Jump to content

goDel

Members
  • Content Count

    13202
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by goDel

  1. perhaps this is still working

    notice: i do not support this message, or whatever you call the opposite of support. you decide, i'm the idiot messenger

     

     

  2. 11 minutes ago, milkface said:

    No need for debate because ding pretty much hit the nail on the head. Accumulation of capital inherently leads to corruption and some people being above the law.

    That's pretty much inherent to all forms of society. Whether or not capitalistic. It was the norm before there was a thing such as capitalism. Arguably capitalism is one of the few systems to potentially present a solution. Again, potentially.

    If you approach this from the Piketty perspective (capitalism leads to concentration of wealth and power if left unchecked), his solution is not to change the system, but to improve it by means of taxation/regulation. There is no alternative without concentration of power/wealth.

    • Like 4
  3. 1 hour ago, timbre monke said:

    John Kasich (who was in the 2016 race if I remember right) defects from the GOP: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/21/1962453/-Former-Ohio-Republican-governor-to-speak-at-the-Democratic-convention?detail=emaildkre

    I remember him being one of the most moderate GOP candidates then. Trump and his band of nut-jobs are too far gone. It only makes sense.

    In other words, the GOP is dead. 

    Which is kinda sad, because well... the left over is far worse than the grand old party ever was, methinks.

    Also, is it weird to see a correlation with the death of xltronic?

  4. I always need to chuckle when they try to frame it like they're doing you a favor by tracking you and giving you personalised ads. As if I want them to track me to provide personalised ads. F#ck off already with your personalised ads. Yeah, sure please have all my data in order to "enhance" my online experience with ads.

     

    • Like 6
  5. Well, lets look at it the other way around: if people would be able to get it again, we would have seen strong evidence by now (as it would happen frequently). We haven't seen such strong evidence at this point in time.

    Obviously, this isn't proof of the opposite either, but at least it gives a good sense of where we are: if people are able to get infected another time, it's not as easy as - say - the winter flue. If it would be - again - we would have seen plenty examples of that already happening.

    Just take this into consideration, is all i'm saying. 

    If you prefer a white man with gray hear (and a degree) explaining it:

     

    • Like 2
  6. Positive news. (potentially)

    Some results from a study published in Nature about T-cells immunity. It appears that people who were infected with SARS in 2002/2003  - which is a similar virus - still have T-cell immunity after 17 years. And it also looks like those T-cells from SARS also protect against the new corona virus. So immunity might be long lasting (these T-cells aren't the antibodies that go away after a month or two) and immunity (resistance is a better word perhaps) to similar viruses might carry over. 

    source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z_reference.pdf

    Might (partly) explain the amount of people that are asymptomatic.

    • Like 3
  7. 1 minute ago, rhmilo said:

    Not really. Schools were closed in a panic, and later it was admitted they shouldn’t have been. Such a vanishingly small number of children gets COVID-19 the risk more than outweighs he problems caused by children not going to school. These problems are the same all over the world: kids get depressed and kids that live in unstable homes are far, far better off at school than at home. These arguments were made in NL, Denmark, the UK and probably elsewhere and they’re the exact same arguments this Trump spokesperson makes.

    This is just an illustration of how toxic politics in the US has become: no matter how sensible a position is, it will be vilified and dragged through the mud because the other side made it.

    QED.

    When it comes to national policies, there's more than just the risk of kids getting COVID19. At that point during the crisis it was a necessary step for a number of reasons. It the height of the crisis the trust of the public was crucial. And the demand to close schools was very strong from all kinds of directions. Even from the medical field. Remember that one of early arguments to keep schools open, was to help nurses and doctors (and other jobs that were defined as crucial) to be able to keep doing their work. So when besides a large part of the population, even the nurses and doctors called to close the schools, the government had to cave in. When the evidence isn't strong, but a large part of the population demands you to do it anyways (similar to why we currently have mandatory face masks in public transport), the better option is to do it. That's because there's plenty of other policies you want the people to follow as well (social distancing, stay home...etc) which are considered more important. If those "weaker" policies help in getting people to do the more important stuff as well, than there's not much of a choice.

    When it comes to Corona in the US, I'd rather call Trump toxic. He single-mindedly is responsible for this toxicity, if you ask me. There's an argument for blaming the GOP in Congress as well. But we've past that station with the impeachment procedure, if you ask me. Again, talking specificly about the Corona-response. Ignoring other political subjects.

  8. Although I'm personally not a fan of the masks. And in the Netherlands we're doing fine without them (they're only mandatory in public transport), the thing I absolutely agree with, is to do what the experts say. Have clear rules based on evidence and apply them. That's the only way to get the population to do what is necessary. With some variation in the outcomes (Sweden? There's a debate there...), it's pretty evident it's clear to put experts center stage during a crisis like this.

    I mean, if our experts in the Netherlands would say "wear a mask! they are mandatory!" ....well, I'll basically shut up and do as I'm being told. Even if I personally don't agree, or if what they propose is not perfect. It will never be perfect. We can only solve this by collectively following the experts.

    In Trump land, well, experts have become irrelevant and to collectively do as Trump says...euh..yeah.. you might as well jump off a cliff. He doesn't give a F about people. He's only interested in getting re-elected (to keep himself out of potential indictments). So now you have half of the people listening to experts and the rest listening to Trump. A class half filled with idiots is guaranteed to be in a constant state of chaos. 10%/20% would be manageable. More than that? You know the deal.

  9. Yeah. The biggest chance for a Trump win will depend on the intensity of the corona crisis: will all voters be able to vote? I'm afraid Ignatius made a point about this perhaps being some kind of voter suppression strategy by the orange head. In Trump land, that's considered fair game.

  10. 8 hours ago, rhmilo said:

    In her defense, she then goes on to say the US is an outlier and that other countries have already opened their schools, which is true, because science seems to suggest, which it does, that it doesn't affect young children.

    I'm all for "huh-huh Trump dumb" but in this particular instance they're doing the same as Denmark and the Netherlands (and probably others).

    Thats a very narrow explanation of what is going on over here in the Netherlands, and in the US.

    The thing which is ridiculous in the US is that even though there are huge differences in corona-spread between regions in the US, the president basically refuses to acknowledge that and forces all states to open schools. And threats with holding back finances if they don't. Regardless of the local situation. And remember that in the Netherlands schools were closed during the period the crisis was the most severe.

    This is not an argument about what the impact is of a certain kind of policy. It's impact depend on a lot of factors. Which is basically why it would make sense to allow individual states to define their own policies. 

    If Trump had any kind of sense, he'd allow states to open schools. Not force all states to open them. Keep that shit at the state level. And don't threaten states financially if they make their own decisions. 

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...