| EricHiggin said: If two people have the same job and same hourly wage, but one works many more hours than the other, won't they likely end up with more money? If multiple countries are dealing with the same illness, but one country does way more testing, won't they likely end up with more confirmed cases? |
Using the power of mathematics, it doesn't actually matter how many tests you perform... You end up with a "confirmed rate" of infection which can then be extrapolated into various demographics using the law of averages.
So no. Increasing testing does stuff all to those who actually understand basic statistics.
| EricHiggin said: It relates to it based on who has the "moral high ground" based on their job. Or at least that's what it seemed to be before I reiterated what I did, and then that didn't seem as important all of the sudden. It's all there if you go back and read through it. |
Again... Morality has nothing to do with it, this isn't religion, this is peoples lives.
And whatever job you have... Heck whatever job I have is ultimately irrelevant, you are either an essential worker or you are not.
| EricHiggin said: Are you seriously suggesting that you honestly think it's impossible for a hospital to be without power? I already explained enough. To do so in great depth wouldn't matter anyway because you wouldn't know for certain if it were the truth unless you do what I do, in which case why ask, and you definitely can't look it up on the internet to 'fact check' it either. If you don't want to believe me, that's your choice, but if that's the example you want to set as to how we should treat each other, then you as well as I need to apply the same logic to Pem, which means there is no reason for either of us to believe them either, which then also means what they've said is a problem as well. I however have been willing to take their word for it. |
From the 28th of September to the 5th of October 2016 my city was without electricity, it was actually at a crisis point where an emergency had been declared.
We were also about to run out of mains water due to the lack of pumping, so we were relying on gravity fed systems... Fuel was scarce to power generators and so forth to run the pumps.
However basic infrastructure gets prioritized, that is hospitals and emergency services and supermarkets.
That means any and all fuel that gets brought in via ship or truck gets sent to those places first to run their generators, the hospital here is actually backed up by an array of high-capacity lithium cells, solar power, few smaller wind generators and a spate of high-capacity diesel generators, so whilst the hospital *could* in theory run out of power, it wasn't ever going to occur even under those specific scenarios.
So yes, I do actually know for certain as I used to work in the healthcare sector and I am a first responder who relies on it.
Allot of planning and logistics goes into supporting vital infrastructure... It rarely falters... Unless of course your planning and infrastructure is shit to begin with.
| EricHiggin said: The point is what is necessary and what isn't? When is enough truly enough, and when is it too much? Why are all essential workers clearly not equally essential? How do you legitimately asses the value of each? Are all things said to be equal, actually treated as equal in day to day life? Can they ever be? |
We have been over this... But I shall repeat it just in-case.
What is deemed "necessary" and "essential" is what is required to support a functioning society.
You are never going to be seen and treated as "equals" in the job market due to career path, skillsets, experience and more, that's just a fact of life.
| EricHiggin said: The reason isn't all that much different than allowing people to have guns. The freedom to choose based on your life and to possibly take or save others. That weapon could be a positive or negative thing. Depends on who you ask. Some are all for it, other's are completely against it. Who's right and who's wrong? If the police took away someone's gun because no more guns for the general public was the newest decision from 'on high', and they and their family were robbed at gunpoint and killed that same night, would that be ok? What if the intruder was just some really drunk idiot who made an honest mistake, but get's blown away by the home owner, simply out of irrational fear for their families lives? Is either case for the good of everyone? The problem and answer, is choice, and it'll never be undeniably right or wrong. |
I don't believe people should have guns willy-nilly. Gun control has been proven to work.
But basically your argument amounts to this...
Choice can be wrong, because people can make the wrong choice.
| EricHiggin said: If everyone was that intelligent, there wouldn't be a need for the leaders and some of the systems we have. The hard data could simply be made available to the public and they would all know exactly what to do. It's been said, even in this very conversation overall, that some people are extremely dumb/stupid. Apparently some of the 'best candidates' from their respective professions aren't even reliable. If they can't be trusted, who can be, and how are people to know for certain? |
Hard data on various topics does get released to the public, but you have conspiracy theorists who throw it out the window.
Case in point...
* Climate Change.
| EricHiggin said: That would be your personal choice. Would you like to always be told what to do? What if it was consistent and always said to be 'for the good of everyone'? |
If you aren't willing to protect another persons health... Or even "life" because you might get offended that you are being "told what to do". - Then you might be a snowflake, I don't think you are, but you might just prove that assumption wrong with this continued line of thinking.
| EricHiggin said: How many people are wearing high end medical masks? How many have access or can afford them? |
A high-end mask isn't required, any mask provides improved protection.
It's about reducing risk, not eliminating it entirely.
Condoms for example "reduce the risk" of pregnancy, it cannot guarantee to stop pregnancy 100%.
It's a control measure.
| EricHiggin said: Should everyone be ID chipped, with cams/scanners everywhere, and constant checkpoints when moving about through an area? Can bad people, like criminals, look like good people? If a police officer interrupts someone to question them because they look ever so slightly suspicious, is that a problem if that person is actually no threat? That individual could be a terrorist for all we know, so it would be best for everyone to be sure, wouldn't it? Imagine the death and chaos that could ensue otherwise if unchecked. Imagine a system where you're constantly monitored, told what to do, and harassed because, reasons. Those systems have existed and still exist in some places, under the guise of unrivaled safety, and are slowly being introduced where freedom once reigned. |
No one in this thread is proposing that people should be ID chipped with cams/scanners placed everywhere with constant checkpoints.
But if people are stupid and are being selfish, not thinking about the health and safety of other individuals... Then maybe there needs to be more control measures put in place to reduce the risk of infection... Because whatever the United States is doing is simply a joke and ineffectual.
| EricHiggin said: When the leaders and media, the protectors of the people, don't even follow their own rules, why do you think the people won't fall in line? |
The difference the USA and other people have is that... When an official here "mandates" something, we generally nod and follow the rules and we work cohesively to achieve the outlined goals and objectives.
When the USA mandates something, you get protests, death and destruction in the streets because "My rights".
I think that comes down to cultural issues than anything else.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
Essay Pro