TrickstaPriest

Yes.  And in some places that did shut down, the death rate per day is still higher than any event in the last century.
 
edit:  I don't disagree with the purpose of the point, that there are a lot of rural places that probably will stay very low.
 
 
"The population density in South Dakota is 11.3 people per square mile (52nd out of 56)."
 
"Texas has just 105.2 people per square mile and those figures are merely the 26th highest in the US."
 
Because of exponential growth rate, the difference in infected is going to result in cases much higher than merely x10 the existing rate in South Dakota.  There is a tipping point in terms of population density, but I can't speak to what that is.
 
That's an argument for opening Texas, especially the rural parts of it.  But don't use bad data to argue for it (2.7 death rate out of 100,000).  That's disengenuous, and I'm calling it out for your sake.  I don't want you or others spreading bad reasoning, even if it's quippy and quotable.
 
The same goes for the tired parachute analogy.  It's the assumption that there's a single totalular approach, when the workability of that was long behind us.
 
 
Homicide and accidents don't increase exponentially with availability/effect.  Please, stop using that as part of your argument as well.  Disease is one of the only problems that does.  We can argue that civilization breakdown/displacement could be another.
 
 
I'm interested in how this 100 million starving will relate to the US.  There are specific locations that are probably in danger of starving, and this is a good argument for reorganizing and making sure areas responsible for food production stay open.
 
 
I'm literally arguing with you for the sake of you spreading good arguments for what you want. 
 
I literally despise the memes being used in this argument, comparing disease to accidents and giving wholly bad numbers for your argument.  (edit2: to be clear, to my perspective these memes are simply being spread to you and then beyond you)
 
edit:  And I wanted to apologize for starting this as an argument to begin with.  I tried to be more polite and general in my response.

Yes.  And in some places that did shut down, the death rate per day is still higher than any event in the last century.
 
edit:  I don't disagree with the purpose of the point, that there are a lot of rural places that probably will stay very low.
 
 
"The population density in South Dakota is 11.3 people per square mile (52nd out of 56)."
 
"Texas has just 105.2 people per square mile and those figures are merely the 26th highest in the US."
 
Because of exponential growth rate, the difference in infected is going to result in cases much higher than merely x10 the existing rate in South Dakota.  There is a tipping point in terms of population density, but I can't speak to what that is.
 
That's an argument for opening Texas, especially the rural parts of it.  But don't use bad data to argue for it (2.7 death rate out of 100,000).  That's disengenuous, and I'm calling it out for your sake.  I don't want you or others spreading bad reasoning, even if it's quippy and quotable.
 
The same goes for the tired parachute analogy.  It's the assumption that there's a single totalular approach, when the workability of that was long behind us.
 
 
Homicide and accidents don't increase exponentially with availability/effect.  Please, stop using that as part of your argument as well.  Disease is one of the only problems that does.  We can argue that civilization breakdown/displacement could be another.
 
 
I'm interested in how this 100 million starving will relate to the US.  There are specific locations that are probably in danger of starving, and this is a good argument for reorganizing and making sure areas responsible for food production stay open.
 
 
I'm literally arguing with you for the sake of you spreading good arguments for what you want. 
 
I literally despise the memes being used in this argument, comparing disease to accidents and giving wholly bad numbers for your argument.  (edit2: to be clear, to my perspective these memes are simply being spread to you and then beyond you)
 
edit:  And I wanted to apologize for starting this as an argument to begin with.  I tried to be more polite and general in my response.

Thanks for the heart.
 
The parachute analogy is effective when arguing with people who are just using emotional (and misguided) arguments of a similar nature - but to me it's a similarly problematic meme: it's an oversimplification of what needs to happen for a reopening.
 
We know we can't stay closed, for the sake of maintaining food preparation and distribution if nothing else (setting aside economic arguments, which gets into layers of complexity and society I won't deal with).
 
But human mentality works with connected arguments, so to connect 'staying closed for safety' to 'an oversimplified perspective of re-opening' is a huge problem to me.  A more correct argument would involve another oversimplified argument, and then either breaking open (edit- huh, never finished this thought:) why the arguments are oversimplified, or using the parachute argument as a means to drive the conversation/argument in a productive direction.
 
Memetic arguments have become a big thing online, and it's interesting to me for two reasons:
 
1)  Years back (while Obama was in office) I started to consider the problem of memes as being tracable/responsible to no one and being spread with little cost and effort.  It's when I started getting involved in infosec more.
2)  Recently I've been watching more videos on religious cults, and the "thought terminating cliche" is interesting to me.  Not as a tool for convincing people, but as a 'reinforcer' to existing behavior.
 
I also could argue that certain memetic arguments are useful for 'drawing lines in the sand', which is a powerful tool for voting control.
 
So as I think of issues in memetic arguments I try and challenge them.  This isn't the political thread, so I'm trying to keep that here to pointing out data that I know is bad.
 
 
I do sometimes wonder if training people to use arguments like these is useful for fostering anti-arguments to act as a self-reinforcer and isolator, but I expect anyone actually good at doing that makes more money than the government can sign on a paycheck... >_>
 
In Summary:
 
In terms of SF's numeric death rate - context matters hugely.  Both in terms of where that death rate is being argued from, and where the argument is intended to address.  It's a great argument for rural areas, so I wholly support that direction.  I'm sure it means you'll get more 'in the weeds' arguments that will be harder to address from using more context-heavy arguments, and convincing some people less.  The tactics I'm fighting are effective after all.  Sometimes they'll happen by habit, or need.
 
But someone arguing with better tools will get a lot more bilaterial support and hopefully can get more action based on those arguments.  At least, that's my hope (and intention).

Yes.  And in some places that did shut down, the death rate per day is still higher than any event in the last century.
 
edit:  I don't disagree with the purpose of the point, that there are a lot of rural places that probably will stay very low.
 
 
"The population density in South Dakota is 11.3 people per square mile (52nd out of 56)."
 
"Texas has just 105.2 people per square mile and those figures are merely the 26th highest in the US."
 
Because of exponential growth rate, the difference in infected is going to result in cases much higher than merely x10 the existing rate in South Dakota.  There is a tipping point in terms of population density, but I can't speak to what that is.
 
That's an argument for opening Texas, especially the rural parts of it.  But don't use bad data to argue for it (2.7 death rate out of 100,000).  That's disengenuous, and I'm calling it out for your sake.  I don't want you or others spreading bad reasoning, even if it's quippy and quotable.
 
The same goes for the tired parachute analogy.  It's the assumption that there's a single totalular approach, when the workability of that was long behind us.
 
 
Homicide and accidents don't increase exponentially with availability/effect.  Please, stop using that as part of your argument as well.  Disease is one of the only problems that does.  We can argue that civilization breakdown/displacement could be another.
 
 
I'm interested in how this 100 million starving will relate to the US.  There are specific locations that are probably in danger of starving, and this is a good argument for reorganizing and making sure areas responsible for food production stay open.
 
 
I'm literally arguing with you for the sake of you spreading good arguments for what you want. 
 
I literally despise the memes being used in this argument, comparing disease to accidents and giving wholly bad numbers for your argument.  (edit2: to be clear, to my perspective these memes are simply being spread to you and then beyond you)
 
edit:  And I wanted to apologize for starting this as an argument to begin with.  I tried to be more polite and general in my response.

It's not really a production issue but a preparation issue as far as I am aware.
 
It's also much more likely to be close to a hot 1000 per 100000 deaths if quarantine wasn't in effect, mostly due to absurdly good transmission.
 
I guess the point I'm (and others) are making is you are equivocating the wrong things.  You are arguing that the virus isn't deadly because it hasn't infected a lot of people, so we should relax the extreme measures we are taking to prevent it from infecting people.  That's a reasonable argument for certain areas.
 
But you are arguing it with a statistic that comes only from those extreme measures.  So it's a nonsensical reason you are proposing for your argument.

Food access is a serious problem in the United States right now. We are as of this week pushing out food assistance to about 10k youth (from 2700 normally) daily through student meals with closed schools. Just to pick one source. It's all connected, parental unemployment is massively increasing the need. For the general population the food bank had to ask for the National Guard to expand their mission for support because of the amount of folks needing assistance. CalFresh applications alone went up 78% in April. 
 
We will not be able to maintain that with existing resources. There's a desire to do it obviously, but we're going to hit some hard limitations pretty quick. 
 
Don't think that people having no food access is off the table in the United States. It is a matter of resources and timeline, with enough funding and major policy changes maybe... it's hard to say if this could be achieved beyond a month or two. The secondary impacts are starting to stack up in a pretty unnerving way. Rental issues are the next big one. Currently eviction is suspended, but it will drop back into place sometime, maybe the next phase, maybe later. 
 
Then we will have huge problems with housing. That stuff is coming in several waves as we move along. 

Yes.  And in some places that did shut down, the death rate per day is still higher than any event in the last century.
 
edit:  I don't disagree with the purpose of the point, that there are a lot of rural places that probably will stay very low.
 
 
"The population density in South Dakota is 11.3 people per square mile (52nd out of 56)."
 
"Texas has just 105.2 people per square mile and those figures are merely the 26th highest in the US."
 
Because of exponential growth rate, the difference in infected is going to result in cases much higher than merely x10 the existing rate in South Dakota.  There is a tipping point in terms of population density, but I can't speak to what that is.
 
That's an argument for opening Texas, especially the rural parts of it.  But don't use bad data to argue for it (2.7 death rate out of 100,000).  That's disengenuous, and I'm calling it out for your sake.  I don't want you or others spreading bad reasoning, even if it's quippy and quotable.
 
The same goes for the tired parachute analogy.  It's the assumption that there's a single totalular approach, when the workability of that was long behind us.
 
 
Homicide and accidents don't increase exponentially with availability/effect.  Please, stop using that as part of your argument as well.  Disease is one of the only problems that does.  We can argue that civilization breakdown/displacement could be another.
 
 
I'm interested in how this 100 million starving will relate to the US.  There are specific locations that are probably in danger of starving, and this is a good argument for reorganizing and making sure areas responsible for food production stay open.
 
 
I'm literally arguing with you for the sake of you spreading good arguments for what you want. 
 
I literally despise the memes being used in this argument, comparing disease to accidents and giving wholly bad numbers for your argument.  (edit2: to be clear, to my perspective these memes are simply being spread to you and then beyond you)
 
edit:  And I wanted to apologize for starting this as an argument to begin with.  I tried to be more polite and general in my response.

I can answer that as a resident of Jonesboro AR. In March an EF-3 tornado touched down in the middle of our city, leveled our airport and collapsed part of our mall. In terms of property damage it's the worst we've had since 1973, though thankfully no lives were lost.

Jurassic Park Reopening Despite Escaped Velociraptors

You, Hermit, we know are just joking; but I've actually met the American tourists with skis atop their car, in June.
 
I was working at a McDonalds in downtown Montreal in 1976, during the Olympics, when we had tourists from all over the world. One day I was approached by a tall middle-aged gentleman in a Stetson, asking for directions. He introduced himself with, "'Scuse me, do you speak Amurican?"
 
Luckily McDonald's trained us to speak to customers respectfully, because what I really wanted to answer was, "Well, hell fahr, yeah, boy. Watcha wanna know?"

Teasing aside... maybe I should start a thread where Canadians suggest provinces/cities to Americans to visit/tour or move to long term. 
 
I have noticed some Canadians RELISH telling we Americans where to go

Pretty sure Frank Capra was being sarcastic with that line.   The character who uttered it was a political fixer.

I can only imagine.
 
That's interesting. I knew the population density was different, but it's probably particularly true when included with your other post - getting a million viral cells over the course of a day might have a world of difference compared to being exposed to a couple.  I just don't know enough on the subject to say if that's the case or not.
 
Something like this could probably still churn through Dallas, but more slowly.  It's notable that suburbs are being hit less hard than I expected - with the substantial amount of delivery services and common 'watering holes' (like getting gas) I thought this would spread more. 
 
That's good news, because it seems this thing isn't going anywhere.

Good luck.  I know people who've been getting work despite losing their job before all this hit.  Things can turn around.

It's not hard, but it is somewhat despairing.  Given how this thing has hugely impacted other locations, it's their fortune that they haven't been ruined.  If they want to use that to argue they need to be opened up again, that's one thing.  I'm fine with that (as expressed elsewhere for sure).
 
It's another to say it was never a problem to begin with, which is pretty darn revisionist. 
 
We still don't know why the death rate in New York was so terrible.  Extreme population concentration in public areas is probably a major factor, it allowed the virus to spread insanely fast.  The numbers around it being much less, in the thousands, are because they shut down around the same time, while the reality is New York needed to close a month prior to that.  The virus was spreading so fast that the several weeks it takes from 'getting sick to dead' meant that a tremendous amount of population was already sick before the city was closed.
 
So do rural areas need to stay closed?  Probably not.  Was this not-real?  It was pretty darn real for anyone caught unprepared.  Fortunately it's pretty easy to be prepared when it moves so slowly through your area.  A lot less easy when you have major public transit, or packed factories.
 
And I'm sure people will call this a hoax, and climate change a hoax because of it.
 
Maybe this is an argument for breaking up the states.  That seems to be the only consensus that will make everyone happy.

Get rest.  Just having someone to talk to can help cool heads.  I've avoided directing vitriol at others here I think.  And I won't get into why I think we are stuck with so many bad options, but it's a huge mess regardless.
 
I hope this drives more work-from-home options, and more companies take it seriously and learn how to manage it.  I think that would save people money, stress, and time, even if it's only done for half the week.

It's not hard, but it is somewhat despairing.  Given how this thing has hugely impacted other locations, it's their fortune that they haven't been ruined.  If they want to use that to argue they need to be opened up again, that's one thing.  I'm fine with that (as expressed elsewhere for sure).
 
It's another to say it was never a problem to begin with, which is pretty darn revisionist. 
 
We still don't know why the death rate in New York was so terrible.  Extreme population concentration in public areas is probably a major factor, it allowed the virus to spread insanely fast.  The numbers around it being much less, in the thousands, are because they shut down around the same time, while the reality is New York needed to close a month prior to that.  The virus was spreading so fast that the several weeks it takes from 'getting sick to dead' meant that a tremendous amount of population was already sick before the city was closed.
 
So do rural areas need to stay closed?  Probably not.  Was this not-real?  It was pretty darn real for anyone caught unprepared.  Fortunately it's pretty easy to be prepared when it moves so slowly through your area.  A lot less easy when you have major public transit, or packed factories.
 
And I'm sure people will call this a hoax, and climate change a hoax because of it.
 
Maybe this is an argument for breaking up the states.  That seems to be the only consensus that will make everyone happy.

I'm truly disgusted that Trump continues to basically be immune all political factors. He literally does and says anything and gets away with it. The fact that he is close to another 4 years in the White House is beyond mind boggling to me. He's had enough gaffes to destroy the careers of a hundred politicians and.....nothing happens. And white supremacy is in again....great. They've done such a great job of revisionist history that we now have debates over confederate flags. I am literally at my last straw. There is no good news on the horizon…..and never has it felt more powerless to be an average citizen in America. Sigh...….

I am probably more pro-capitalist than most here.   And I indeed feel it is best in most areas, but most is not all.  And I try to be a pragmatist.   And want optimal for both sides whether capitalism, socialsim, or something totally alien is needed.  
 
And while under normal circumstances, I would not be for Yang's $1000 a month idea, March-May 2020, is not exactly a normal circumstance.  I don't know how much money should be given out, certainly enough for food.  possibly for other things.  Certainly mortgages should just get frozen.   Rent is a weird in-between thing.  Some landlords need that incoming rent money to survive themselves (I know several people who rent out their old houses they moved out of and couldn't sell for example), so I don't know an immediate answer for that.  At least something beneficial for them next time property taxes are due wouldn't be out of order.  

I never disagreed on a macro level.  
 
But, you didn't have to tell us you have no sympathy, people in rural areas already know.  hence, why self-sufficiency becomes a big thing.   More about survival.   As unlike the rosy picture you painted, there is rarely that larger community that rallies around you, when in need.
 
I started to post more, but I realize banning is possible due to my feeling on the matter.  ANd I just don't care if you see the other side of things.
 
 

Trump's next move will be to publicly question the coronavirus death toll.  Even though the spike in the overall death rate strongly indicates that the death toll is drastically undercounted.  And that it wouldn't be a problem if the administration had set up adequate testing in the first place.

The point of the conspiracy theories is to distract and deflect from the ongoing failures of the federal response. The lockdown delayed the inevitable by maybe six weeks, during which ventilators were not made and PPE was not distributed and testing was not performed.  But but but China!  That’s why you see these conspiracy talking points leaking out of the conservabubble. 

*Speechless*