self-care narrative can seem like an enabler instead of a mitigation for a crisis. I'm advising friends to remember how abnormal this is. Their normal might not come back, but being just a bit more charitable with each other as they adapt can turn a relationship breaker into a deeper level of trust. Marriages and family are wealth, and right now they aren't earning interest or returns from the outside. Some people are starting to spend and draw down their emotional capital by being needy or subconsciously giving in to conflict for the excitement. If you lacked personal boundaries going into this, it's going to be hard when they necessarily build up just to stay sane in confinement, so being charitable about that mental space is key.
All I can say is the best way through this will be to exercise, read the stoics, and work on mastering something. This too shall pass.
> Decision-making over social distancing is taking a toll on our mental health
This is a really good article.
I'm more a fan on the real title "The Reason You’re Exhausted Is ‘Moral Fatigue’"
Handling ‘Moral Fatigue’ effects R0. If it becomes to much people will give up, which ends lockdowns early and it reduces productivity and short term happiness.
With the Moral Fatigue comes adventure though, it's like a foreign holiday, stressful, but we understand the reward.
The real "toll on our mental health" will be the joblessness and health budget cuts for the coming years, not Moral Fatigue.
I think the mental toll for what is going on right now is going to appear laughable in the months to come. No matter which way we jump there are going to be ugly consequences. A huge part of not examining the problems and trying to come up with the best solutions is that it is being made into a political debate on whose policies were and should be followed. We at where we're at. What we should be looking at is what is the best way out. We need to triage the situation by deciding what we want the future to look like.
Do we want our children to grow up with the education and employment opportunities that they had six months ago, or do we want to completely minimize the loss of life?
The people most at risk are people with compromised cardiovascular systems and compromised respiratory systems. I also understand that obese people are at high risk. You can conclude that the way these people became compromised is through lifestyle choices. They chose to smoke, drink, and over indulge in food for many years. I'm sorry the bill has become due. But I don't think my children should have to pay the price for their choices.
I know a lot of readers are going to be saying that the greatest at risk group are people over 65. I'm in this group. It is my personal opinion that I would rather my grandchildren grow up with high potential than to prolong my life another few years. In reality I'm not truly concerned because I'm relatively healthy for my age group because of the choices I have made.
Do you really think that all people with cardiovascular and respiratory issues are 'paying the price for their choices'? I guess asthma sufferers (such as the nurse who ran marathons but had exercise-induced asthma who died recently), people with congenital heart issues, and immunocompromised patients and those with auto-immune disorders all just should have chosen not to be born with their respective illnesses? And tsk tsk for all of those foolish people currently on cancer treatment - don't they know that cancer is easy to avoid because we know every cause? Even if you believe that the majority of people with these conditions are at fault - just be clear that the people who 'caused this to themselves' will not be the only ones who suffer.
-- edited to remove an uncharitable reading and response --
Yes there are those who suffer through no consequence of their own. But they are in the minority. I'm guessing that the majority of people with these compromises have been smoking, drinking and made poor lifestyle choices. I didn't feel I needed to write a complete essay covering every possible case. Yes there are innocent victims. But again, the majority are probably from lifestyle choices.
I was not arguing to be allowed to wonder the streets. I was arguing that there are consequences to every direction we turn and that we need to consider what kind of future we want in the following decades. This will eventually end. What do we want life to look like when it ends?
Just for your info, I live a fairly isolated life on a working ranch. My wife and I can go as long as a month without seeing another human being. My lifestyle has not changed all that much other than the fact that at the base level of the food supply, I can see that shortages are coming. Most living Americans have not lived through food shortages. The big political question of the coming years may not be how do we distribute the wealth, but how do we ease the hunger!
I apologize for the uncharitable reading and response. I have a number of friends with immune disorders and heart issues through no fault of their own, and I was too hasty in my response. It is true that all of the decisions to be made going forward are unpalatable. Sadly, I don't think that any of the ones that are least likely to hurt us in the long run will be chosen. Stay safe out there.
If it were a personal choice, the I would be with you. But realistically they will be sending everyone’s kids back to school if the decision to do so is made.
Of those, some people over 65 will simply die, and in that case the “high potential” their children have is going to be stifled by grief, high medical bills, and total loss of parental support.
If we are making a decision for the whole community, I always feel it best to lean towards a conservative approach, but allow risk takers to have an opt out.
76 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 154 ms ] thread:)
[HN is very interesting, but it's also a fairly reliable source of some extremely inhumane and self-centered comments.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus
What else ya got?
Answer: No. Sean Woods, who was the editor directly responsible for the articles, is still a writer for RS.
All news sources have their failures, some are consistently bad, is Rolling Stone in the consistently bad category?
That's not enough? People like you are why we have a "news" industry.
What did people like you want to happen?
Because EVERY news source has at least one skeleton like this in their closet.
Shouldn't the company itself be "fired and blacklisted"?
> What did people like you want to happen?
See above.
> Because EVERY news source has at least one skeleton like this in their closet.
It's not their "closet". They did it INTENTIONALLY to push an agenda. Meaning it's a problem with the institution itself. They intentionally set out to create "news" where it didn't exist to further their agenda. They retracted once they got caught. I wonder if you would be so dismissive of the "sins" of other "news" institutions that don't align with your bias or agenda.
(Other factions are also perfectly capable of this, e.g. the leaked Labour internal documents, but the right are really making a performance out of it these days)
The internet does a bad job of signalling that.
1. Is this a "fake news" person, who refers to all journalism that isn't Breitbart/Fox as "the MSM" or some such?
2. Is this person still holding a personal grudge from when Rolling Stone left Rush off their best bands of all time list?
3. Are they snarkily referencing some incident(s) where Rolling Stone abused their position/punched down but can't be bothered to link to it?
Regardless of the validity of systems such as the Myers Briggs personality types I am very interested in how the various corners are handling the situation. Particularly INTP/INTJ's (assumedly a lot of HN...).
There's plenty of bored single people in the same boat as far as I can tell.
52% of people under the age of 45 have been laid off, put on leave, or had hours reduced. Putting the people with young families, or who would have been looking to start families in dire straits is a great recipe for high crime and social unrest.
Do you have a source for this? I'm not finding it with a quick google search
From: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/millennial...
Report cited in quote: http://filesforprogress.org/memos/the-staggering-economic-im... (I haven't read this.)
People do not know what is going to happen, our leaders are not doing anywhere nearly enough to address potential famine and no world leader I have heard to far is even beginning to talk about reconstruction. It's just more endless lockdown without clear metrics for what would even end it.
Democratic leaders must use ideas are currency, and right now, they're not offering people any hope at all.
We have the ability to keep essential workers safe with proper protective gear and guarantee both food and shelter to all for the duration—we just have to decide that we value human life and dignity more than money.
That said, my point is mainly that if the government were responding effectively, we could have had production shifting to ensure proper supplies in January. That could have included toilet paper, too, though I suppose it's possible that even an effective government wouldn't have foreseen that particular oddity of the crisis.
As it stands, our government is hamstrung by the fact that its chief executive cares exactly zero for the wellbeing of the country except inasmuch as it makes him feel like he'll have better chances of winning re-election.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any part of the government respond effectively to anything, to the point of it being an oxymoron. I also fail to believe that the president has much power over anything related. In a state of emergency, the president can get more powers. I am unaware of any that would help. He can imprison, disable services, turn off the Internet, sanction, all sticks and no carrots. I think our president is an ass, but I think it is silly to think “if but for him, our government wouldn’t be hamstrung.”
Edit: clarification on my first post: I was not claiming toilet paper as protective or emergency supplies, but as an example that even trifling things can’t be secured. Let alone things that are actually important such as masks or food.
As far as specific powers the President has, there's one that's already been talked about quite a bit—the Defense Production Act. As I understand it, this grants the power to compel manufacturing companies to retool to produce what's needed in a time of crisis, and to take control of logistics to see them routed in an efficient manner to where they are most needed. As a matter of fact, Trump has already used this to order GM to produce ventilators (I think? maybe it was masks?).
As far as the logistics side goes, though, he's been using it solely to punish states whose governors don't lick his boots and reward those who do (eg, seizing shipments of protective equipment arriving at the port in NYC, sending them to FL instead).
If we can provide enough PPE for essential workers for 6 months, I don't see any good reason why we couldn't provide enough for any arbitrary length of time. (This is assuming that those 6 months are going to be too long for existing stockpiles to supply to begin with, so we'll need to ramp up production.) Given that we can keep essential workers safe, and essential workers can keep producing what we need to keep the country running and people fed and safe, I'm certain there is a limit to how long we could continue to operate under social distancing, but I doubt that said limit is imposed by simple economics. It's much more likely to be related to infrastructure deterioration (unless we designate construction workers as "essential" and make sure they have appropriate PPE, which might require different standards)...and, of course, the original subject of this thread, the psychological toll the situation takes on everyone.
Because, again, our choices are not between "destroy the economy" and "people get kinda sick."
The real choices are between "change the economy" and "millions of people die." And, um, if millions of people die in the space of a few months, that's not exactly going to leave the economy feeling healthy. Not to mention the psychological toll that would take on everyone.
Also consider that social distancing orders are simply unenforceable as a practical matter. I've noticed a lot of people disobeying already, and compliance will obviously decline as time passes.
The reality is that most of us will be infected before a safe and effective vaccine is available. Focus on what is achievable in the real world, not some idealized fantasy.
In Ecuador, families have had to keep their dead for over a week while waiting for burial. Some have resorted to dumping them on the street. https://youtu.be/XHsfjnRB-uA
You will get sick. Ultimately, unless there is a vaccine (or herd immunity), you will get sick no matter what. The difference is whether you get sick now, and become a number in the statistics of people who die alone in their house because there was no room in the hospital, or you get sick a few months from now once all the equipment and tools are in place, and there is a good triage system in the medical centers.
I think if there's a riot, then the medical system will need to take care of the rioters who end up getting sick all at once (and yes, some of the rioters will die because of lack of care).
So go riot, and take the chance that you will die.
Stay home. keep healthy until there is a vaccine or a better standard of care.
If you want to riot, wait until there's a better thing than just going on the ventilator at the hospital and dying. Unless you want to martyr in protest which is also a valid way to go.
Are you positing that the same people would have better survival rates at home?
At the hospital, they have additional equipment: the ability to isolate you so you don't infect anyone else, provide oxygen at a higher purity and rate, various drugs and techniques to facilitate your body to heal itself (for ex. medically induced coma), and the ventilator and ecmo's which take over certain body functions so your damaged organs don't have to (ie mechanical lung, mechanical kidney (dialysis), mechanical heart, etc).
None of those items are cures. Novel coronavirus means New to human biology - no body, including evolution, has seen this before and no, we don't have a cure.
Going to the hospital means there are no other options other than to put you on extraordinary measures - of course it means that you might not recover.
Again, there is no cure at the moment, no pill you can take to get better. [edit: the exception is if you get into one of those drug trials at a hospital that is offering experimental treatments - it could be worth it - since you'd be offering your body to science to fight this virus. Pasteur had to infect himself in order to test his vaccines, many of those on experimental trials are just like him - bravely trying things out to see if they work.]
Stay at home everyone, so we can properly investigate.
In IT outage terms, this is the time when all systems are down, and the incident commander is going "I know that all the database servers are down," "no I don't know why," and "could you please stop issuing extraneous replication requests to the master server?? issuing replication right now is no use because the master server is just not there."
The second is the disease where society, in an attempt to fight the disease, could end up deeply hurting itself:
https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/covid-19-is-two-disease...
It's like, finally the rest of society has to abide to how I want things to be, I'm glad that I don't have to say "sorry, got a cold so not shaking hands" anymore, because now we just don't do that, it was gross to begin with, why would I want to touch some strangers hands?
The economy breaking down from this, well, that's not only a bad thing, the economy was broken to begin with, in the best case, this forces us to rethink the systems.
As I read your question again, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant in my previous post. I do not think the actual virus is a good thing, I wish for that to be over as soon as possible, but the isolation part, more of that please.
But your words feel like they don't truly understand the ramifications of the life and death struggles going on in hospitals, or that the vast majority of human beings that are not you, evolved to need a good amount of social interaction.
This is not normal and should never ever considered being any type of normal. We can deal with the fatalities, and it is tragic, but the long term effects on society and the erosion of our rights and civil liberties will take decades to recover from.
This is not a time of honor.
But that social need that some have developed, is what's going to cost those lives and cause that struggle, so how I could be the one not understanding the ramifications, I fail to see entirely.
I'm basically saying "staying at home is nice, and is doing good for my mental health" and the response I get is "People are dying! Don't you understand that!" I don't see the connection. The underlying cause of WHY people has to stay at home is terrible, but the fact that they do have to stay at home, is what I commented on.
I hate that people are dying, I hate that my parents and wife are at risk, I hate that the healthcare systems around the world are breaking down, and I that people can't just stay home so that those I care about can be safe.
Me enjoying the isolation has no bearing on whether the COVID pandemic will continue for shorter or longer, me not hating to be alone and isolated does not change the course whats happening, and even if it did, it would be in a positive way, because I'm not out there, spreading the virus.
What? Should I feel guilty because something terrible is happening, and it just so happens that a side-effect of that is something I like?
Does that somehow imply that I wish the pandemic to continue or people to die?
I don't know what honor has to do with it.
Just because something good came out of this on a personal level does not 'negate' the negative in any way.
Bad things can have some good consequences, however minor.
(See: technological advancement in times of war. Or illegal human experiments impact on science).
You're saying nothing by trying to imply a negative thing is the cause, we are aware.
Personally, I'm like you. This is my heaven, three weeks "alone", being able to pick my interaction method and being in control of my surroundings means my senses don't get assaulted. Truly it's paradise. (if, a little bit more extreme than I'd like).
However, not everyone is me. I would like people to allow me to exist in this way and for society to accept that I'm not just a recluse or unable to work this way.
But at the same time, I feel for all those who are truly people's people. That feed on social interaction, not just in the office. I used to somewhat envy them, society is basically built for them. But now I'm actually very worried for them.
I am in the category where my spouse and I retained our jobs, but lost childcare. These weeks are a nightmare, but I am fortunate.
More urban co-workers of mine do not have the option of outdoors. I am time-crunched and frustrated, but have plenty of sunshine.
Neighbors of mine in health care have to do intense shift work with COVID patients. Some retained child care options, but some didn't, and if they did, anxiety about it exists.
Many many more people out there have the terrible misfortune of too much time and unsteady finances. I feel the most sorry for these people.
Childcare, if the fact that well educated people with good jobs and (assuming) reasonable income is in need of childcare, is not a demonstration of how wrong a society we've constructed.. Sure, in prehistory, some had to stay back when them while others hunted, but we didn't need to keep that structure in place as we progressed.
How is it not crazy that we have constructed society in such a way that one has to offload them to someone else to be considered "a productive member of society".
How is is not entirely broken that, despite the enormous amount of wealth generated in the world, people still starve, and there's pretty much no help for them if they lose their jobs?
Community does not have to mean that we physically come together, it can mean that we pull the load we can, we contribute and share, we treat each other well and respect each other.
I say, We do need in-person interactions. And share our thoughts with others, I work in technology and often try to do this instead of virtual emoji handshake, because it gives me different perspective about life and how others are dealing with their problems. And more than all, to develop some empathy otherwise, life is just mundane.
People are different and they have different needs even in social interactions.
Is this comment a satire reacting to that or is it real?
I honestly can't tell.
Edit: fellow salesmen still thrive during pandemic on the phone. Looks like their luxury cars and weekly meetings at the client’s location are not needed at the end. These were extreme extroverts talking without a break.
Congratulations on your success. There is a significant part of the world population that refuse to learn how to look at the world as appreciatively as we do. The struggles my wife and I have faced throughout our lives give us the foundation for the joy and inner peace we feel in our lives.
I know there will be a lot of people that are suffering during this through no fault of their own, and I hope they persevere and that they reach out to their communities for caring help, and that they receive it.
But a significant percent of us in the wealthier countries of the world are simply having to adjust to not being able to trod all over the world giving fuck-all about anyone else. I say it's well and truly time for them to appreciate their grocery clerks and hospital orderlies and realize that all people are valuable and that the more they struggle in life, the more we should help.
Personally, I'm very happy with the improvement in air quality from the reduction in society's busyness. Endless growth of GDP was always setting us up for disaster; this seems like a kindof gentle way (if brutally abrupt) to slow down our economies, but we'll see how/if/when we come out of the other side.
Too much mental health concern and sympathy bothers me a bit because it can be a social license to behave terribly, and the self-care narrative can seem like an enabler instead of a mitigation for a crisis. I'm advising friends to remember how abnormal this is. Their normal might not come back, but being just a bit more charitable with each other as they adapt can turn a relationship breaker into a deeper level of trust. Marriages and family are wealth, and right now they aren't earning interest or returns from the outside. Some people are starting to spend and draw down their emotional capital by being needy or subconsciously giving in to conflict for the excitement. If you lacked personal boundaries going into this, it's going to be hard when they necessarily build up just to stay sane in confinement, so being charitable about that mental space is key.
All I can say is the best way through this will be to exercise, read the stoics, and work on mastering something. This too shall pass.
This is a really good article.
I'm more a fan on the real title "The Reason You’re Exhausted Is ‘Moral Fatigue’"
Handling ‘Moral Fatigue’ effects R0. If it becomes to much people will give up, which ends lockdowns early and it reduces productivity and short term happiness.
With the Moral Fatigue comes adventure though, it's like a foreign holiday, stressful, but we understand the reward.
The real "toll on our mental health" will be the joblessness and health budget cuts for the coming years, not Moral Fatigue.
Do we want our children to grow up with the education and employment opportunities that they had six months ago, or do we want to completely minimize the loss of life?
The people most at risk are people with compromised cardiovascular systems and compromised respiratory systems. I also understand that obese people are at high risk. You can conclude that the way these people became compromised is through lifestyle choices. They chose to smoke, drink, and over indulge in food for many years. I'm sorry the bill has become due. But I don't think my children should have to pay the price for their choices.
I know a lot of readers are going to be saying that the greatest at risk group are people over 65. I'm in this group. It is my personal opinion that I would rather my grandchildren grow up with high potential than to prolong my life another few years. In reality I'm not truly concerned because I'm relatively healthy for my age group because of the choices I have made.
-- edited to remove an uncharitable reading and response --
I was not arguing to be allowed to wonder the streets. I was arguing that there are consequences to every direction we turn and that we need to consider what kind of future we want in the following decades. This will eventually end. What do we want life to look like when it ends?
Just for your info, I live a fairly isolated life on a working ranch. My wife and I can go as long as a month without seeing another human being. My lifestyle has not changed all that much other than the fact that at the base level of the food supply, I can see that shortages are coming. Most living Americans have not lived through food shortages. The big political question of the coming years may not be how do we distribute the wealth, but how do we ease the hunger!
Of those, some people over 65 will simply die, and in that case the “high potential” their children have is going to be stifled by grief, high medical bills, and total loss of parental support.
If we are making a decision for the whole community, I always feel it best to lean towards a conservative approach, but allow risk takers to have an opt out.