Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!
-
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I got a notification that @antiquarian mentioned me here, but when I click it, I get an "access denied" error. Did someone move some posts to the garage or is NodeBB just being weird again?
Yeah, there was some jeffing by Our Great Leader when things turned garagey.
Wait, that means I've got a garage post now. My clean reputation is ruined.
-
@dfdub
Guess it's time to switch to a different @boomzilla alt
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I got a notification that @antiquarian mentioned me here, but when I click it, I get an "access denied" error. Did someone move some posts to the garage or is NodeBB just being weird again?
Yeah, there was some jeffing by Our Great Leader when things turned garagey.
Wait, that means I've got a garage post now. My clean reputation is ruined.
Might as well come join the dark side now that you're tainted.
-
Apparently, Stockholm is at about to reach herd immunity from covid. How about that. The rest of the country seems to be about halfway to the same level.
So, when the rest of Europe starts getting hit by a second wave when the fascism trial is toned down, Sweden will have fewer cases per capita.
-
@Carnage I did a search for articles and found one at the BBC:
They have a picture in there and I swear these guys look almost exactly like two of my cousins (although the guy on the right is probably too tall and the guy on the left might be too short):
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Carnage I did a search for articles and found one at the BBC:
They have a picture in there and I swear these guys look almost exactly like two of my cousins (although the guy on the right is probably too tall and the guy on the left might be too short):
Yep. People pretty much stopped dying... Apart from the needless peak, mostly because the government didn't get their collective thumbs out their arses at the start and also completely forgot about the elderly in preparations, Sweden seems to be doing pretty alright.
Here is the official public data: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa
It's in Swedish, but the left side from left to right is cases, intensive care, deaths. The right side, from top to bottom is cases per day/cummulative, intensive care per day/cummulative, deaths per day/cummulative.
There is more data and source information available as well, all in Swedish of course.Five months into Europe's pandemic and only 6% of the population here is known to have antibodies, according to Swedish Public Health Agency research.
However, Anders Tegnell believes the true figure is "definitely a lot higher", as immunity "has proven to be surprisingly difficult to measure".I saw a newspaper report about T-cell and antibody being at about 40% in Stockholm and 20% in the rest of the country, and the study was a few weeks old I think. Not to mention that infection rates in Stockholm is in a nose dive, so the city is well past the peak now and in the long tail part of the infection. Lots of signs of approaching herd immunity. Especially considering that testing has been massively ramped up, so the number of daily detected cases actually going down fast means that it's going down even faster than what the numbers say.
A bigger problem could be the impact on Sweden's wider international reputation for high-quality state health and elderly care, she believes. "There has been a blow to the Swedish image of being this humanitarian superpower in the world. Our halo has been knocked down, and we have a lot to prove now."
About fucking time. Swedish politicians need to stop peddling that fucking bullshit already.
"I don't think this will affect the relations in the longer term," says Helen Lindberg, a senior lecturer in government at Uppsala University. "But it has highlighted or brought back old grievances between our countries."
Honestly, I don't know of a single person that is angry or feels old grievances with our Nordic brethren. Everyone seems to simply deal with it by vacationing in Sweden instead, so the tourism in Sweden is better of than normally, because the entire population is staying in the country, AND we have a few foreign tourists as well. Most camping grounds are completely booked. Restaurants are open, bars are open, and things are just slowly chugging along.
Helen Lindberg believes the strategy has called into question a historic reliance on public agencies to inform policies and highlighted a lack of preparedness for crises. "It's a perfect storm for our weak, minority government," she says.
My fucking god the hypocrisy, the privately run homes for the elderly have had far, far less of an impact and death toll from covid than the publicly managed ones. But, socialists gonna socialism.
Edit;
Speaking of Sweden
here is a graph about it that shows that Sweden is on a pronounced downturn, and the other "randomly" selected countries are on the way up, or bouncing. https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Belgium&location=Belgium&location=Denmark&location=Finland&location=Germany&location=Norway&location=Sweden&location=Switzerland
Sweden never had a hard lockdown like the others, so we won't see the uptick when we release our hard lockdown, because we don't have one to release.
OF the 5500 deaths in Sweden, 5000 are ages 70+, which is a heavy piece of evidence that the government utterly failed to protect the ones at most risk. This is shit. And they did it by pure fucking incompetence, so a hard lockdown would have done fuck all to protect them anyway because the disease had already gotten into the homes for the elderly by the time there was any kind of reaction.
-
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Yep. People pretty much stopped dying... Apart from the needless peak
IOW: all the vulnerable people died in that peak, so now we’re getting good, low numbers!
-
@Gurth said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Yep. People pretty much stopped dying... Apart from the needless peak
IOW: all the vulnerable people died in that peak, so now we’re getting good, low numbers!
There are still plenty of vulnerable people around.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Carnage I did a search for articles and found one at the BBC:
Five months into Europe's pandemic and only 6% of the population here is known to have antibodies, according to Swedish Public Health Agency research.
However, Anders Tegnell believes the true figure is "definitely a lot higher", as immunity "has proven to be surprisingly difficult to measure".
Image caption Eva Britt Landin (right) backs Sweden's approach "because nobody knows exactly how we should do it"The state epidemiologist points to recent research by the Karolinska Institute that found even people testing negative for coronavirus antibodies had specific T-cells which can provide immunity by identifying and destroying infected cells.
But other Swedish scientists are more cautious about predicting resistance to the virus. "I think he is overconfident," says Helena Nordenstedt. "We can all hope it will have an effect on the infection case numbers in Sweden during the fall, but we don't know yet."
This should get a lot more study because it makes all the difference. The 6% number would mean basically no herd immunity at all, the numbers @Carnage quoted would mean "about half-way there" for Stockholm or at least "on the way" for the rest.
It's a pretty significant difference, and if the immunity numbers are on the high side of this range it would be a tremendously good sign for the Swedish approach.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Carnage I did a search for articles and found one at the BBC:
Five months into Europe's pandemic and only 6% of the population here is known to have antibodies, according to Swedish Public Health Agency research.
However, Anders Tegnell believes the true figure is "definitely a lot higher", as immunity "has proven to be surprisingly difficult to measure".
Image caption Eva Britt Landin (right) backs Sweden's approach "because nobody knows exactly how we should do it"The state epidemiologist points to recent research by the Karolinska Institute that found even people testing negative for coronavirus antibodies had specific T-cells which can provide immunity by identifying and destroying infected cells.
But other Swedish scientists are more cautious about predicting resistance to the virus. "I think he is overconfident," says Helena Nordenstedt. "We can all hope it will have an effect on the infection case numbers in Sweden during the fall, but we don't know yet."
This should get a lot more study because it makes all the difference. The 6% number would mean basically no herd immunity at all, the numbers @Carnage quoted would mean "about half-way there" for Stockholm or at least "on the way" for the rest.
It's a pretty significant difference, and if the immunity numbers are on the high side of this range it would be a tremendously good sign for the Swedish approach.I also read an article about immunity, where a bunch of epidemiologists said that the threshold for herd immunity may be a significantly lower number due to how the disease is clustered instead of an even spread.
-
@Carnage but the clusters are probably temporal, so if they "move on" to somewhere else it doesn't help. At least that'd be my assumption.
-
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I also read an article about immunity, where a bunch of epidemiologists said that the threshold for herd immunity may be a significantly lower number due to how the disease is clustered instead of an even spread.
I think the graph theorists will find that both very funny and horrifying at the same time. The issue is that there's a fairly small proportion of people who spread things massively wider than average (because social networks are small world networks, which have that connectivity property) so while most flare-ups stay contained easily, a few really don't and it's hard to predict which will and won't. The real effect of lockdown was to shut down the majority of the superspreaders. (Masking and distancing are more direct ways of influencing the transmission rate itself, but run into problems with asshats.)
Nobody knows what the real herd immunity rate is (as in part it depends on how much infection by other things interacts) but 6% would be astonishingly low for a respiratory virus. The likelihood of that being the case is… well, not something I'd put money on, that's for sure.
-
Interesting if true:
SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in healthy donors and patients with COVID-19
Nature - A study of patients with COVID-19 and healthy donors found CD4+ T cells that react to the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and human endemic coronaviruses; however, the effect of pre-existing...
We detected SARS-CoV-2 S-reactive CD4+ T cells in 83% of patients with COVID-19 but also in 35% of HD.
...
The role of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive T cells for clinical outcomes remains to be determined in larger cohorts. However, the presence of S-cross-reactive T cells in a sizable fraction of the general population may affect the dynamics of the current pandemic, and has important implications for the design and analysis of upcoming COVID-19 vaccine trials.
-
@Benjamin-Hall If the title used "blood donors", IMO that would really help to clear up understanding.
That's quite interesting, my friend who's a medical practitioner mentioned some time in April (iirc) they'd start broadly testing blood donor samples, which (aside from maybe age distribution and a few societal factors) should give a pretty unbiased random sampling of the general population. There only was some formal legality question, but I guess you just give permission for the test now when donating, and initially a problem that in the very beginning of hard lockdown you couldn't actually go donate blood. Also importantly, it should give a really large sample size.
But I can't really tell from reading the abstract if that is what happened here (general blood donations), or if "healthy donors" only means people they selected for some study.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But I can't really tell from reading the abstract if that is what happened here (general blood donations), or if "healthy donors" only means people they selected for some study.
The full article is actually freely available (no paywall for Nature? Who'da thunk?!) and it doesn't look like it. They could've made the study setup a bit more obvious, but from what I've skimmed:
Remarkably, S-II-reactive CD4+ T cells, albeit at slightly lower frequen-cies compared with patients, could also be detected in 24 of 68 HD (35%), henceforth referred to as reactive healthy donors (RHD)
So only 68 instead of "huge number of all blood donors." It's still easily statistically significant, so not a problem here, but I would've found the approach I described above interesting.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Nobody knows what the real herd immunity rate is (as in part it depends on how much infection by other things interacts) but 6% would be astonishingly low for a respiratory virus. The likelihood of that being the case is… well, not something I'd put money on, that's for sure.
Here's one theory:
Why herd immunity to COVID-19 is reached much earlier than thought – update
By Nic Lewis I showed in my May 10th article Why herd immunity to COVID-19 is reached much earlier than thought that inhomogeneity within a population in the susceptibility and in the social-connec…
I opined, based on my modelling, that the HIT probably lay somewhere between 7% and 24%, and that evidence from Stockholm County suggested it was around 17% there, and had been reached. Mounting evidence supports my reasoning
He's quoting a paper on the subject that might explain the phenomenon here:
More susceptible and more connected individuals have a higher propensity to be infected and thus are likely to become immune earlier. Due to this selective immunization by natural infection, heterogeneous populations require less infections to cross their herd immunity threshold than suggested by models that do not fully account for variation.
Lots more at the link.
-
The government will instead seek better adherence to social distancing rules after a surge in coronavirus cases in the country this week, Van Ark said at a press conference in The Hague.
-
@boomzilla Welcome to the Polder Model. Some parties call for masks, others say their usefulness is not proven, still others say it will cause people to not respect social distancing, yet others claim all and/or none of the above are true. Standard Dutch solution to such problems: compromise by giving everyone part of what they want.
-
@Gurth said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
compromise by giving everyone part of what they want.
Probably a winning strategy here.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Apologies if that has already been posted, I may have missed it:
Age-Related Differences in Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 Levels in Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19
This cohort study investigates age-related differences in nasopharyngeal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) levels in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx compared with older children and adults. Our study is limited to detection of viral nucleic acid, rather than infectious virus, although SARS-CoV-2 pediatric studies reported a correlation between higher nucleic acid levels and the ability to culture infectious virus. Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gurth said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
compromise by giving everyone part of what they want.
Probably a winning strategy here.
It works quite well here, but I’m not sure the model is exportable all that well. Also, it’s not conducive to quick decision-making.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The funny thing is, in USA, "Karen" usually means a person complaining about someone NOT wearing a mask.
"I'm breaking the official store rules and you're refusing to serve me, I'm making a scene. Mah freedom!"
This kind is usually called Sovereign Citizens. Before COVID, their most common catchphrase was "am I being detained?"
I’d call this one a Karen, but I guess what label you put on it doesn’t really matter:
Reasons not to wear a mask: none. (If she had asthma or anything like it, you know she wouldn’t stop telling you about it)
Reasons to be in there in the first place: none.
Reasons to make a scene: that’s seems to be the purpose by itself.Great job. You’re really helping everyone here.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
If she had asthma or anything like it, you know she wouldn’t stop telling you about it
Not that it would be any reason not to wear a mask either.
That said, "no reason not to wear" is a pretty shitty argument for wearing masks, and I also hate when government forces me to do things just because it can (example: everyone in Poland can own a gun, but only as long as they're a registered member of competitive shooting association or collectors' association. There's no reason not to be in one, but still.)
-
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
That said, "no reason not to wear" is a pretty shitty argument for wearing masks
How about not breaking the rules just because you feel like it?
-
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
If she had asthma or anything like it, you know she wouldn’t stop telling you about it
Not that it would be any reason not to wear a mask either.
That said, "no reason not to wear" is a pretty shitty argument for wearing masks, and I also hate when government forces me to do things just because it can (example: everyone in Poland can own a gun, but only as long as they're registered members of competitive shooting association or collectors' association. There's no reason not to be in one, but still.)
But, let's be honest, wearing a mask is the least oppressive thing at the DMV, even if you rename it to BMV.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
I'm not convinced about the value of masks, especially the surgical (or cloth) ones lots of people wear. But even so, I'm a conflict-avoidant rule-follower by nature, so I wear a mask to avoid conflict, and because it's a rule.
This actually came up in an interview--the question was something about "how much do you have to understand the reasons for something (a best-practice/code standard requirement in this context) before you're willing to follow it?" My answer was basically "as long as it's not obviously a WTF, I can learn the reasons as I go. I'm usually willing to follow the policy even if I don't understand it or necessarily fully agree, because it's not about me or my opinions. There are rare exceptions, but..."
And I'm one of the very few people who actually pays attention to the one-way aisles at supermarkets. Even when there's no one around.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
You're assuming that it's tautological just because you don't like it.
There are clear arguments for wearing a mask, as there is evidence it helps reduce spread. That evidence is not completely undisputed, but it's certainly far from disproven. There are no general arguments for not wearing a mask, certainly none that apply to her.
So the rule exists for a good reason. Breaking the rules is done for no good reason, other than apparently the feeling of "I can break whatever rule I don't agree with".What's the consequence of people wearing the masks if they don't actually help? Barely any, beside some discomfort.
What's the consequence of not wearing a mask if they actually do help? You're making the situation worse for everyone, which includes potentially causing more of this shit you're "protesting" against.An argument of the form "I'm not wearing a mask just because that's the law" sounds about as sensible as "I'm not going to stop littering just because that's the law". You know, maybe the stuff I'm throwing away really isn't that bad, so why inconvenience myself.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
I'm not convinced about the value of masks, especially the surgical (or cloth) ones lots of people wear. But even so, I'm a conflict-avoidant rule-follower by nature, so I wear a mask to avoid conflict, and because it's a rule.
Don't get me wrong. I do wear a mask when required, or even asked. I also pay excess tax withholdings, let people cut in line in front of me, give way higher tips than the level of service would warrant, enter SSN when automated phone system prompts me, always do everything the police asks me to without a single question, and many other things that I believe are wrong but it's just so much easier to just go along and not look like an asshole. But that doesn't make them any less wrong.
This actually came up in an interview--the question was something about "how much do you have to understand the reasons for something (a best-practice/code standard requirement in this context) before you're willing to follow it?" My answer was basically "as long as it's not obviously a WTF, I can learn the reasons as I go. I'm usually willing to follow the policy even if I don't understand it or necessarily fully agree, because it's not about me or my opinions. There are rare exceptions, but..."
My answer would be about the same. Except without "as long as", "usually" and "there are exceptions".
-
@GÄ…ska I'm not sure I actually said those exact words. Probably not, in fact.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And I'm one of the very few people who actually pays attention to the one-way aisles at supermarkets. Even when there's no one around.
Trying to navigate the grocery store is now equivalent to solving the traveling salesman problem for a directed graph. It makes shopping much more interesting.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
You're assuming that it's tautological just because you don't like it.
You're literally saying the rule needs to be followed because it's the rule. This is literally a tautology. I wouldn't call it a tautology if it wasn't a tautology. You know me. You know I have no problem saying that I hate something. But it's not that I hate masks. I'm indifferent about them. But I've yet to hear a good argument why they should be mandatory inside buildings. Something that doesn't rely on unproven assumptions like "they slow down the spread of the virus".
I'd be much more supportive of mandating everyone to wear a certified N95 mask everywhere they go, both inside and outside, no exceptions, literally no exceptions at all - than mandating to wear any face cover you like, only inside buildings, except for children, elderly and asthmatics.
There are clear arguments for wearing a mask, as there is evidence it helps reduce spread. That evidence is not completely undisputed, but it's certainly far from disproven.
You're way overstating the quality of evidence here. To the best of my knowledge, there were zero studies about how masks impact the spread inside buildings. It's not about the ratio of particles stopped. It's about whether the mask crosses the gap between will-infect and will-not-infect dose of the virus, in a building where hundreds of people have been inside since last disinfection, for the duration of however long you stay in that building.
Two things have to be established: that being in such place is very likely to be dangerous with a mask, and that a non-certified face covering makes the risk significantly smaller. No study has even tried to prove either claim. Until both are proven, the claim that wearing masks inside helps is laughable at best.
What's the consequence of people wearing the masks if they don't actually help? Barely any, beside some discomfort.
What's the consequence of people wearing medallions with crosses if they don't actually help? Barely any, beside some discomfort.
What's the consequence of people wearing full shoes only (no sandals allowed) if they don't actually help? Barely any, beside some discomfort.
What's the consequence of people having to change passwords every 3 months if it doesn't actually help? Barely any, beside some discomfort.
Do you understand now why I hate this argument?
Also, you're forgetting about the psychological effect the masks have on people that causes them to be much more comfortable at closer distances. So "barely any" might not be actually true - in fact, it might be the opposite: it might be the very reason why the number of cases
It may be. Or it may not be. We don't know because there aren't any relevant studies. But all the medical discussion aside, "it doesn't hurt so why not" is the dumbest argument ever, even dumber than the tautological "you have to do it because that's the rule".
An argument of the form "I'm not wearing a mask just because that's the law" sounds about as sensible as "I'm not going to stop littering just because that's the law".
Keyword: "just". These arguments only sound wrong when "just" is false. And we both know it's wrong in case of littering. As in, it's well established there are other reasons too. Stop manipulating me, you know I'm too smart for that.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska I'm not sure I actually said those exact words. Probably not, in fact.
My point is, I'm willing to do pretty much anything if it means people leave me alone. You seem to have tiny bit more reservations. Like, you wouldn't store passwords of millions of people in plain text if ordered to (I would.)
-
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska I'm not sure I actually said those exact words. Probably not, in fact.
My point is, I'm willing to do pretty much anything if it means people leave me alone. You seem to have tiny bit more reservations. Like, you wouldn't store passwords of millions of people in plain text if ordered to (I would.)
I do have some ethical standards. But honestly, coding standards don't come anywhere close. Unless it's using Raku. That's more a sanity (what's left of it anyway) standard, however.
I also have a bad habit (picked up from academic days) of qualifying almost every thing I say. Somewhat of a verbal tic.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
You're assuming that it's tautological just because you don't like it.
You're literally saying the rule needs to be followed because it's the rule. This is literally a tautology. I wouldn't call it a tautology if it wasn't a tautology.
No it isn’t, because the rules are there for a reason, not for their own sake.
Do you understand now why I hate this argument?
Yes, because you left out the second part where the rules are there for a reason.
Keyword: "just". These arguments only sound wrong when "just" is false. And we both know it's wrong in case of littering. As in, it's well established there are other reasons too.
And in this case there obviously also are other reasons too.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
You're assuming that it's tautological just because you don't like it.
You're literally saying the rule needs to be followed because it's the rule. This is literally a tautology. I wouldn't call it a tautology if it wasn't a tautology.
No it isn’t, because the rules are there for a reason, not for their own sake.
Hang on, because you made a tautological argument.
The reason that you shouldn't drive while intoxicated isn't because doing so is illegal. It's because it's dangerous to yourself and others. They made the rule because it's dangerous, not the other way around.
If masks are super necessary to prevent the spread of COVID, then show us evidence of that. You can't point at the fact that there's a rule mandating masks as evidence that "rules are there for a reason."
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
You're assuming that it's tautological just because you don't like it.
You're literally saying the rule needs to be followed because it's the rule. This is literally a tautology. I wouldn't call it a tautology if it wasn't a tautology.
No it isn’t, because the rules are there for a reason, not for their own sake.
Do you understand now why I hate this argument?
Yes, because you left out the second part where the rules are there for a reason.
Keyword: "just". These arguments only sound wrong when "just" is false. And we both know it's wrong in case of littering. As in, it's well established there are other reasons too.
And in this case there obviously also are other reasons too.
Exactly. So stop using the tautological argument. It's dumb.
And when you're done being dumb, we can talk about whether the other reasons are good or not. Because it's a MUUUUUUUCH more complicated subject than littering.
-
IMO, there's value in obeying rules just because they're rules. As long as those rules don't force ethical violations of their own. Even if I don't understand or even agree with the rules, as long as they were made following proper procedure and are within the power of the rulemakers to enact, they're valid and should be obeyed.
Once people get in the habit of obeying only those rules with which they agree, civilisations break down. Intrasocietal trust is vital. If we can't expect (and rightfully so) that others will generally obey the rules of society even when they disagree, bad things happen.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
IMO, there's value in obeying rules just because they're rules. As long as those rules don't force ethical violations of their own. Even if I don't understand or even agree with the rules, as long as they were made following proper procedure and are within the power of the rulemakers to enact, they're valid and should be obeyed.
On the other hand, there's value in having as few rules as possible. Even if some rule does make sense and does bring benefits, it still might be better off not to have it, just to avoid setting a precedent and lowering the bar for other rules to creep in.
Once people get in the habit of obeying only those rules with which they agree, civilisations break down. Intrasocietal trust is vital. If we can't expect (and rightfully so) that others will generally obey the rules of society even when they disagree, bad things happen.
No argument here. But following every rule without question has its own set of dangers to the civilization. And I'm not even talking about totalitarianism. We already live in times where it's impossible for any single person to know all laws and regulations pertaining things they do in everyday life. There's simply too much law, and it has very real, very severe consequences to the society.
-
@GÄ…ska I agree. But you can obey and question. It's not an either/or. Act because you respect lawful authority, but try to get the law/rules changed through the regular process as well if you disagree.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
You're assuming that it's tautological just because you don't like it.
You're literally saying the rule needs to be followed because it's the rule. This is literally a tautology. I wouldn't call it a tautology if it wasn't a tautology.
No it isn’t, because the rules are there for a reason, not for their own sake.
Do you understand now why I hate this argument?
Yes, because you left out the second part where the rules are there for a reason.
Keyword: "just". These arguments only sound wrong when "just" is false. And we both know it's wrong in case of littering. As in, it's well established there are other reasons too.
And in this case there obviously also are other reasons too.
Exactly. So stop using the tautological argument. It's dumb.
Go ahead and read what a tautology is first while you’re using that word.
A tautology: “The law is x because x is the law.”
Not a tautology: “You should do x because it’s the law.” If that actually was tautological you wouldn’t be arguing against it.There are reasons for following the law in general, and there are reasons for the existence of this law specifically, which directly give reasons for following it.
And when you're done being dumb, we can talk about whether the other reasons are good or not. Because it's a MUUUUUUUCH more complicated subject than littering.
Is it? I’m sure there are a ton of people who either just don’t litter because that’s the law or litter anyway because they think “that’s a dumb law, I’m not following it because it obviously doesn’t harm anyone.” Exactly what you’re arguing.
And the “people with a mask are more careless with distancing” certainly doesn’t apply to that woman either, the way she refused to do anything she was told. Otherwise she could’ve waited outside.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
You're assuming that it's tautological just because you don't like it.
You're literally saying the rule needs to be followed because it's the rule. This is literally a tautology. I wouldn't call it a tautology if it wasn't a tautology.
No it isn’t, because the rules are there for a reason, not for their own sake.
Do you understand now why I hate this argument?
Yes, because you left out the second part where the rules are there for a reason.
Keyword: "just". These arguments only sound wrong when "just" is false. And we both know it's wrong in case of littering. As in, it's well established there are other reasons too.
And in this case there obviously also are other reasons too.
Exactly. So stop using the tautological argument. It's dumb.
Go ahead and read what a tautology is first while you’re using that word.
A tautology: “The law is x because x is the law.”
Not a tautology: “You should do x because it’s the law.”What's law?
If that actually was tautological you wouldn’t be arguing against it.
TDEMS.
And when you're done being dumb, we can talk about whether the other reasons are good or not. Because it's a MUUUUUUUCH more complicated subject than littering.
Is it?
If it wasn't, you wouldn't say the evidence is "not completely undisputed, but it's certainly far from disproven". You'd just say it's trivially provable and everyone who doubts it even in the slightest is an utter moron on the level of flat earthers and 5G conspiracy theorists. Because that's how obvious the problem with littering is.
And the “people with a mask are more careless with distancing” certainly doesn’t apply to that woman either, the way she refused to do anything she was told.
I didn't say it does. I only said that it's not entirely true masks have no downsides (for regular people with no medical conditions that would make masks dangerous, which BTW don't exist).
-
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
You're assuming that it's tautological just because you don't like it.
You're literally saying the rule needs to be followed because it's the rule. This is literally a tautology. I wouldn't call it a tautology if it wasn't a tautology.
No it isn’t, because the rules are there for a reason, not for their own sake.
Do you understand now why I hate this argument?
Yes, because you left out the second part where the rules are there for a reason.
Keyword: "just". These arguments only sound wrong when "just" is false. And we both know it's wrong in case of littering. As in, it's well established there are other reasons too.
And in this case there obviously also are other reasons too.
Exactly. So stop using the tautological argument. It's dumb.
Go ahead and read what a tautology is first while you’re using that word.
A tautology: “The law is x because x is the law.”
Not a tautology: “You should do x because it’s the law.”What's law?
Go ask @error_bot if you need a dictionary.
If that actually was tautological you wouldn’t be arguing against it.
TDEMS.
A tautology is true by definition.
And when you're done being dumb, we can talk about whether the other reasons are good or not. Because it's a MUUUUUUUCH more complicated subject than littering.
Is it?
If it wasn't, you wouldn't say the evidence is "not completely undisputed, but it's certainly far from disproven". You'd just say it's trivially provable and everyone who doubts it even in the slightest is an utter moron on the level of flat earthers and 5G conspiracy theorists. Because that's how obvious the problem with littering is.
A lot more people litter than people are flat earthers. Apparently it isn’t quite as obvious a problem, just like you think it’s not obvious the rules about masks make any sense.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
You're assuming that it's tautological just because you don't like it.
You're literally saying the rule needs to be followed because it's the rule. This is literally a tautology. I wouldn't call it a tautology if it wasn't a tautology.
No it isn’t, because the rules are there for a reason, not for their own sake.
Do you understand now why I hate this argument?
Yes, because you left out the second part where the rules are there for a reason.
Keyword: "just". These arguments only sound wrong when "just" is false. And we both know it's wrong in case of littering. As in, it's well established there are other reasons too.
And in this case there obviously also are other reasons too.
Exactly. So stop using the tautological argument. It's dumb.
Go ahead and read what a tautology is first while you’re using that word.
A tautology: “The law is x because x is the law.”
Not a tautology: “You should do x because it’s the law.”What's law?
Go ask @error_bot if you need a dictionary.
I think you need a dictionary if you don't know why I'm saying “you should do x because it’s the law” is a tautology.
If that actually was tautological you wouldn’t be arguing against it.
TDEMS.
A tautology is true by definition.
And the definition of law makes the statement that you should follow it automatically true.
And when you're done being dumb, we can talk about whether the other reasons are good or not. Because it's a MUUUUUUUCH more complicated subject than littering.
Is it?
If it wasn't, you wouldn't say the evidence is "not completely undisputed, but it's certainly far from disproven". You'd just say it's trivially provable and everyone who doubts it even in the slightest is an utter moron on the level of flat earthers and 5G conspiracy theorists. Because that's how obvious the problem with littering is.
A lot more people litter than people are flat earthers. Apparently it isn’t quite as obvious a problem, just like you think it’s not obvious the rules about masks make any sense.
How many smokers do you think are unaware that smoking causes cancer?
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
IMO, there's value in obeying rules just because they're rules. As long as those rules don't force ethical violations of their own. Even if I don't understand or even agree with the rules, as long as they were made following proper procedure and are within the power of the rulemakers to enact, they're valid and should be obeyed.
Once people get in the habit of obeying only those rules with which they agree, civilisations break down. Intrasocietal trust is vital. If we can't expect (and rightfully so) that others will generally obey the rules of society even when they disagree, bad things happen.
This is only true insofar as the laws that are on the books are, generally speaking, founded on preventing people from causing discrete harms to other people.
But every dumb law that the government passes shifts the Overton window ever so slightly away from the premise that laws are generally well-founded and should generally be obeyed.
You might even say that that's an incentive for legislatures to make as few dumb laws as possible.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
IMO, there's value in obeying rules just because they're rules. As long as those rules don't force ethical violations of their own. Even if I don't understand or even agree with the rules, as long as they were made following proper procedure and are within the power of the rulemakers to enact, they're valid and should be obeyed.
Once people get in the habit of obeying only those rules with which they agree, civilisations break down. Intrasocietal trust is vital. If we can't expect (and rightfully so) that others will generally obey the rules of society even when they disagree, bad things happen.
This is only true insofar as the laws that are on the books are, generally speaking, founded on preventing people from causing discrete harms to other people.
But every dumb law that the government passes shifts the Overton window ever so slightly away from the premise that laws are generally well-founded and should generally be obeyed.
You might even say that that's an incentive for legislatures to make as few dumb laws as possible.
I'm willing to give a large latitude of obedience even if I think the law is stupid. Because I've seen what happens when a culture of disrespect for law and expectation of disrespect grows in a society. It's not good.
There does come a point at which the government has lost all faith and trust...and all faith and trust that voting will fix things. That ends in violent revolution. But that's a topic for a different thread.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
IMO, there's value in obeying rules just because they're rules. As long as those rules don't force ethical violations of their own. Even if I don't understand or even agree with the rules, as long as they were made following proper procedure and are within the power of the rulemakers to enact, they're valid and should be obeyed.
Once people get in the habit of obeying only those rules with which they agree, civilisations break down. Intrasocietal trust is vital. If we can't expect (and rightfully so) that others will generally obey the rules of society even when they disagree, bad things happen.
This is only true insofar as the laws that are on the books are, generally speaking, founded on preventing people from causing discrete harms to other people.
But every dumb law that the government passes shifts the Overton window ever so slightly away from the premise that laws are generally well-founded and should generally be obeyed.
You might even say that that's an incentive for legislatures to make as few dumb laws as possible.
I'm willing to give a large latitude of obedience even if I think the law is stupid. Because I've seen what happens when a culture of disrespect for law and expectation of disrespect grows in a society. It's not good.
On the flip side, ignoring laws was what kept USSR afloat for so long.
There does come a point at which the government has lost all faith and trust...and all faith and trust that voting will fix things. That ends in violent revolution.
One thing people can do to prevent that is to start disrespecting the law long before it can end with bloodshed. I think Americans call it civil disobedience?
To clarify, my position is this:
- As an individual, there's absolutely nothing you can change so follow the law to no lesser degree than everyone else. For the same reason why you should cheer on the same sports team as everyone else in your city (assuming you live in a city where it matters - in Poland it does matter a lot when you meet a group of bald muscles after dark).
- As a society, we should thoroughly evaluate each and every law passed before starting to follow it even if it's already passed by politicians and officially codified. Elected officials work for the society - we cannot give them the power to rule over us. They should be there only to implement the laws that we want implemented.
And yes, I'm fully aware that the latter is a pipe dream.
-
Here in the Netherlands, face masks have finally been made mandatory, but in typical
fashion, only in certain areas in some of the major cities, like busy shopping districts.This lead directly to a shop owner from Amsterdam complaining about his own intelligence and common sense on national radio. His shop apparently has entrances on two streets: one in an area where masks are required, the other outside of it. He complained that this was unworkable and that the local government should do something about it … Yes, like, oh, I don’t know, maybe tell him to use his own initiative to put up a sign on the second door, saying that face masks are mandatory in his shop?
-
@GÄ…ska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And yes, I'm fully aware that the latter is a pipe dream.
Not to mention possibly counter-productive in cases of danger to people in general but little danger to individuals. Like infectious diseases.
