Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!
-
-
@japonicus
Deplorable was crowned the official word for that in 2016.
-
@izzion said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@japonicus
Deplorable was crowned the official word for that in 2016.TIL, good to know the cromulent lexicon.
-
@topspin Without these sites I wouldn't know that the borders of my country are still wide open for asylum seekers, and have been so for this whole time. And considering that the whole reason to close the borders was for quarantine purposes while we have a pandemic, I consider that relevant news. As the first example that comes to mind and fits the thread topic. But you do you.
-
-
@Rhywden said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
How remarkably shortsighted of you. How remarkably stupid of you. You're doing the same bloody thing you're accusing them of: Picking and choosing and condemning them for not catering to your every whim.
I'm the consumer, not the producer. I'm the only entity capable of deciding what content I deem interesting. I'd also like to note that I'm not picky; I read also from the so-called mainstream media. But I take all that I read with enough salt to check both sides.
you obviously cannot think for yourself
And here I thought that seeking information and evidence from multiple sources, and forming my own opinion after that, was paramount for thinking for myself.
-
@Rhywden said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Rhywden For you, taht may be enough to forget the site. For me, not actually writing anything newsworthy makes for an even more worthless news-outfit, no matter how great their style.
Yes, and you're obviously the one arbitrator of what you deem newsworthy and everything that does not fulfill your stringent criteria is not worthy of your interest.
How remarkably shortsighted of you. How remarkably stupid of you. You're doing the same bloody thing you're accusing them of: Picking and choosing and condemning them for not catering to your every whim.
Do you really think that this despicable "Redstate" site is worthy of your attention? If yes: No problem. But I think I'll discard anything you say in the future because you obviously cannot think for yourself and need those crutches to pander to your prejudices.
That goes for the rest of you as well who are doing those moronic: "Oh, but journalists are all equally bad!"
It also reeks of that usual moronic extremism. Yes, extremism: There's only good and bad and you obviously label all press bad and thus everything is the same and no one can be believed and thus we can simply swallow the garbage you guys insist on trying to feed us. I'm done with that shit.
You guys let the Garage leak and leak and leak but God forbid someone calls you assholes out on it: Noooo, it cannot be!
Fuck your Redstate. Fuck your DailyCaller. Fuck your FoxNews. Fuck them all and let's not forget:
FUCK YOU!
Take this shit to the garage where it belongs.
-
@acrow I'm assuming that the asylum seekers would have to undergo the 2 week quarantine, just like others that are currently travelling, so I don't see why those would be more or less problematic than anybody else. And, it's not like they were the only exception to the closed borders.
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm assuming that the asylum seekers would have to undergo the 2 week quarantine
Well, no. Perhaps "quarantine" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "to slow the spread of the virus". Either way,
has had no real quarantine or controls whatsoever at the border. Once you step out of the plane at the airport, or in through the gate at the land border, you're free to wander around as you please.The thing is, going out of the country, the border agents will very strictly question you, to make sure it's a very essential work-related trip. But they let unvetted people into the country without question. And considering that we only have land borders with countries that are considered peaceful, a lot of people saw this as a newsworthy contradiction of policies.
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Once you step out of the plane at the airport, or in through the gate at the land border, you're free to wander around as you please.
So, what you said was actually completely unrelated to asylum seekers and applied much more broadly to any people entering Finland? (Including some moron Swedes attempting to visit their vacation homes across the border... And of course to Finns returning to Finland.)
But they let unvetted people into the country without question.
I kinda doubt that refugees or asylum seekers enter countries without question even during normal times, assuming they do so legally (which is what we seem to be talking about at the moment).
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm assuming that the asylum seekers would have to undergo the 2 week quarantine
Well, no. Perhaps "quarantine" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "to slow the spread of the virus". Either way,
has had no real quarantine or controls whatsoever at the border. Once you step out of the plane at the airport, or in through the gate at the land border, you're free to wander around as you please.And the "mainstream media" did report that you have some quarantine or some other restrictions or what? I don't really understand the startling difference...
The thing is, going out of the country, the border agents will very strictly question you, to make sure it's a very essential work-related trip. But they let unvetted people into the country without question. And considering that we only have land borders with countries that are considered peaceful, a lot of people saw this as a newsworthy contradiction of policies.
Maybe I am somewhat dense, but I honestly don't understand this paragraph. Or, rather, the last part. What policies are contradicted by what? Is it the difference of outgoing and incoming travel? And what exactly means "peaceful" means here (especially when talking about Russia) and how is that relevant?
Disclaimer: I don't use any "mainstream" media, and by "mainstream" I mean all the TV, radio and newspapers, even those that are not "mainstream" because these days, "mainstream" means "non-conservative, non-communist".
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin Without these sites I wouldn't know that the borders of my country are still wide open for asylum seekers, and have been so for this whole time
Although I appreciate the specific example, it is obviously not from "redstate" or any other American "news" site. So it is not clear that it is really from "those" sites - because we did not really established what "those" are.
I mean, obviously, you separate sources by political ideology. Ok, valid separation.
I, personally, am more interested about is that most "news" I see from USA don't say what has happened, but what X said that happened, and why is he on-the-spot or utter moron. And that is the better case, actually; quite often, I can read several articles about X saying that Y is wrong when commenting on Z saying... And "totally destroying" him (her).
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I, personally, am more interested about that most "news" I see from USA don't say what is happened, but what X said that happened, and why is he on-the-spot or utter moron. And that is the better case, actually; quite often, I can read several articles about X saying that Y is wrong when commenting on Z saying... And totally destroying him (her).
Yeah, this. I can't understand why those obvious extensions of political campaigns masquerading as news sites are being defended as valuable here.
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Once you step out of the plane at the airport, or in through the gate at the land border, you're free to wander around as you please.
So, what you said was actually completely unrelated to asylum seekers and applied much more broadly to any people entering Finland? (Including some moron Swedes attempting to visit their vacation homes across the border... And of course to Finns returning to Finland.)
Asylum seekers are an example of a group of people that, in my estimate, do not have a pressing need to cross the border right now. They can very well wait until the epidemic has passed.
The same aplies to the Swedes too, I concur.
But the Finnish returnees. I would not ban anyone from returning to their own country. I would, however, quarantine them. But that's a separate topic.But they let unvetted people into the country without question.
I kinda doubt that refugees or asylum seekers enter countries without question even during normal times, assuming they do so legally (which is what we seem to be talking about at the moment).
Effectively, they do. They're directed to the centers, but there has been zero obstacle to them leaving those, once they're checked-in. No guards. No locked doors. No mandatory tabs-keeping. The asylum-seeker can be entirely without identity documents, and have their fingerprints burnt, and there's no difference.
Another fact not not really mentioned in mainstream media here.
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Asylum seekers are an example of a group of people that, in my estimate, do not have a pressing need to cross the border right now. They can very well wait until the epidemic has passed.
Yeah, sorry, TDEMS. You know what asylum means, right? Asylum seekers have a pressing need by definition, or at least think that they do, otherwise they wouldn't be seeking asylum.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm assuming that the asylum seekers would have to undergo the 2 week quarantine
Well, no. Perhaps "quarantine" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "to slow the spread of the virus". Either way,
has had no real quarantine or controls whatsoever at the border. Once you step out of the plane at the airport, or in through the gate at the land border, you're free to wander around as you please.And the "mainstream media" did report that you have some quarantine or some other restrictions or what? I don't really understand the startling difference...
If we're trying to stop the spread of a deadly (as it was portrayed at the time) virus, and prevent all unnecessary travel for this purpose, effectively killing the tourism business, then allowing immigration without health-checks or quarantines at the same time is an apparent contradiction of policy, and smacks of political ideology at play.
The thing is, going out of the country, the border agents will very strictly question you, to make sure it's a very essential work-related trip. But they let unvetted people into the country without question. And considering that we only have land borders with countries that are considered peaceful, a lot of people saw this as a newsworthy contradiction of policies.
Maybe I am somewhat dense, but I honestly don't understand this paragraph. Or, rather, the last part. What policies are contradicted by what? Is it the difference of outgoing and incoming travel?
The government is clamping down on its own citizens, but not unknown foreigners. Revolutions have started from less.
And what exactly means "peaceful" means here (especially when talking about Russia) and how is that relevant?
If there was a war in a neighboring country, and refugees absolutely have to flee that into Finland, then that's force majeure. But traveling through Russia to Finland during a pandemic? That's unnecessarily endangering the Finnish population.
these days, "mainstream" means "non-conservative, non-communist".
Over here it means closer to "non-conservative, communist". But this reflects the regional differences in government, I guess.
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Another fact not not really mentioned in mainstream media here.
So, basically, you want all information processed and completed.
Valid requirement, I assume, if you expect really good journalism. Although I am not sure why do you expect good journalism in 21st century, though, that is kinda
But my opinion is kinda skewed by being from country where journalism died in the years 1938-1950.
So... welcome to the club! You should really get on with the times.
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Asylum seekers are an example of a group of people that, in my estimate, do not have a pressing need to cross the border right now. They can very well wait until the epidemic has passed.
Yeah, sorry, TDEMS. You know what asylum means, right? Asylum seekers have a pressing need by definition, or at least think that they do, otherwise they wouldn't be seeking asylum.
Not when they travel through many safe (to them) countries. Which was the whole point of the Dublin agreement.
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
these days, "mainstream" means "non-conservative, non-communist".
Over here it means closer to "non-conservative, communist". But this reflects the regional differences in government, I guess.This might be getting really into garage territory, but... You have already repeatedly demonstrated to have very weird notion of what "communist" means. Especially when the real communist actually 100% agree with your opinions (at least regarding this topic, but not exclusively)! But I understand that you probably never seen one and never will.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
these days, "mainstream" means "non-conservative, non-communist".
Over here it means closer to "non-conservative, communist". But this reflects the regional differences in government, I guess.This might be getting really into garage territory, but... You have already repeatedly demonstrated to have very weird notion of what "communist" means. Especially when the real communist actually 100% agree with your opinions (at least regarding this topic, but not exclusively)! But I understand that you probably never seen one and never will.
Considerin Left Alliance is one of the parties in the government, partly formed from the Communist Party of Finland, I'd dare claim the opposite. However, I'm not quite positive how many of those people I've seen were members of the Communist Party before the merger, and
to find out.But I agree with your sentment. I have yet to personally witness a full-blown communist regime, apart from my visits to China.
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Effectively, they do. They're directed to the centers, but there has been zero obstacle to them leaving those, once they're checked-in. No guards. No locked doors. No mandatory tabs-keeping.
And, since you're mentioning this, I assume newly-arrived asylum seekers leaving said centers before completing their mandatory quarantine periods has been a big problem?
have their fingerprints burnt
I'm sure this is relevant to the discussion somehow. Just can't quite figure out how...
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Effectively, they do. They're directed to the centers, but there has been zero obstacle to them leaving those, once they're checked-in. No guards. No locked doors. No mandatory tabs-keeping.
And, since you're mentioning this, I assume newly-arrived asylum seekers leaving said centers before completing their mandatory quarantine periods has been a big problem?
You'd be correct in that assumption.
have their fingerprints burnt
I'm sure this is relevant to the discussion somehow. Just can't quite figure out how...
Just to underline just how indiscriminant the system is. (You don't lightly singe all your fingertips at the same time by accident; it's done to prevent identification. There have been cases of criminals on the run from another EU state being granted asylum, only to be later identified by accident.)
But it's not that relevant, true. I'm going off on a tangent. I apologize.
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But it's not that relevant, true. I'm going off on a tangent. I apologize.
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You'd be correct in that assumption.
I'll take your word for it.
The 80 or so people applying for asylum during the current crisis must have been terrible (despite apparently arriving mostly before border regulations were introduced). And disregarding the 14-day quarantine circumstances mentioned at the end must look terribly good on their application.
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You'd be correct in that assumption.
I'll take your word for it.
The 80 or so people applying for asylum during the current crisis must have been terrible (despite apparently arriving mostly before border regulations were introduced).
The number breaking the "stay at home" & "social distancing" orders has been much higher than that. Nice trap with the "quarantine" there though. Teaches me to read more carefully.I was wrong, see below post.And disregarding the 14-day quarantine circumstances mentioned at the end must look terribly good on their application.
I doubt it has any bearing, if criminal convictions gained since entering the country don't. Paraphrasing the current policy, their actions have no bearing on their need for international protection.
-
@acrow Correction. There was a quarantine. Since there were multiple positive COVID-19 test results in the refugee centers, they were under quarantine orders. Which were broken every day.
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But I agree with your sentment. I have yet to personally witness a full-blown communist regime, apart from my visits to China.
I wouldn't call current-day China a full-blown communist regime. It's more like state-organized capitalism.
-
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But I agree with your sentment. I have yet to personally witness a full-blown communist regime, apart from my visits to China.
I wouldn't call current-day China a full-blown communist regime. It's more like state-organized capitalism.
Not current-day. But 20 years ago?
I've had the pleasure of seeing it gradually transform on my subsequent visits.But no, I didn't have opportunity to visit 30 or so years ago, before private enterpreunership was allowed again. You have me there.
...
Well, technically I did visit, but I was too young to remember it. So it counts as me not seeing it.
-
-
-
Yes, I know, the NY Post has all the credibility of <insert copypasta here>, but
Healthy people should wear masks only if caring for coronavirus...
The World Health Organization is recommending healthy people, including those who don’t exhibit COVID-19 symptoms, only wear masks when taking care of someone infected with the...
-
Healthy people should wear masks only if caring for coronavirus
Why is anyone caring for coronavirus?
-
@loopback0 said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Healthy people should wear masks only if caring for coronavirus
Why is anyone caring for coronavirus?
Ah yes, the dread one-box headline cropping strikes again.
-
Standing mask rules here:
- Masks are mandatory in certain situations, like public transit.
- It is accepted scientific fact that only FFP2 or better certified masks are effective against coronavirus
- Possession of a mask with any certification whatsoever is prohibited.
-
@PleegWat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Standing mask rules here:
- Masks are mandatory in certain situations, like public transit.
- It is accepted scientific fact that only FFP2 or better certified masks are effective against coronavirus
- Possession of a mask with any certification whatsoever is prohibited.
The science is settled!
-
@loopback0 said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Healthy people should wear masks only if caring for coronavirus
Why is anyone caring for coronavirus?
So it doesn't die!
-
@PleegWat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
- Possession of a mask with any certification whatsoever is prohibited.
Surely, you must have left out something there, right?!
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@PleegWat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
- Possession of a mask with any certification whatsoever is prohibited.
Surely, you must have left out something there, right?!Only homemade and uncertified masks are allowed to be owned or used by the general public. Dates from the severe mask shortage at the start of the epidemic, after we'd sent our back supply to china as medial aid the month before.
-
@PleegWat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
after we'd sent our back supply to china as medial aid the month before.
Which they gladly resold to you at 10x the cost.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Yes, I know, the NY Post has all the credibility of <insert copypasta here>, but
Healthy people should wear masks only if caring for coronavirus...
The World Health Organization is recommending healthy people, including those who don’t exhibit COVID-19 symptoms, only wear masks when taking care of someone infected with the...
Yeah...I'm fairly convinced that this is mostly theater at this point. My governor just put out an order that we're supposed to wear a mask in any "public" indoor space, though he also said he didn't want any sort of harsh enforcement which is...better than the opposite, I guess.
My county was delayed in reopening from most of the rest of the state. Today we've entered the first phase of reopening.
-
@boomzilla as I wrote before, I think the idea (at least around here) was that “distance + mask” is better than just “distance”, even if the masks aren’t particularly effective. (It’s always been said that the non-medical masks aren’t protecting you, they’re only supposed to decrease how much/far you spread your own breath aerosol particles). That mostly seemed reasonable (unless the masks actively harm in some way), but it feels like it has lead to people ignoring the distancing part.
People wear some shoddy ineffective masks and think it means they don’t need to keep their distance anymore. And the damage is done now, if we get rid of the mask requirement again people will view that as a sign that everything’s over and also ignore the distancing part.
-
We're now 4 weeks past the day things started to open up here in Florida. Long enough that if there was going to be a big spike, we'd see it by now.
The case numbers are basically flat on a rolling average, but testing is up tremendously and the % positive is consistently down. Deaths (even ignoring the last few days which will get back-filled based on slow reporting) are pretty consistently down. Second wave? What second wave.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I think the idea (at least around here) was that “distance + mask” is better than just “distance”, even if the masks aren’t particularly effective.
It makes sense to me, too, but you see so many stories about studies that say the difference is so small as to be worthless. I have no idea what the truth is. I do know that the mask my wife made with some wire in it is soooo much better than the other one. The problem with the old one being that my breath would come up around my nose and fog up my glasses.
And the damage is done now, if we get rid of the mask requirement again people will view that as a sign that everything’s over and also ignore the distancing part.
The biggest problem seems to be hanging out inside with a lot of people for extended (15+ minutes) periods of time. But again, there are just too many unknowns.
The other problem is that we've all seen so many movies and TV shows where some scientist makes a (relatively) superficial study and makes a definitive proclamation. We put too much trust in very uncertain statements IRL and then lose all trust when more observations contradict preliminary conclusions. Just thank goodness that this thing is so much less nasty than Ebola or even SARS.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The other problem is that we've all seen so many movies and TV shows where some scientist makes a (relatively) superficial study and makes a definitive proclamation. We put too much trust in very uncertain statements IRL and then lose all trust when more observations contradict preliminary conclusions.
This is a symptom of a broader issue with science and science education and especially science reporting and policy. In an effort to encourage people to pay attention, they make "Science" out to be some all-knowing source of perfect information, almost godlike in its majesty. And scientists out to be the priests of Science. And that kind of dogma-based thought is brittle when exposed to contradictions, at least for those that aren't true believers.
Basically, the more a group makes really strong, testable claims and demands that everyone follow them (often by force of law), the worse the reaction once that group's claims are shown to be false.
Now scientific thinking itself isn't the issue. But the magnification of the claims and the removal of all of the caveats and qualifiers is an issue. Sure, if you report that "our current evidence suggests the outcome will be X, but there are substantial uncertainties so Y, Z, P, D, and Q are also reasonable to expect", you won't get everyone falling in line because people will judge the risks differently. But if you say instead "Science says X, don't you believe science?" and ~X happens...goodbye credibility. And the credibility loss washes over people not even involved--scientists in other fields who are being careful get tarred with the same brush. And that's bad.
-
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Second wave? What second wave.
In autumn. When nobody will care about it even though it'll have twice the death toll.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Second wave? What second wave.
In autumn. When nobody will care about it even though it'll have twice the death toll.
At this point unlikely unless immunity is really really short. For no other reason that that most of the worst of the death toll was concentrated among a very small population. Who are now mostly either exposed or dead. With 80+% of the deaths in people over 65, eventually we'll run out of people in that category who don't have at least some immunity. This is NOT the Spanish Flu.
-
@Benjamin-Hall why would “80% of deaths in people over 65” imply that most people over 65 have now been exposed?
-
@PleegWat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
It is accepted scientific fact that only FFP2 or better certified masks are effective against coronavirus
Depends on your definition of "effective". Do you want to closely interact with an active COVID-19 patient? Then yes, they don't help. But homemade masks still reduce the potential pollution of the surrounding air by you, thereby reducing the likelihood of unknowingly infecting strangers.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Benjamin-Hall why would “80% of deaths in people over 65” imply that most people over 65 have now been exposed?
If you dig deeper, a strong plurality of deaths in most places were in nursing homes. Where there's basically been unrestricted transmission. So as a first estimate, everyone in any facility where there was a case has been exposed. And there just aren't that many 65+ people. You don't need full herd immunity if the most vulnerable people have already gotten it and recovered or died--the rest just don't seem to transmit it very efficiently (kids especially). So your target population is
a) small
b) heavily exposed alreadySo there just isn't as much room for a big second wave. That's what I meant by that. I probably worded that poorly (was also playing a game at the time, so....)
Coronavirus: Monkeys 'escape with COVID-19 samples' after attacking lab assistant
