Melkor wrote to All <=-
Heres a simple explanation on masks.
If your nakeed and a naked guy pisses on you you get wet.
If your wearing pants and a naked guy pisses on you your partially protected. If the guy pissing is wearing pants he pisses his pants and
you dont get wet. Does everyone understand the reason for masks now?
The argument that they aren't 100% effective therefore useless is like arguing that locking your car when you leave it parked in the street is useless because it could still get stolen anyway.
Heres a simple explanation on masks.
If your nakeed and a naked guy pisses on you you get wet.
If your wearing pants and a naked guy pisses on you your partially protected. If the guy pissing is wearing pants he pisses his pants and
you dont get wet. Does everyone understand the reason for masks now?
---
The argument that they aren't 100% effective therefore useless is
like arguing that locking your car when you leave it parked in the
street is useless because it could still get stolen anyway.
I'd argue this is accurate. It's more like locking your car doesn't make sense because the lock doesn't work and car can launched by a simple visible button you need to press. Which obviously is not the case unless you break the lock mechanism in the car.
With masks they don't work because virus goes through bidirectionally anyway and while wearing it you basically keep some other micro-organisms and fungi to be rebreathed and this all can cause different infections while effectively providing you no extra protection against the virus.
The only effective protection until there is a vacine or other way we gain immunity to it is social distancing and desinfection as this way you block the way to virus to spread.
Hmmmmm, I see your logic.... BUT.... masks may work for your pissing idea... but they don't work for the China virus. The China virus is a small organism, small enough to pass through what the public use as facial protection...
Heres a simple explanation on masks.
If your nakeed and a naked guy pisses on you you get wet.
If your wearing pants and a naked guy pisses on you your partially protected. If the guy pissing is wearing pants he pisses his pants and you dont get wet. Does everyone understand the reason for masks now?
Melkor wrote to All <=-
Heres a simple explanation on masks.
If your nakeed and a naked guy pisses on you you get wet.
If your wearing pants and a naked guy pisses on you your partially
protected. If the guy pissing is wearing pants he pisses his pants
and you dont get wet. Does everyone understand the reason for masks
now?
The argument that they aren't 100% effective therefore useless is like arguing that locking your car when you leave it parked in the street is useless because it could still get stolen anyway.
The only effective protection until there is a vacine or other way we gain immunity to it is social distancing and desinfection as this way you block the way to virus to spread.
Hmmmmm, I see your logic.... BUT.... masks may work for your pissing idea... but they don't work for the China virus. The China virus is a small organism, small enough to pass through what the public use as facial protection...
hollowone wrote to Dennisk <=-
The argument that they aren't 100% effective therefore useless is like arguing that locking your car when you leave it parked in the street is useless because it could still get stolen anyway.
I'd argue this is accurate. It's more like locking your car doesn't
make sense because the lock doesn't work and car can launched by a
simple visible button you need to press. Which obviously is not the
case unless you break the lock mechanism in the car.
With masks they don't work because virus goes through bidirectionally anyway and while wearing it you basically keep some other
micro-organisms and fungi to be rebreathed and this all can cause different infections while effectively providing you no extra
protection against the virus.
The only effective protection until there is a vacine or other way we
gain immunity to it is social distancing and desinfection as this way
you block the way to virus to spread.
The rest is politics and our economic model that just can't allow us
all to locked, aside of psychogological effect lock-down causes which
just adds extra difficulty to the topics.
Aside of the right cause of various democratic and non-democratic demonstrations.. this is how this virus is just feed with new bodies to consume.
[as an example]
I wear mask only when I'm close to people who are annoyed by the fact
that I don't have it and in places where I can get a ticket for it and that's the only motivation I wear it as I don't believe this is helping anybody and actually can hurt more.
-
/h1
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to Melkor on Wed Sep 16 2020 07:52 pm
Melkor wrote to All <=-
Heres a simple explanation on masks.
If your nakeed and a naked guy pisses on you you get wet.
If your wearing pants and a naked guy pisses on you your partially
protected. If the guy pissing is wearing pants he pisses his pants
and you dont get wet. Does everyone understand the reason for masks
now?
The argument that they aren't 100% effective therefore useless is like arguing that locking your car when you leave it parked in the street is useless because it could still get stolen anyway.
well coid is a virus. your argument is not 100% effective and useless.
also look at china. those fuckers always wear masks. it didnt help any of them.
If you can block or prevent the droplets, you block the virus. Virii don just leave the body all on their own and fly through the air all on their they are carried by particles and droplets when you talk, cough and sneeze These droplets can be stopped by a mask, mostly, thereby reducing the probability of transmission.
also look at china. those fuckers always wear masks. it didnt help any of them. ---
Static wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 17 Sep 2020, Dennisk said the following...
If you can block or prevent the droplets, you block the virus. Virii don just leave the body all on their own and fly through the air all on their they are carried by particles and droplets when you talk, cough and sneeze These droplets can be stopped by a mask, mostly, thereby reducing the probability of transmission.
I don't get what's so difficult to understand about that. The goal of
all the preventative measures, including widespread mask-wearing, is to reduce the average number of additional people to whom each infected person spreads the virus to less than 1 so that it runs out of hosts
and peters out. Or at the very least keep it under control well enough until an effective vaccine is available. The alternative is to let everyone get it and let herd immunity run it out of hosts, but since
the virus is new and the population's resistance is extremely varied
that is likely to have devastating consequences. The flu is only considered a "mild" disease today because it ended genetic lines for
which it wasn't.
Staying apart is good. Staying apart and also wearing a mask is better,
so you don't blast virus-laden spittle beyond that distance or leave behind aerosol clouds any larger than necessary.
through a medium, and the mask stops that transmission medium.
I do have to wear one all day at work, and it is a little annoying I admit.
Where things have failed in my home state, is focusing on the vulnerable. Th virus has torn through old-age homes, where it should have never entered, an quarantining of those with the virus was done ineffectively.
Also, in the same sentence, you're claiming the virus goes right through, but
keeps other stuff in.
First, That doesn't matter. there's no evidence that's an issue. Doctors, nurs
, construction workers, etc. all wear masks all day, every day, and they've ne
r had issues.
Second, You're saying a virus can magically pass through, but other viruses/ba
eria/molds can't? Make up your mind.
Also, the strain of SARS-CoV-2 that has currently killed nearly 200,000 people >in the USA, is from Europe.
also look at china. those fuckers always wear masks. it didnt help any of the
I do get the arguments against making it compulsory. I'm not fond of the idea of enforcing this with fines. If you want to catch the virus, then do so. If the supermarket doesn't want you entering without a mask, that is
I do get the arguments against making it compulsory. I'm not fond of the idea of enforcing this with fines. If you want to catch the virus, then do so. If the supermarket doesn't want you entering without a mask, that is
HusTler wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to hollowone on Thu Sep 17 2020 09:56 am
through a medium, and the mask stops that transmission medium.
I do have to wear one all day at work, and it is a little annoying I admit.
Where things have failed in my home state, is focusing on the vulnerable. Th virus has torn through old-age homes, where it should have never entered, an quarantining of those with the virus was done ineffectively.
So many elders died in a local nursing home on Long Island the
facility was able to shut down an entire floor (46 beds). The State
will not allow any new residents until they get their shit together.
It's too little too late. These people didn't have to die. Covid is preventable by wearing masks and keeping 6 feet away from the "cockroaches" in the world and on Dovenet/Fsxnet that don't wear masks. That's right Cockroaches like ones on Dovenet killing their moms cause their too stupid and ignorant.
... Be an individualist. He who follows another is always behind.
nolageek wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to Static on Thu Sep 17 2020 09:19 pm
I do get the arguments against making it compulsory. I'm not fond of the idea of enforcing this with fines. If you want to catch the virus, then do so. If the supermarket doesn't want you entering without a mask, that is
Except this is where your selfishness comes into play. Masks ARE NOT
about preventing you from catching it. It is about preventing YOU from spreading it. People who wear masks are not protecting themselves, they are protecting YOU.
The virus is transmitted mostly through droplets, which can be stopped by the mask. People seem to think the viruses just float through the air all without a transmission medium. That is not the case, they largely are transmitted through a medium, and the mask stops that transmission medium.
If you can block or prevent the droplets, you block the virus. Virii don't
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: MRO to IB Joe on Wed Sep 16 2020 04:52 pm
also look at china. those fuckers always wear masks. it didnt help
any of them.
I think many of them would wear masks due to high levels of air pollution in the big Chinese cities.
Nightfox
I don't get what's so difficult to understand about that. The goal of all the preventative measures, including widespread mask-wearing, is to reduce the average number of additional people to whom each infected person spreads the virus to less than 1 so that it runs out of hosts and peters
was able to shut down an entire floor (46 beds). The State will not allow any new residents until they get their shit together. It's too little too late. These people didn't have to die. Covid is preventable by wearing masks and keeping 6 feet away from the "cockroaches" in the world and on Dovenet/Fsxnet that don't wear masks. That's right Cockroaches like ones on Dovenet killing their moms cause their too stupid and ignorant.
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to Static on Thu Sep 17 2020 09:19 pm
I do get the arguments against making it compulsory. I'm not fond of
the idea of enforcing this with fines. If you want to catch the
virus, then do so. If the supermarket doesn't want you entering
without a mask, that is
Except this is where your selfishness comes into play. Masks ARE NOT about preventing you from catching it. It is about preventing YOU from spreading it. People who wear masks are not protecting themselves, they are protecting YOU.
Heres a simple explanation on masks.
If your nakeed and a naked guy pisses on you you get wet.
If your wearing pants and a naked guy pisses on you your partially
protected. If the guy pissing is wearing pants he pisses his pants
and you dont get wet. Does everyone understand the reason for masks
now?
The argument that they aren't 100% effective therefore useless is like arguing that locking your car when you leave it parked in the street is useless because it could still get stolen anyway.
nolageek wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to Static on Thu Sep 17 2020 09:19 pm
I do get the arguments against making it compulsory. I'm not fond of
the idea of enforcing this with fines. If you want to catch the
virus, then do so. If the supermarket doesn't want you entering
without a mask, that is
Except this is where your selfishness comes into play. Masks ARE NOT
about preventing you from catching it. It is about preventing YOU
from spreading it. People who wear masks are not protecting
themselves, they
are protecting YOU.
Until you see people with masks, handling all the groceries at the supermarket, putting them back.
I do not have the virus, my first thought in putting on the mask is 1) I HAVE to wear it, or I will be fined or have my head stomped on by Victorian police, 2) Some doofus may be deciding to go out even if they aren't 100% and I have to stand behind them at the supermarket and lastly 3), for the wellbeing of others.
I consider other people a greater risk to me, than
I do get the arguments against making it compulsory. I'm not fond of the idea of enforcing this with fines. If you want to catch the virus, then do so. If the supermarket doesn't want you entering without a mask, that is
furthermore, people have a mask on and they think they dont have to social distance anymore or as much. yes you do have to social distance. ---
be a no brianer. The libertarian in me hates mandating things like this, but given the circumstances it's pretty much required to mandate them as the numbers I've seen indicate that it only takes 1 person in 5 not following procedures to keep the R number in growth territory.
Until you see people with masks, handling all the groceries at the supermarket, putting them back.
I do not have the virus, my first thought in putting on the mask is 1) I HAVE to wear it, or I will be fined or have my head stomped on by Victorian police, 2) Some doofus may be deciding to go out even if they aren't 100% and I have to stand behind them at the supermarket and lastly 3), for the wellbeing of others.
I consider other people a greater risk to me, than I am to them.
because we dont understand it like we claim to.
and if this mask shit works so good why havent we been wearing masks all the time for the past 50 years?
On 09-17-20 23:44, nolageek wrote to Dennisk <=-
Again, all those point to selfishness. I wear a mask not because I
think I'm sick, but because I try to project a positive example for others. I can't expect otehrs to do somethI won't do. I've lost a close friend, some friends of friends, and a friend of mine lost both his parents a couple of months ago - all due to the virus or complications from the virus. But by all means, I hope you're not inconvenienced.
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to nolageek on Fri Sep 18 2020 08:46 am
nolageek wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to Static on Thu Sep 17 2020 09:19 pm
I do get the arguments against making it compulsory. I'm not fond of
the idea of enforcing this with fines. If you want to catch the
virus, then do so. If the supermarket doesn't want you entering
without a mask, that is
Except this is where your selfishness comes into play. Masks ARE NOT
about preventing you from catching it. It is about preventing YOU
from spreading it. People who wear masks are not protecting
themselves, they
are protecting YOU.
Until you see people with masks, handling all the groceries at the supermarket, putting them back.
I do not have the virus, my first thought in putting on the mask is 1) I HAVE to wear it, or I will be fined or have my head stomped on by Victorian police, 2) Some doofus may be deciding to go out even if they aren't 100% and I have to stand behind them at the supermarket and lastly 3), for the wellbeing of others.
I consider other people a greater risk to me, than
i noticed that with this mask bullshit i'm touching my face and my eyes 100x more. the people i talk to are doing it more too. and we're constantly adjusting our masks and pulling them down to breathe so we
dont fog up or safety glasses or so we can just hear eachother talk.
it's almost like not wearing a mask in this situation would be better
than wearing one!
furthermore, people have a mask on and they think they dont have to
social distance anymore or as much. yes you do have to social
distance. ---
nolageek wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to nolageek on Fri Sep 18 2020 08:46 am
Until you see people with masks, handling all the groceries at the supermarket, putting them back.
Except the virus doesn't spread that way as much as it does from
droplets in your breath/other fluids from your mouth and nose.
I do not have the virus, my first thought in putting on the mask is 1) I HAVE to wear it, or I will be fined or have my head stomped on by Victorian police, 2) Some doofus may be deciding to go out even if they aren't 100% and I have to stand behind them at the supermarket and lastly 3), for the wellbeing of others.
I consider other people a greater risk to me, than I am to them.
Again, all those point to selfishness. I wear a mask not because I
think I'm sick, but because I try to project a positive example for others. I can't expect otehrs to do somethI won't do. I've lost a close friend, some friends of friends, and a friend of mine lost both his parents a couple of months ago - all due to the virus or complications from the virus. But by all means, I hope you're not inconvenienced.
no , they are afraid of getting sick. it's part of their culture.
they even drink hot water and liquids all the time because they think
it's good for the body.
because we dont understand it like we claim to. and if this mask shit works so good why havent we been wearing masks all the time for the past 50 years?
that talk about selfishness and protecting others is just mind control
to get people to wear them. we should be focusing more on things that really work like separating and washing our hands.
I see people in close proximity to each other without masks in the
streets. These are the people who pose the most threat. How can I be sure that person that walks past me didn't have a private party? I don't know, but people aren't following the guidelines.
That's.... actually a valid concern. However I didn't like people getting in bubble well before COVID, yet some determined ignorant assholes still manage do so, and since they have to be pretty god damned ignorant to manage to get my bubble, I'd much prefer them to be masked as I know for a fact they can't have been managing to distance themselves previous to that moment in time. -
On that note, it should be obvious even under normal circumstances that you should stay home from work or school if you are sick to prevent spreading whatever it is that you might have to co-workers, schoolmates, and/or friends. Unfortunately this world seems to have developed a culture of going out even if it means potentially spreading something infectious to other people.
I think the problem more about peoples attitudes towards others. People wear the mask if they think the mask is preventing themselves from getting sick. Wearing a mask has nothing to do with that. Wearing a mask helps the
Stormy wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to nolageek on Fri Sep 18 2020 09:05 pm
I see people in close proximity to each other without masks in the
streets. These are the people who pose the most threat. How can I be sure that person that walks past me didn't have a private party? I don't know, but people aren't following the guidelines.
I don't really know what to believe about COVID-19. I keep seeing conflicting information. Some say that it is no worse than the flu (or
at least similar to it) while other say that it is significantly worse. Either way, people probably should take precautions (such as wearing a mask and social distancing) when it is this widespread.
On that note, it should be obvious even under normal circumstances that you should stay home from work or school if you are sick to prevent spreading whatever it is that you might have to co-workers,
schoolmates, and/or friends. Unfortunately this world seems to have developed a culture of going out even if it means potentially spreading something infectious to other people.
This world is a mess, and I feel for those who have lost friends and family members to the pandemic.
I think the problem more about peoples attitudes towards others. People wear the mask if they think the mask is preventing themselves from getting sick. Wearing a mask has nothing to do with that. Wearing a mask helps the spread of your snot to other people. This is where bad attitudes come in. People don't care about others. They only care about themselves. They are not concerned about giving their bacteria to others. They cry "You can't make me where a mask" No we can't, but I would feel better socializing with you if you did wear one. "Well I don't give a shit if I make you
Yeah, there seems to be this mentality that you're a trooper if you go to work sick.... No you aren't, you're reducing productivity both by elongating your likely sick period, and passing it off to coworkers who will likewise have their productivity curbed by getting ill.
Underminer wrote to Stormy <=-
Yeah, there seems to be this mentality that you're a trooper if you go
to work sick.... No you aren't, you're reducing productivity both by elongating your likely sick period, and passing it off to coworkers who will likewise have their productivity curbed by getting ill.
so we were just hosing eachother down with snot and fluids before this?
On 09-18-20 21:05, Dennisk wrote to nolageek <=-
I'm sorry to hear about your loss. There are fewer cases here in Victoria, and outbreaks are often due to people just being dumb,
holding gatherings, etc. I see people in close proximity to each other without masks in the streets. These are the people who pose the most threat. How can I be sure that person that walks past me didn't have a private party? I don't know, but people aren't following the
guidelines.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-18-20 21:05, Dennisk wrote to nolageek <=-
I'm sorry to hear about your loss. There are fewer cases here in Victoria, and outbreaks are often due to people just being dumb,
holding gatherings, etc. I see people in close proximity to each other without masks in the streets. These are the people who pose the most threat. How can I be sure that person that walks past me didn't have a private party? I don't know, but people aren't following the
guidelines.
Sadly, that's the big city for you. Out here in regional Vic, people
did do a good job of following the rules, and the stats say the rest. Currently only one active case in Greater Bendigo, and it's in an out
of town postcode too.
I just hope (but am not holding my breath) that people down there start
to realise that the quickest way out of this is to follow the rules and don't try to circumvent the system.
Actually it took me 2 days to actually take advantage of the eased restrictions here, which happened when I attended track training today with a small squad. Everything else could have been legally done under Stage 3 restrictions.
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: MRO to nolageek on Fri Sep 18 2020 09:59 pm
so we were just hosing eachother down with snot and fluids before
this?
In a manner of speaking: far more than you might think we were, yes.
I see people in close proximity to each other without masks in the streets. These are the people who pose the most threat. How can I be
I don't really know what to believe about COVID-19. I keep seeing conflicting information. Some say that it is no worse than the flu (or
It's hard to work out because the media will make points which draw the most attention, so keeping a perspective is difficult. For example, they talk of
Second, You're saying a virus can magically pass through, but other viruses/bacteria/molds can't? Make up your mind.
The only effective protection until there is a vacine or other way we gain immunity to it is social distancing and desinfection as this way you block the way to virus to spread.
There are dozens, and dozens of peer reviewed scientific studies at
this point showing masks are effective at controlling the spread of a viral contagion. No politics involved.
DaiTengu
If I'm on line at the grocery store and someone without a mask gets too close to me I'll ask them."Excuse me sir/miss can you please step back? "I don't want any germs you may have". If they refuse, then there's going to
- I don't live in US, numbers in my country are different.
Especially that in my country only about 2000 people died
from COVID, flu kills about 30k annually every year and
nobody even notices it as a stat worth dicussing.
you have no right to get mad or confront someone if they arent wearing a mask.they may have a medical condition. that is there body and none of your business.
HusTler wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to Stormy on Sat Sep 19 2020 12:31 pm
I see people in close proximity to each other without masks in the streets. These are the people who pose the most threat. How can I be
I don't really know what to believe about COVID-19. I keep seeing conflicting information. Some say that it is no worse than the flu (or
It's hard to work out because the media will make points which draw the most attention, so keeping a perspective is difficult. For example, they talk of
I don't understand how anyone can have trouble with these common sense suggestions. (6 feet, wear a mask) If you want to avoid getting another persons germs don't go near them. It's very simple. We as Humans have known this for hundreds of year. COVID is not the worlds first
empidemic. If I'm on line at the grocery store and someone without a
mask gets too close to me I'll ask them."Excuse me sir/miss can you
please step back? "I don't want any germs you may have". If they
refuse, then there's going to be a "scene". I WILL get loud. It's my
God given right to protect myself from your diseased ugly face. One
lady said to me why are you so upset sir? You have a mask on. This is
the stupidiy and ignorance of some people. If you don't want to wear a mask that's fine. Just stay the fuck away from ME!
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: MRO to HusTler on Sat Sep 19 2020 03:06 pm
you have no right to get mad or confront someone if they arent wearing
a mask.they may have a medical condition. that is there body and none
of your business.
I disagree. I have every right to ask them to keep their distance from me.
You'd be surprised at how little some people comprehend.
I disagree. I have every right to ask them to keep their distance fro
that's not what i said.
PMFJI... What *is* your country?
On 09-19-20 21:50, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
With 6 million people, a small proportion won't care, and a small proportion of 6 million is still a lot of people.
But I'm not happy with the way people think that blanket restrictions
are working. Victoria is a good example of the failure of the "precautionary" approach. I prefer risk management, which we are NOT doing. We are just doing what it takes to try and eliminate risk completely, instead of managing it.
On 09-20-20 10:34, Dennisk wrote to HusTler <=-
Some people object to the compulsion, some just don't understand, and
some just don't care. I'm not that worried about getting it, but there are some people in my life who simply cannot afford to catch it, so
there is no way known I would risk passing it to THEM. Likewise, I
urge them to take extra precaution.
The other thing is, people just see basic rules "wear a mask", "don't
to out after 8PM", so they just follow the rules, but not common sense.
(ie, as long as I'm back by 7:59, Im OK). They don't actually
understand transmission, and see these rules as nothing more than,
well, rules, to be followed to the letter, but not in "spirit".
You'd be surprised at how little some people comprehend.
you have no right to get mad or confront someone if they arent wearing
a mask.they may have a medical condition. that is there body and none
of your business.
I disagree. I have every right to ask them to keep their distance from
me.
that's not what i said.
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to HusTler on Sun Sep 20 2020 10:34 am
You'd be surprised at how little some people comprehend.
After this long in the IT/Tech world, I keep thinking I've seen the bottom of the barrel for comprehension, but then a better idiot comes along and proves me wrong. There are people out there that I'm legitimately suprised can remember to breathe.
On 19 Sep 2020, MRO said the following...
I disagree. I have every right to ask them to keep their
distance fro
that's not what i said.
He said he'd tell someone not wearing a mask to back off because he doesn't want their germs. He didn't mention he'd say a single word to them
Maybe I'll just ask them to back up cause they stink. Would that be better? I won't say a thing about not wearing a mask. I'll just say YO you Stink MF. BACK UP! How bout that? Do you still think I don't have the right to tell someone to back up? I think it's more politcally and ethically correct to ask them to back up if they are not wearing a mask but I have no problem telling them they need to bath.
Underminer wrote to Dennisk <=-
You'd be surprised at how little some people comprehend.
After this long in the IT/Tech world, I keep thinking I've seen the
bottom of the barrel for comprehension, but then a better idiot comes along and proves me wrong. There are people out there that I'm legitimately suprised can remember to breathe. ---
After this long in the IT/Tech world, I keep thinking I've seen the bottom of the barrel for comprehension, but then a better idiot comes along and proves me wrong. There are people out there that I'm legitimately suprised can remember to breathe.
i think the way you are saying here that you do it is wrong.
i'm not sure if you're talking shit or what.
if you did it the way you are stating here, you would end up getting your as kicked or being on some youtube video as a white supremacist. i hope you're being tactful.
okay, tell them to step back but dont do the 'dont want any germs you may have' that is contempt and contempt leads to shit.
you have no right to get mad or confront someone if they arent wearing a mask.they may have a medical condition. that is there body and none of your business.
you can do curbside pickup or order from amazon fresh or anything else so you arent standing in line someplace.
if you did it the way you are stating here, you would end up getting
your as kicked or being on some youtube video as a white supremacist.
i hope you're being tactful.
I am a white supremacist and don't see it as a bad thing. You're missing my point. If someone is going disrespect me and get too close to me while not wearing a mask, I have no respect for them and will behave accordingly. Regardless of their skin color or whatever country they migrated from.
I could just change its wifi connection settings for them remotely.. They apparently didn't realize I can't do that if it's not connected to the internet.
Nightfox
you can do curbside pickup or order from amazon fresh or anything else
so you arent standing in line someplace.
If I was terrified of germs and viruses, I would do my best not to attend public areas, as doing so would likely result in me coming across other human beings. There are a multitude of home shopping options for those who do not wish to leave the safety of their homes. I know many people who NEVER leave the house to shop for their groceries. We all have the internet now so online shopping has never been easier... hell, it's practically the norm in some places.
I disagree. I have every right to ask them to keep their distance from me.
dont tell me what i said and what he said. my reading comprehension is fine.
On 20 Sep 2020, MRO said the following...
dont tell me what i said and what he said. my reading comprehension
is fine.
I'm not so sure about that.
Underminer wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to HusTler on Sun Sep 20 2020 10:34 am
You'd be surprised at how little some people comprehend.
After this long in the IT/Tech world, I keep thinking I've seen the
bottom of the barrel for comprehension, but then a better idiot comes along and proves me wrong. There are people out there that I'm legitimately suprised can remember to breathe. ---
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-19-20 21:50, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
With 6 million people, a small proportion won't care, and a small proportion of 6 million is still a lot of people.
True.
But I'm not happy with the way people think that blanket restrictions
are working. Victoria is a good example of the failure of the "precautionary" approach. I prefer risk management, which we are NOT doing. We are just doing what it takes to try and eliminate risk completely, instead of managing it.
And tell me how you'll do that AND keep the risks at acceptable levels?
The issues I see here are relared to probabilities and consequences
(might as well use a risk matrix here ;) ). There are two main consequences from exposure to the virus:
Death - This is "possible" (has happened), consequence is
"Catastrophic". The risk here is "Extreme".
Long term health impacts - This is somewhere ranging from "Possible" to "Probable". The consequences are at least "Major" (for myself,
possibly even catastrophic, because of the knock on effects). As we
have to take the worst case in risk management, this is also "Extreme" risk situation.
As for reducing the risk, we can't change the consequences, until we
have a vaccine, or at least a practical treatment that can prevent the severe consequences. So we can only influence the probability of
exposute to the virus, which means we will at least need to know where
it is and how best to avoid it. So testing and contact tracing, along with quarantining known cases would have to be involved.
We also need to account for the lag time between exposure and going for
a test, which suggests some ongoing measures to maintain a degree of distancing to slow unknown spreading.
But I do agree that once we're back under control, the economy doesn't need to be shut down.
HusTler wrote to Dennisk <=-
I don't understand how anyone can have trouble with these common sense suggestions.
If you want to avoid getting another
persons germs don't go near them. It's very simple.
We as Humans have
known this for hundreds of year. COVID is not the worlds first
empidemic.
If I'm on line at the grocery store and someone without a
mask gets too close to me I'll ask them."Excuse me sir/miss can you
please step back? "I don't want any germs you may have". If they
refuse, then there's going to be a "scene". I WILL get loud.
It's my God given right to protect myself from your diseased ugly face.
MRO wrote to HusTler <=-
you're missing MY point. be tactful.
Underminer wrote to Nightfox <=-
On a similar note I had a client not understanding why we'd need to
either pull cable to connect a remote office he was setting up, or
setup a VPN because "Well the plugs in the wall are the same size, shouldn't they be connected to each other already?" ---
It's my God given right to protect myself from your diseased ugly face.
Actually, it's not. It's your God given right to hide in your home if you choose and wear a mask if you choose. It's not your right to make the world change because you are miseducated.
Seriously though, I think for a lot of people, they just don't care about much, or what they are doing. A lot of people simply refuse to think.
I am a white supremacist and don't see it as a bad thing. You're missing my point. If someone is going disrespect me and get too close to me while not wearing a mask, I have no respect for them and will behave accordingly. Regardless of their skin color or whatever country they migrated from.
HusTler
A white supremacist living in a predominantly black neighbourhood in
NYC. The irony.
On 09-21-20 21:41, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Precaution is the elimination of the source of risk, which is sometimes valid, sometimes not. This is the approach I think is being taken.
Risk Management is acceptence of risk, and balancing the cost of controlling it, with the benefits of whatever activity is resulting in risk. (ie, balancing the economy with control of the virus).
The problem is, that the 'precautionary' approach can bypass a cost/benefit analysis, and even bypass the analysis of other ways to manage risk. If you commit to ZERO cases, it drops other things off
your radar. You lose sight of a sustainable plan, of focusing efforts where they count.
I do this professionally, and I see the same problems at work.
Sometimes, I think people make decisions so they can sleep better at night, and load the cost to others.
Risk Management would have identified those most vulnerable, the areas
which pose the greatest risk, and selectively controlled those areas.
The hotel quarantine was a failure in part because the government was taking the precautionary approach, banking on an ALL OUT elimination.
They didn't properly direct resources. So we had police busting people for getting a donut at 3AM, while known cases were walking around
because private security guards were considered sufficient. We've seen
the virus go through old-age homes, the last place you want it. The precautionary approach that Dan is taking has demonstrably failed. But people want the "hardest" approach, thinking that the harder you go,
the better the results. But it doesn't work that way.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-21-20 21:41, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Precaution is the elimination of the source of risk, which is sometimes valid, sometimes not. This is the approach I think is being taken.
Risk Management is acceptence of risk, and balancing the cost of controlling it, with the benefits of whatever activity is resulting in risk. (ie, balancing the economy with control of the virus).
The question that seems to be sidestepped here is "acceptable risk"
(i.e. where do you draw the line?).
The problem is, that the 'precautionary' approach can bypass a cost/benefit analysis, and even bypass the analysis of other ways to manage risk. If you commit to ZERO cases, it drops other things off
your radar. You lose sight of a sustainable plan, of focusing efforts where they count.
I can see the problem there.
I do this professionally, and I see the same problems at work.
Sometimes, I think people make decisions so they can sleep better at night, and load the cost to others.
My risk management is done in more real time life or death situations, often where significant aspects are beyond our immediate control -
think bushfires, etc. :) But I am more confident in our understanding
of bushfires, their behaviour and their various effects, than I am
about COVID. :) But our understanding of the virus is improving
steadily.
Risk Management would have identified those most vulnerable, the areas
I've already pointed out that there are chronic effects which are
serious, but not subject to the same probabilities as the much more publicised acute effects, and from there one has to consider the
physical and mental health of those chronic cases, along with the additional cost to the healthcare system (and the economy, because
they're probably not working to their capacity).
The thing I don't like about this bug is all those unknowns that a lot
of people overlook.
which pose the greatest risk, and selectively controlled those areas.
I definitely agree when it comes to controlling high risk areas and situations - transmission charateristics seem to be better understood
now.
The hotel quarantine was a failure in part because the government was taking the precautionary approach, banking on an ALL OUT elimination.
They didn't properly direct resources. So we had police busting people for getting a donut at 3AM, while known cases were walking around
because private security guards were considered sufficient. We've seen
There seems to be a lot of links in that particular chain, including
some obscure bits of government policy that shouldn't have been used in
a critical part of pandemic management.
the virus go through old-age homes, the last place you want it. The precautionary approach that Dan is taking has demonstrably failed. But people want the "hardest" approach, thinking that the harder you go,
the better the results. But it doesn't work that way.
I agree we could have done it better, and we can still improve.
A white supremacist living in a predominantly black neighbourhood in NYC. Th irony.
if you did it the way you are stating here, you would end up getting your as
kicked or being on some youtube video as a white supremacist. i hope you're
being tactful.
I am a white supremacist and don't see it as a bad thing.
A white supremacist living in a predominantly black neighbourhood in NYC. Th
irony.
If you don't think the blacks are racist you have another thing coming.
to me while not wearing a mask, I have no respect for them and will
behave accordingly. Regardless of their skin color or whatever country
they migrated from.
HusTler
A white supremacist living in a predominantly black neighbourhood in NYC. The irony.
On 09-22-20 22:21, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The question that seems to be sidestepped here is "acceptable risk"
(i.e. where do you draw the line?).
Hard to say, but its a cost/benefit analysis. I see too many people pointing out to me that Dans lockdown IS working. But they are
neglecting the aspect of cost. Sure, it works. Locking people down to reduce crime also works. But solutions must be weighed against their cost. People are not considering cost AT ALL.
If you only look at effectiveness, without the cost, you lead towards
some awful situations.
Acceptable risk is having a low chance of contracting the virus, which
is comparable to any other virus. For me, if I'm just at risk of
catching Coronavirus as the Flu, that is acceptable. For older people, the risk profile changes, so THEY should take more precautions, and
those who are in contact with them.
Essentially when you believe you don't have to face a risk, you don't prepare for it. For example, parents who instead of teaching their children how to handle the world "out there", simply don't let them
out. They may be safer, but its a false sense of safety.
In such cases, you have to make decisions very quickly, so its a little different to me where I can usually analyse. My philosophy when it
comes to having to make quick decisions is to consider what can and
can't be undone as a result of your decision.
Your general health seems to be an important factor. It's odd that
people are not being urged to ensure they keep themselves healthy.
There seems to be a lot of links in that particular chain, including
some obscure bits of government policy that shouldn't have been used in
a critical part of pandemic management.
Such as botched training. I didn't understand why they just left it to subcontractors. That way a real 'facepalm' moment for me. I have to ensure that people do their job correctly as part of my job, and I
would never consider in a million years managing it the way they did.
We can maintain a comparible level of safety, without the same level of economic and social cost. In fact, we could INCREASE safety.
Remember, lockdowns and financial ruin also cost lives, and shorten lifespans. I don't advocate we all get it, but I think we can loosen up
in some areas, tighten in others. However, I see little impetus to do
so. Dan I think wants to make sure he can sleep soundly at night.
HusTler wrote to Dr. What <=-
I'm not asking the world to change. I'm just asking your ignorant diseased ass to stay the fuck away from me.
A white supremacist living in a predominantly black neighbourhood in NYC.Th
irony.
If you don't think the blacks are racist you have another thing coming.
HusTler
well i dont think there's anything wrong with it as long as you are concerned with the improvement of your own 'race' and you arent concerned with harming others.
malcolm x was a black supremacist.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-22-20 22:21, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The question that seems to be sidestepped here is "acceptable risk"
(i.e. where do you draw the line?).
Hard to say, but its a cost/benefit analysis. I see too many people pointing out to me that Dans lockdown IS working. But they are
neglecting the aspect of cost. Sure, it works. Locking people down to reduce crime also works. But solutions must be weighed against their cost. People are not considering cost AT ALL.
My view is we don't know the true costs of the virus.
If you only look at effectiveness, without the cost, you lead towards
some awful situations.
True, and we have seen some of those, particularly with regards to
border closures.
Acceptable risk is having a low chance of contracting the virus, which
is comparable to any other virus. For me, if I'm just at risk of
catching Coronavirus as the Flu, that is acceptable. For older people, the risk profile changes, so THEY should take more precautions, and
those who are in contact with them.
I disagree on the "comparable to any other virus". In my case, flu is
a poor comparison, because I seem to be highly resistant to catching
flu in the first case, and if I do, it's _much_ less severe than it is
for anyone else (typically a few days vs weeks).
And again, you're only considering the acute risk, not the chronic risk profile, which is less well known, but doesn't appear to be as
dependent on age. The latest I've heard is a possible link to COVID
and Parkinsons. Both have loss of sense of small as an early symptom. Parkinsons is apparently related to inflammation of the brain, which happens to be something that COVID can cause.
I feel the chronic risk may be higher than people are saying, and the costs, both personal and economic could much more than we think.
Problem is we really won't know the chronic effects for years to
decades.
Essentially when you believe you don't have to face a risk, you don't prepare for it. For example, parents who instead of teaching their children how to handle the world "out there", simply don't let them
out. They may be safer, but its a false sense of safety.
On that, I agree with you. Children do need to experience risk in controlled settings.
In such cases, you have to make decisions very quickly, so its a little different to me where I can usually analyse. My philosophy when it
And I may have to change that decision quickly, in the light of
changing circumstances.
comes to having to make quick decisions is to consider what can and
can't be undone as a result of your decision.
That is part of our so-called "Dynamic Risk Assessment" process.
Your general health seems to be an important factor. It's odd that
people are not being urged to ensure they keep themselves healthy.
Also, apparently less so for chronic effects, but yes, I agree that everyone should keep themselves as healthy as possible (in my book,
that's regardless of whether there's a pandemic!).
There seems to be a lot of links in that particular chain, including
some obscure bits of government policy that shouldn't have been used in
a critical part of pandemic management.
Such as botched training. I didn't understand why they just left it to subcontractors. That way a real 'facepalm' moment for me. I have to ensure that people do their job correctly as part of my job, and I
would never consider in a million years managing it the way they did.
Botched training, and even trying to be "inclusive" for such a critical job. I would have been a bit more pedantic about having the best
people, with the best possible training. I was like WTF?
economic and social cost. In fact, we could INCREASE safety.
Remember, lockdowns and financial ruin also cost lives, and shorten lifespans. I don't advocate we all get it, but I think we can loosen up
in some areas, tighten in others. However, I see little impetus to do
so. Dan I think wants to make sure he can sleep soundly at night.
Well, my first inclination is to gather information. Given the bigger case loads overseas, that's one place to look, as well as doing
research here to see how many of those who contracted COVID went on to develop long term issues, and get some better numbers.
We also need to understnad "super spreaders" better. Those events are another unknown. It seems not everyone spreads the virus equally.
How, can we better prevent those super spreading events, with minimum disruption to life, the economy, etc?
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: MRO to Andeddu on Tue Sep 22 2020 05:49 pm
well i dont think there's anything wrong with it as long as you are
concerned with the improvement of your own 'race' and you arent
concerned with harming others.
malcolm x was a black supremacist.
A white supremacist is someone who thinks they are superior to other people because of the colour of their skin. I believe you are describing white nationalism. Hustler described himself as a white supremacist.
On 09-24-20 00:48, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The trend I see is that people over-estimate the risk and over time,
the actual impact is less than what people think. Note, this is a
trend, not an absolute rule. I would expect there to be a heightened
sense of risk and danger, which means people look for, and notice the longer term effects. Note that the flu also can result in long term effects of 6 months of more, and for those with existing complications, can lead to further complications to be managed. This isn't to say COVID-19 isn't a problem, but the concerns are not as unique as people think. My point is really we accepted this in the past. We accepted
the flu, the deaths from it, the long term complications. These were
not justifications to clamp down on freedom, withhold basic civil liberties and ruin hundreds of thousands of people econimically and
cause long term financial, social and political damage. This is what
irks me, that we have accepted control at any price, without what I believe is solid reasoning.
Again, I believe that extra controls are necessary, but the language,
the rhetoric, the reasoning is all off-kilter and often arbitrary, emotional and reactionary, and this won't yield good results. There
are so many vested interests pushing a particular view, its hard to
work out the truth.
Joe Rogan often makes the very good point that it is odd that this is lacking in official communication. We've heard endless details about
the hotel quarantine saga, but why isn't there as part of the education campaign, making people aware of how important their health and
nutrition is. Worse still, where excercise and outdoor activities
would HELP, we are locked in. I generally go for long walks late at
night which is when I have the time, and now I can't, and I've noticed
my health decline as a result. With young kids and a full time desk
job, that is really my only opportunity to fit a reasonable size one
in. So now the government is helping to DETERIORATE my wellbeing.
I can imagine how it works, as I deal with such beaurocracy all the
time. Let me guess, many high level, legalistic sounding policy
documents written by people justifying their position and little
practical guidance?
There are many people in the public sector (and even private sector
where it comes to regulatory/compliance roles), whose mode of operation
is more based on producing information which ticks expected checkboxes based on the judgement of others, than in producing a materially
positive result. That is to say, opinion and policy dictate results, rather than the actual material, objective outcomes.
This is an advatage that private enterprise can have, in that the
people involved can make the direct, material outcome the sole
criteria, which then leads to results. If they are able to resist external pressures to introduce other criteria that is, which sometimes they don't (i.e., they buy into shysters and hucksters.
It's seems there is a Pareto distribution here, and some people are
responsible for most of the transmission. It could just be that person being in a room with others, where someone else infected was just
working from home with a trip to the supermarket. It's not hard to
find yourself in close proximity momentarily. And some people are just not as disciplined about keeping distnace, washing, not touching their face, etc.
It's my God given right to protect myself from your diseased ugly
face.
Actually, it's not. It's your God given right to hide in your home if you choose and wear a mask if you choose. It's not your right to make the world change because you are miseducated.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-24-20 00:48, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The trend I see is that people over-estimate the risk and over time,
the actual impact is less than what people think. Note, this is a
trend, not an absolute rule. I would expect there to be a heightened
I have seen it go both ways, where people either grossly underestimate
or overestimate the risk, and it takes time for everyone to get their
head around the facts.
sense of risk and danger, which means people look for, and notice the longer term effects. Note that the flu also can result in long term effects of 6 months of more, and for those with existing complications, can lead to further complications to be managed. This isn't to say COVID-19 isn't a problem, but the concerns are not as unique as people think. My point is really we accepted this in the past. We accepted
True, though the flu is at least a known quantity with some level of vaccination generally available, though certainly not 100% effective.
the flu, the deaths from it, the long term complications. These were
not justifications to clamp down on freedom, withhold basic civil liberties and ruin hundreds of thousands of people econimically and
cause long term financial, social and political damage. This is what
irks me, that we have accepted control at any price, without what I believe is solid reasoning.
I'm hopeful that we'll seen move into a sustainable steady state, where things are "mostly normal", but with some control measures, from encouraging better hygiene to enabling contract tracing, and better controls for sensitive places.
Any I haven't seen any reliable comparisons between the seasonal flu
(or even an outbreak like swine or avian flu) and COVID-19. I still
feel like I'm lacking data to really draw any conclusions, and as you point out below, it's hard to get facts, through the vested interests.
Again, I believe that extra controls are necessary, but the language,
the rhetoric, the reasoning is all off-kilter and often arbitrary, emotional and reactionary, and this won't yield good results. There
are so many vested interests pushing a particular view, its hard to
work out the truth.
Agree on the vested interests. If we are "at war" with this virus, the truth is certainly the first casualty, as usual. :)
Joe Rogan often makes the very good point that it is odd that this is lacking in official communication. We've heard endless details about
the hotel quarantine saga, but why isn't there as part of the education campaign, making people aware of how important their health and
nutrition is. Worse still, where excercise and outdoor activities
would HELP, we are locked in. I generally go for long walks late at
night which is when I have the time, and now I can't, and I've noticed
my health decline as a result. With young kids and a full time desk
job, that is really my only opportunity to fit a reasonable size one
in. So now the government is helping to DETERIORATE my wellbeing.
Now, that is a very good point, and I suspect you're not alone. I know others who have complained about losing some level of fitness. I've
been relatively lucky, having enough flexibility, though my strength probably hasn't increased as much as it would have in the gym, and
that's still not due to open until late November.
I can imagine how it works, as I deal with such beaurocracy all the
time. Let me guess, many high level, legalistic sounding policy
documents written by people justifying their position and little
practical guidance?
Yes, I suspect that's the case.
There are many people in the public sector (and even private sector
where it comes to regulatory/compliance roles), whose mode of operation
is more based on producing information which ticks expected checkboxes based on the judgement of others, than in producing a materially
positive result. That is to say, opinion and policy dictate results, rather than the actual material, objective outcomes.
Yes, I see this all too often as well, either a tick box exercise or as tokenism for some agenda. :/ And I agree with the next paragraph
(omitted for brevity) about all those extraneous bureaucratic and political pressures that are extraneous to the mission.
This is an advatage that private enterprise can have, in that the
people involved can make the direct, material outcome the sole
criteria, which then leads to results. If they are able to resist external pressures to introduce other criteria that is, which sometimes they don't (i.e., they buy into shysters and hucksters.
A lot of private companies do fall prey to the same pressures, but yes, those focused on the important goals can really achieve well here.
It's seems there is a Pareto distribution here, and some people are
I'm not familiar with that particular distribution.
responsible for most of the transmission. It could just be that person being in a room with others, where someone else infected was just
Yes, it seems some people are prone to spreading the virus much more
than others. I haven't seen any information that offers an explanation
as to why that is, whether it's something about the person themselves,
or whether it is a function of their particular movements, somewhere in between, or something else altogether.
working from home with a trip to the supermarket. It's not hard to
find yourself in close proximity momentarily. And some people are just not as disciplined about keeping distnace, washing, not touching their face, etc.
True. More variables, more study needed. :)
On 09-25-20 03:55, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The Pareto distribution is a mathematical rule about distribution of
cause and effect, AKA the 80/20 rule, or that 80% of the effects come
from 20% of the causes. For example, most of the wealth is held by a
few, most of the birds you might see in an environment are the result
of a minority of the species that live there, most of the canopy in a rainforest is caused by a minority of the plants, etc etc. So
likewise, perhaps the large bulk if infections are caused by a few.
I probably blathered on too much about organisational problems, but
only because its a constant struggle in my personal life, and a direct negative impact. Also, I think this problem is far more serious than people realise. It can literally undo civilisations. Thats why I'm focused on these issues, because while COVID is an IMMEDIATE
existential threat, it's reveleaed to me gaping flaws in not only our systems, but in the way we THINK. In the not too distant future, we
will control the virus, but all the problems caused by our broken methodology will remain and fester, and we won't recover fully. The
next crisis that comes along, will screw us even more. Since September 11, 2001, each crisis has just made us weaker and weaker, and this will too. It also literally costs lives, but not being and immediate and obvious threat, its overlooked. There is no 'roaring 20's' after this.
gaping flaws in not only our systems, but in the way we THINK. In the not to distant future, we will control the virus, but all the problems caused by ou broken methodology will remain and fester, and we won't recover fully. The next crisis that comes along, will screw us even more. Since September 11,
2001, each crisis has just made us weaker and weaker, and this will too. It
also literally costs lives, but not being and immediate and obvious threat,
Re: Re: Masks made simplethreat,
By: Dennisk to Vk3jed on Fri Sep 25 2020 03:55 am
gaping flaws in not only our systems, but in the way we THINK. In the
not to distant future, we will control the virus, but all the problems
caused by ou broken methodology will remain and fester, and we won't
recover fully. The next crisis that comes along, will screw us even
more. Since September 11,
2001, each crisis has just made us weaker and weaker, and this will too. It
I disagree. We have become stronger and better equiped to keep threats out of our country.
also literally costs lives, but not being and immediate and obvious
COVID-19 should be a wake up call for people to realize the possibilities of germ warfare. From what I can tell it has not. So we are destined to kill each other because there are too many ignorant and stupid people in our world.
our world.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-25-20 03:55, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The Pareto distribution is a mathematical rule about distribution of
cause and effect, AKA the 80/20 rule, or that 80% of the effects come
from 20% of the causes. For example, most of the wealth is held by a
few, most of the birds you might see in an environment are the result
of a minority of the species that live there, most of the canopy in a rainforest is caused by a minority of the plants, etc etc. So
likewise, perhaps the large bulk if infections are caused by a few.
Thanks. Everything I've seen points to this being very relevant to
what's going on with COVID-19 transmission.
I probably blathered on too much about organisational problems, but
only because its a constant struggle in my personal life, and a direct negative impact. Also, I think this problem is far more serious than people realise. It can literally undo civilisations. Thats why I'm focused on these issues, because while COVID is an IMMEDIATE
existential threat, it's reveleaed to me gaping flaws in not only our systems, but in the way we THINK. In the not too distant future, we
will control the virus, but all the problems caused by our broken methodology will remain and fester, and we won't recover fully. The
next crisis that comes along, will screw us even more. Since September 11, 2001, each crisis has just made us weaker and weaker, and this will too. It also literally costs lives, but not being and immediate and obvious threat, its overlooked. There is no 'roaring 20's' after this.
Well, on the organisational issues, I agree. My perspective is
probably a bit different to most. Firstly, it's not based upon an occupational perspective, but more decades of observations, which my
brain automatically turns into patterns and trends, and I see the same things over and over again, especially in government, and to a lesser extent, big business.
We certaingly need more diverse influences in our thinking styles, as a society, so we can have a better chance of avoiding the same traps over and over again. Also, the same human issues crop up time and time
again - greed, status and social standing, insecurities, etc.
HusTler wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to Vk3jed on Fri Sep 25 2020 03:55 am
gaping flaws in not only our systems, but in the way we THINK. In the not to distant future, we will control the virus, but all the problems caused by ou broken methodology will remain and fester, and we won't recover fully. The next crisis that comes along, will screw us even more. Since September 11,
2001, each crisis has just made us weaker and weaker, and this will too. It
I disagree. We have become stronger and better equiped to keep threats
out of our country.
also literally costs lives, but not being and immediate and obvious threat,
COVID-19 should be a wake up call for people to realize the
possibilities of germ warfare. From what I can tell it has not. So we
are destined to kill each other because there are too many ignorant and stupid people in our world.
On 09-26-20 08:18, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
A lot of these flaws are inherit in us, but we can use reason and
logic. This is increasingly being short ciruited, as we seem to want
to more and more move towards conslusions that we feel are right, than
are logically correct.
COVID-19 should be a wake up call for people to realize the
possibilities of germ warfare. From what I can tell it has not. So we
are destined to kill each other because there are too many ignorant and stupid people in our world.
our world.
i still dont think we can handle shit like this. the swine flu spread like wildfire and so does everything else. aids even spread to the same areas.
I think if there was more unity we could. But right now there's way too much discord.
COVID-19 should be a wake up call for people to realize the
possibilities of germ warfare. From what I can tell it has not. So we
are destined to kill each other because there are too many ignorant and
stupid people in our world.
It's very hard to contain the germs, they will come back to bite you. For me, I think its revealed how difficult actual germ warfare would be. On the other hand, sometimes I think that maybe it was allowed to spread to undermine us.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-26-20 08:18, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
A lot of these flaws are inherit in us, but we can use reason and
logic. This is increasingly being short ciruited, as we seem to want
to more and more move towards conslusions that we feel are right, than
are logically correct.
Yes, history keeps repeating itself. We _can_ use logic and reason in theory, but in practice, it rarely seems to work that way. Even NASA screws this one up (Apollo 1, Apollo 13, Challenger, Columbia...).
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to HusTler on Sat Sep 26 2020 09:43 am
COVID-19 should be a wake up call for people to realize the
possibilities of germ warfare. From what I can tell it has not. So we
are destined to kill each other because there are too many ignorant and
stupid people in our world.
It's very hard to contain the germs, they will come back to bite you. For me, I think its revealed how difficult actual germ warfare would be. On the other hand, sometimes I think that maybe it was allowed to spread to undermine us.
why do you think it's difficult? covid spread fast and so did the swine flu. ---
If you were to release a virus as an act of war, it would be hard for it not to also affect your population. You would have to transfer it OS, release it there, but then it would spread around the world, affecting many other neutral countries.
On 09-13-20 18:50, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I wouldn't use those examples. Some of these are lapses in working processes, errors. I'm referring to things such as political movements which base their validity on how their ideas sound, rather than say,
the end result of their application.
Fair enough. Political ideas do seem to go through trends, attract ma following then prove to be not what they were cracked up to be. Recently, there has been a lot of populism around the world, which seems to be a particularly short sighted set of ideas.
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to MRO on Sun Sep 13 2020 07:45 pm
If you were to release a virus as an act of war, it would be hard for it not to also affect your population. You would have to transfer it OS, release it there, but then it would spread around the world, affecting many other neutral countries.
if the virus only affected certain types of people, or if there
would be an antibody that could be administered to people and make them immune, that would be something they could work with. ---
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-13-20 18:50, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I wouldn't use those examples. Some of these are lapses in working processes, errors. I'm referring to things such as political movements which base their validity on how their ideas sound, rather than say,
the end result of their application.
Fair enough. Political ideas do seem to go through trends, attract ma following then prove to be not what they were cracked up to be.
Recently, there has been a lot of populism around the world, which
seems to be a particularly short sighted set of ideas.
As for the lapses in working processes, many of those "lapses" turned
out to be due to human factors like managerial or external pressures,
that exacerbated the technical issues or even prevented them from being resolved. :/
On 09-27-20 15:17, Arelor wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The masses are dumb so the products that sell well are the populist messages. "We will take Jack's money because he has too much and give
it to you!" is a popular one which will get you votes.
On 09-27-20 22:15, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
That's true, there were organisational issues which led to it. What concerns me more is the growing idea that knowledge and reason itself
is not important. Where identity seems to qualify someone more. I've noted this occuring more and more, where the person hired to perform a task is hired simply because of what they are, and that those doing the hiring think this attribute is actually more important than other,
well, important attributes. Would you want to fly in a plane where the engineers were selected on criteria which prioritised how cheerful they were? Because you could very well be doing so in the very near future.
A lot of these flaws are inherit in us, but we can use reason and
Yes, history keeps repeating itself. We _can_ use logic and reason in theory, but in practice, it rarely seems to work that way. Even NASA screws this one up (Apollo 1, Apollo 13, Challenger, Columbia...).
I wouldn't use those examples. Some of these are lapses in working processes, errors. I'm referring to things such as political movements
which base their validity on how their ideas sound, rather than say, the
end result of their application.
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to MRO on Sun Sep 13 2020 07:45 pm
If you were to release a virus as an act of war, it would be hard for i not to also affect your population. You would have to transfer it OS, release it there, but then it would spread around the world, affecting many other neutral countries.
if the virus only affected certain types of people, or if there
would be an antibody that could be administered to people and make them immune, that would be something they could work with. ---
Possibly. I think these problems are harder to solve than you might realise I don't discount it as a possibility, it is definately something you could d Crude biological warfare was conducted centuries ago by people catapulting d horses into a beseiged city...
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
That's true, there were organisational issues which led to it. What concern me more is the growing idea that knowledge and reason itself is not importan Where identity seems to qualify someone more. I've noted this occuring more and more, where the person hired to perform a task is hired simply because o what they are, and that those doing the hiring think this attribute is actua more important than other, well, important attributes. Would you want to fl in a plane where the engineers were selected on criteria which prioritised h cheerful they were? Because you could very well be doing so in the very nea future.
If you were to release a virus as an act of war, it would be hard for it not to also affect your population. You would have to transfer it OS, release it there, but then it would spread around the world, affecting many other neutral countries.
if the virus only affected certain types of people, or if there
would be an antibody that could be administered to people and make them immune, that would be something they could work with. ---
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-27-20 22:15, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
That's true, there were organisational issues which led to it. What concerns me more is the growing idea that knowledge and reason itself
is not important. Where identity seems to qualify someone more. I've noted this occuring more and more, where the person hired to perform a task is hired simply because of what they are, and that those doing the hiring think this attribute is actually more important than other,
well, important attributes. Would you want to fly in a plane where the engineers were selected on criteria which prioritised how cheerful they were? Because you could very well be doing so in the very near future.
Yes, I've seen this too, and the whole hiring process is normally
geared towards personality, rather than technical proficiency these
days - self promotion, interviews, etc, and what sort of story they can spin, or how much they can charm the interviewer.
And of course, we all know someone with a story of getting a job
because they knew someone inside the company.
HusTler wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to Vk3jed on Sun Sep 13 2020 06:50 pm
A lot of these flaws are inherit in us, but we can use reason and
Yes, history keeps repeating itself. We _can_ use logic and reason in theory, but in practice, it rarely seems to work that way. Even NASA screws this one up (Apollo 1, Apollo 13, Challenger, Columbia...).
I wouldn't use those examples. Some of these are lapses in working processes, errors. I'm referring to things such as political movements
which base their validity on how their ideas sound, rather than say, the
end result of their application.
Political movements are based on what people want. Their validity has nothing to do with the movement. The people believe they are right want something from their government. eg Black Lives Matter.
Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to Vk3jed on Sun Sep 27 2020 10:15 pm
That's true, there were organisational issues which led to it. What concern me more is the growing idea that knowledge and reason itself is not importan Where identity seems to qualify someone more. I've noted this occuring more and more, where the person hired to perform a task is hired simply because o what they are, and that those doing the hiring think this attribute is actua more important than other, well, important attributes. Would you want to fl in a plane where the engineers were selected on criteria which prioritised h cheerful they were? Because you could very well be doing so in the very nea future.
A friend worked on an IT project where he worked independently from the rest of the department, and only interfaced with a manager or person responsible for running a system. Each year HR would put out a peer review, which would ask employees in your department how well they get along with you, and how well they contribute to the team. Technically,
he should've never been included since he was a contractor, but some places treat all contractors as long term staff augmentation,
regardless if there's an end date on the contract. Since he didn't
need to interact with anyone in the department, he received bad marks. Even though his manager he reported to tried to explain the situation, some "human performance" expert wanted to interview him because they couldn't fathom this type of work relationship functioning in their
work "culture." They informed him this would affect his share in the incentive program, which was funny because as a contractor he wasn't a participant in it!
Political movements are based on what people want. Their validity has nothing to do with the movement. The people believe they are right want something from their government. eg Black Lives Matter.
People want lots of things, but you need to know how to create the condition which make it possible. Just saying you want it, or demanding it, is not enough, and often counter productive. History is full of example of people w pushed for "peace" and "mercy" and "Brotherhood" creating tyrannies because their methodology was all wrong. That is happening again today.
HusTler wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to HusTler on Tue Sep 29 2020 01:21 am
Political movements are based on what people want. Their validity has nothing to do with the movement. The people believe they are right want something from their government. eg Black Lives Matter.
People want lots of things, but you need to know how to create the condition which make it possible. Just saying you want it, or demanding it, is not enough, and often counter productive. History is full of example of people w pushed for "peace" and "mercy" and "Brotherhood" creating tyrannies because their methodology was all wrong. That is happening again today.
I'm not sure I'm following you. People ARE getting what they want.
The defunding of police is happening all over the country. Their
methology was to threaten lives and burn down buildings. Don't get me wrong. This is going to come back to them (BLM) in a harsh way. In my
view there's no validity that taking money away from cops is going to solve a thing. Let's see what the future brings.
Sysop: | echicken |
---|---|
Location: | Toronto, Ontario |
Users: | 2,224 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 220:14:08 |
Calls: | 14,143 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 295 |
Messages: | 551,172 |