Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Orbit

Recommended Posts

22 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.

12B here.  Totally for masks, against total lockdowns, mixed opinions on limiting capacity in businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Negatory said:

You're in the wrong thread, but fine. Advocating for a revision of tax structures that have been bad for a majority of Americans, as evidenced by multiple sources that I cited, is not communism. In fact, it was addressed in the framework of capitalist America, and even had precedence in American policy, again, as referenced by my sources. Calling everything you disagree with communism isn't productive for intellectual discourse, but it sure makes you feel morally superior. 

This is what people look like when they call everything that they don't agree with "communism," even when the policies literally have nothing aligned with that form of government:

XMjLkXj.jpg.8dd37faf260a73ea0a995969f5e29de8.jpg

Also, this isn't relevant to this thread or conversation, so I will not address this again here.

Oh, cool so everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, good data point. Keep up the valuable inputs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Duck duck duck GOOSE : memes

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





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.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by ViperMan
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Snuggie
fixing a word salad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



 
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.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...