COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[brwwg&b]

42 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

Out of curiosity, I'd like to know on this board the number of CAF pilots who are for/against government mandated lockdowns and enforcement of "arbitrary" (my word) rules vice those pilots who are not 11F. Could be an interesting discussion.

What about this do you think would be interesting? Is it that an 11F is more comfortable with higher risk? Or that an 11F is comfortable with risk because of increased measures to mitigate that risk?

[ViperMan]

11F.

Generally, I think masks are a good idea.

What are not good ideas?

1. Limiting (actual) essential business hours - because it increases the density of people.
2. Limiting entrances and exits to essential businesses - because it increases the density of people.
3. Forcing people to take a vaccine - because it violates their rights.
4. Having virus "passports" - because it violates their rights.
5. Paying me and my co-workers (bros) stimulus money - because they don't need it.
6. Paying airline pilots their full salaries - because they don't need it.
7. 90%+ of the money spent/allocated on the latest stimulus - read it, if it doesn't piss you off, there is something wrong with you.

What are good ideas?

1. Temporarily shutting down non-essential businesses - this is most things - way more than what is currently allowed to operate (i.e. ALL restaurants, most big box stores).
2. Continuing to funnel money to people, through their employers, to be able to barely make ends meet.
3. Suspending bills/payments/etc until the worst of this is over.

This meme is true, but only because our government is run by pussies who didn't have the courage to actually shut the m'fer down.

That's me, because at this point, it is what we have collectively decided is the way forward, but it doesn't make it less ridiculous/kabuki theater.

[jazzdude]

It is not their timing, it is illegal government mandates. There is a huge difference. 

Where are the lawsuits/legal cases challenging the mandates? We are a very litigious society, if it's clearly illegal and not within the powers granted to executives, it should be a straightforward legal case.

It's not illegal just because you don't like it or agree with it, or doesn't match your interpretation of the law. Non-compliance with established laws is what makes something illegal, and the arbiter of legalality lies within our judicial branches.

[VMFA187]

2 minutes ago, brwwg&b said:

What about this do you think would be interesting? Is it that an 11F is more comfortable with higher risk? Or that an 11F is comfortable with risk because of increased measures to mitigate that risk?

My presupposition would be that 11Fs are more comfortable with assuming higher risk based on their perceived invincibility. 

[Sua Sponte]

44 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

Governors in several states have issued mandates that are not in accordance with the republican form of government guaranteed by our constitution. These Governors are acting as monarchical forms of government which is not in accordance with our norms.

Out of curiosity, I'd like to know on this board the number of CAF pilots who are for/against government mandated lockdowns and enforcement of "arbitrary" (my word) rules vice those pilots who are not 11F. Could be an interesting discussion.

Sure

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2020/youraba-april-2020/law-guides-legal-approach-to-pandemic/

“Under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court decisions over nearly 200 years, state governments have the primary authority to control the spread of dangerous diseases within their jurisdictions. The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.”

Most state constitutions, which were ratified by the state congresses, and signed into law give governors expanded authority during emergencies. 
 

I’d like to know the amount of people here who have a political science or law degree and what their opinion is against mandated lockdowns. 

[VMFA187]

3 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

Where are the lawsuits/legal cases challenging the mandates? We are a very litigious society, if it's clearly illegal and not within the powers granted to executives, it should be a straightforward legal case.

It's not illegal just because you don't like it or agree with it, or doesn't match your interpretation of the law. Non-compliance with established laws is what makes something illegal, and the arbiter of legalality lies within our judicial branches.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/strip-club-ruling-covid-rules-protects-restaurants-san-diego-judge-says/

I posted the story of the hero strip club owners who challenged the illegal actions of the Governor of California and won a week or so ago. 

[VMFA187]

3 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Sure

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2020/youraba-april-2020/law-guides-legal-approach-to-pandemic/

“Under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court decisions over nearly 200 years, state governments have the primary authority to control the spread of dangerous diseases within their jurisdictions. The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.”

Most state constitutions, which were ratified by the state congresses, and signed into law give governors expanded authority during emergencies. 
 

I’d like to know the amount of people here who have a political science or law degree and what their opinion is against mandated lockdowns. 

Dangerous to you and dangerous to me might mean completely different things. 

Is it dangerous to potentially shorten the lives of .1 to .3% of people who catch covid? Especially when the vast majority of those people are nearing the end of their lives? You may say yes, I would say no. 

Is it dangerous to fly 3' away from another aircraft? You may say yes, I would say no. 😆

[ViperMan]

6 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Where are the lawsuits/legal cases challenging the mandates? We are a very litigious society, if it's clearly illegal and not within the powers granted to executives, it should be a straightforward legal case.

It's not illegal just because you don't like it or agree with it, or doesn't match your interpretation of the law. Non-compliance with established laws is what makes something illegal, and the arbiter of legalality lies within our judicial branches.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-religion-california/u-s-supreme-court-sides-with-challenge-to-californias-covid-19-religious-service-curbs-idUSKBN28D2B2

Here are cases where governors restricted (arbitrarily) certain activities while preferencing others. Supreme court to the rescue.

[Sua Sponte]

4 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/strip-club-ruling-covid-rules-protects-restaurants-san-diego-judge-says/

I posted the story of the hero strip club owners who challenged the illegal actions of the Governor of California and won a week or so ago. 

https://www.cbs8.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/covid-19-enforcement-of-san-diego-restaurants/509-463c2fa2-9bd3-456c-98dd-58ba97c771b7

[Sua Sponte]

2 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

Dangerous to you and dangerous to me might mean completely different things. 

Is it dangerous to potentially shorten the lives of .1 to .3% of people who catch covid? Especially when the vast majority of those people are nearing the end of their lives? You may say yes, I would say no. 

Is it dangerous to fly 3' away from another aircraft? You may say yes, I would say no. 😆

I was a Boom, so no it’s not dangerous to fly 3’ from an aircraft to me.

Regardless, you, nor I, are the ones paid to interpret law. 

[ViperMan]

5 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

Dangerous to you and dangerous to me might mean completely different things. 

Is it dangerous to potentially shorten the lives of .1 to .3% of people who catch covid? Especially when the vast majority of those people are nearing the end of their lives? You may say yes, I would say no. 

Is it dangerous to fly 3' away from another aircraft? You may say yes, I would say no. 😆

You racing on a closed track is up to you. You speeding on a public highway is not up to you.

The distinction isn't whether or not you interpret it as dangerous. The distinction is whether or not your actions put other people at risk.

[Negatory]

It's a pretty nuanced point. It was never dangerous for Typhoid Mary to make food for herself. But it was dangerous for her to go out and make food for the 53 people she infected.

[VMFA187]

6 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

You racing on a closed track is up to you. You speeding on a public highway is not up to you.

The distinction isn't whether or not you interpret it as dangerous. The distinction is whether or not your actions put other people at risk.

Don't many put others at risk in some manner or another? It is a question of degrees or risk and willingness to accept it. 

Driving on a public highway does put others at risk. You can choose to not accept that risk and not participate by not driving on the public highway, but you shouldn't be able to tell me that risk is too high for me to accept. 

[jazzdude]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-religion-california/u-s-supreme-court-sides-with-challenge-to-californias-covid-19-religious-service-curbs-idUSKBN28D2B2
Here are cases where governors restricted (arbitrarily) certain activities while preferencing others. Supreme court to the rescue.

Good articles, thanks.

And it's good to see our checks and balances within government are still healthy.

What makes all of this uncomfortable is several values we hold are in conflict with each other.

There's always the danger that an executive gains too much power, but we've been increasing their power over the last couple decades.

[SurelySerious]

25 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

Where are the lawsuits/legal cases challenging the mandates? We are a very litigious society, if it's clearly illegal and not within the powers granted to executives, it should be a straightforward legal case.

It's not illegal just because you don't like it or agree with it, or doesn't match your interpretation of the law. Non-compliance with established laws is what makes something illegal, and the arbiter of legalality lies within our judicial branches.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/supreme-court-religious-restrictions-ruling-covid/index.html

Easy Kill. 

[ViperMan]

6 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

Don't many put others at risk in some manner or another? It is a question of degrees or risk and willingness to accept it. 

Driving on a public highway does put others at risk. You can choose to not accept that risk and not participate by not driving on the public highway, but you shouldn't be able to tell me that risk is too high for me to accept. 

Yes, absolutely they do. What we have decided, however, is that some level of collective risk-management is appropriate (to moderate the degree of risk). This comes to us in the form of laws that we are all required to obey.

Your second point is also true - no one needs to go driving out on the highway if they feel the risk of driving 55 if too much for them - they can walk, take the bus, or drive on surface streets.

Your final comment re: "you shouldn't be able to tell me..." is a non-starter - it undermines all law.

Edited January 5, 2021 by ViperMan
clarity

[ViperMan]

2 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Good articles, thanks.

And it's good to see our checks and balances within government are still healthy.

What makes all of this uncomfortable is several values we hold are in conflict with each other.

There's always the danger that an executive gains too much power, but we've been increasing their power over the last couple decades.

Agree, mostly because congress abdicates their responsibilities.

[jazzdude]

Agree, mostly because congress abdicates their responsibilities.

This.

Though I wonder how much of it is Congress abdicating their power because the legislative process is slower, versus the the political parties realizing Congress is pretty evenly split so the only way to push the party's agenda is through executive orders and/or selective non-enforcement of laws.

[Snuggie]

4 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

Out of curiosity, I'd like to know on this board the number of CAF pilots who are for/against government mandated lockdowns and enforcement of "arbitrary" (my word) rules vice those pilots who are not 11F. Could be an interesting discussion.

11U. I'm for enforced mask wearing in public (no mask no service). For closing in-person dining and bars (too much long close contact w/o mask). Probably for closing gyms (I'm torn since the COVID risk is elevated but working out will help you not die from it). Indifferent to other businesses as long as masking is universal. Targeted stimulus to make sure we aren't throwing a bunch of people on the streets in the middle of winter/during a 3rd wave. And for stimulus to help small businesses. I would trade accuracy for speed until we can get wings level and figure out a path forward. 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Snuggie
fixing a word salad

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

There are cultural differences, yes. And yes, there are physical and societal differences in countries. But it's hard to argue that their response was not effective at controlling the pandemic, allowing them to live a pretty much normal life. But yes, there are tradeoffs that happen culturally.

We do have some unique challenges, but so does every other country. It doesn't mean we can't learn lessons from other countries. As a pilot, I can learn safety lessons from accidents that occurred in vastly different aircraft than what I fly, extract the core lessons from the accident, and then apply it to operating my jet. Why can't we do that as a nation? Why do we have to be like the over zealous safety officer that says we don't need to know about accidents in other jets because they are different than what we fly?

Maybe we need to re-examine what we value and why, and the consequences of the values we choose to hold. This doesn't necessarily mean we have to change, but we do have to accept the consequences of our choices, and we can make those conscious choices instead of just accepting that things are just the way they've always been.

As an aside, Hong Kong did have some significant protests in the last year, so I don't think they are as compliant to authority as some make them out to be, especially when their values are challenged.

 

 

There is a cultural component to it. The most obvious one is individualism vs collectivism on the Hofstede 6D model. Highly collective societies have had much better success limiting the pandemic. Less collective societies less so. The US is the highest ranked individual society out there. I think this was largely unavoidable for us.

I will also dispute that other country's lockdown models allow a most normal life. Some of the lockdowns in Europe are incredibly oppressive. In China they were welding people into homes. I think people on the US have this model in their head where these countries found a balance but that's frankly not true. They are having protest in Europe and Asia as well to this. However Europe and especially Asia are largely more collective and fall into the fold once their government lays down the gravel. 

 

[jazzdude]

 
There is a cultural component to it. The most obvious one is individualism vs collectivism on the Hofstede 6D model. Highly collective societies have had much better success limiting the pandemic. Less collective societies less so. The US is the highest ranked individual society out there. I think this was largely unavoidable for us.
I will also dispute that other country's lockdown models allow a most normal life. Some of the lockdowns in Europe are incredibly oppressive. In China they were welding people into homes. I think people on the US have this model in their head where these countries found a balance but that's frankly not true. They are having protest in Europe and Asia as well to this. However Europe and especially Asia are largely more collective and fall into the fold once their government lays down the gravel. 
 

For what it's worth, I agree with your analysis.

Our sense of individualism is both a great strength, but can also be a great weakness. Unfortunately, there are many people that refuse to acknowledge our system and way of life has disadvantages, and isn't all sunshine and rainbows. But there's still no other country I would want to live in/be a citizen of.

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Snuggie said:

11U. I'm for enforced mask wearing in public (no mask no service). For closing in-person dining and bars (too much long close contact w/o mask). Probably for closing gyms (I'm torn since the COVID risk is elevated but working out will help you not die from it). Indifferent to other businesses as long as masking is universal. Targeted stimulus to make sure we aren't throwing a bunch of people on the streets in the middle of winter/during a 3rd wave. And for stimulus to help small businesses. I would trade accuracy for speed until we can get wings level and figure out a path forward. 

hilarious. no evidence the "lockdowns" have worked at all, but man have they sure wiped out small businesses

[VMFA187]

I have a sneaking suspicion "variant" is a way to keep the public mortified by the virus. 

[pawnman]

15 hours ago, Snuggie said:

11U. I'm for enforced mask wearing in public (no mask no service). For closing in-person dining and bars (too much long close contact w/o mask). Probably for closing gyms (I'm torn since the COVID risk is elevated but working out will help you not die from it). Indifferent to other businesses as long as masking is universal. Targeted stimulus to make sure we aren't throwing a bunch of people on the streets in the middle of winter/during a 3rd wave. And for stimulus to help small businesses. I would trade accuracy for speed until we can get wings level and figure out a path forward. 

A bunch of cities in California are handing out fines to people who don't wear a mask.

If I were a cop in the "defund the police" era...I'd be handing out fines left and right.  Seems like a pretty steady source of income that the left won't complain about.

[slackline]

 
There is a cultural component to it. The most obvious one is individualism vs collectivism on the Hofstede 6D model. Highly collective societies have had much better success limiting the pandemic. Less collective societies less so. The US is the highest ranked individual society out there. I think this was largely unavoidable for us.
I will also dispute that other country's lockdown models allow a most normal life. Some of the lockdowns in Europe are incredibly oppressive. In China they were welding people into homes. I think people on the US have this model in their head where these countries found a balance but that's frankly not true. They are having protest in Europe and Asia as well to this. However Europe and especially Asia are largely more collective and fall into the fold once their government lays down the gravel. 
 

I’ll disagree on the Europe being anything close to collectivist societies. At least anecdotally my experience in France differs immensely. Lived on the economy for 3 years, and they protest the government, violently I might add more than anyone out there. No such thing as being “largely more collective and falling into the fold once their government lays down the gravel.” Not even close. Strikes and protests are in their DNA. As I’ve talked with military and civ friends from my time over there, they’re not happy at all with the lockdowns they’ve experienced. The messaging has been different from the beginning however, that this is being done to help out each other. If you’re saying that makes them more collectivist, maybe we could do with a little more of that flavor; being willing to put up with significant discomfort for the greater good.

I realize there are large chasms between what people think is “for the greater good.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk