People keep blaming the police (rightfully so, to a degree) but it’s the _pathetic, coward_ DAs that refuse to prosecute the police. If they lied or manufactured evidence, they must be held accountable.
If they’re not attempting to prosecute potential crimes, they should be disbarred. If cops are lying or omitting evidence, they should be fired and charged themselves with obstruction.
The current route is eroding our faith in the system which is showing it’s result already.
Many people are anti-vax because of their distrust. But there’s MANY examples.
>Where is the evidence that her wearing a mask would have changed the outcomes?
There is multiple studies that show masks are effective at _slowing down_ the spread.
>It either works or it does not.
Huh? This is like saying, "chemotherapy works or it does not."
>Sorry, does not take much to see that, just simply look at everyday observations.
Yep. I'm looking. There's mass deaths a day. Funny the activity is in the anti-mask states, huh?
>yet NONE have exhibited anything close to the 91% infection rates
The CDC said 91% of kids live in high risk places... it has nothing to do with the infection rate. You need to _read_ sources and not just emotionally react.
> There's mass deaths a day. Funny the activity is in the anti-mask states, huh?
I suggest you look at the actual data - no such correlation exists.
The majority of US states have similar death rates per population at around 2K deaths per 1M citizens. (with a spread of around +/- 15%) You can find examples for each,
Death rates correlate much better to wealth and way of living than local policies.
> The majority of US states have similar death rates per population at around 2K deaths per 1M citizens. (with a spread of around +/- 15%)
The range is actually about 40 to 300 per 100K (or 400 to 3000 per million), but what the upthread claim seems to be about is the recent death rate, not the total death rate. No one I can find reports that per capita, but I suspect it has even more variation (California is about middle of the road for total deaths, but was an early leader with its population centers hit really hard at the beginning of the pandemic, while a number of the places in the South that weren't hit hard initially have gotten up near the top in total deaths per capita.)
There are lots of models, but the only study I’m aware of showed that blue surgical masks had ≈10% efficacy when worn correctly, with cloth masks and gaiters less effective.
Additional ventilation seemed to have better efficacy.
The chart I saw showed that masks are somewhat effective for ingress and somewhat effective for egress contamination. When both parties are wearing the mask, and are social distancing, etc, the effectiveness goes up considerably.
The only singular control that works in a vacuum is a vacuum. So unless you are working in a vacuum, you need to stack controls in your favour. Just like you do in every other situation in life.
I've only ever seen them saying problems with school environments amount to a lack of good air circulation with people breathing the same air in and out amongst themselves for hours at a time. That's exactly what the CDC and everyone else has said to avoid doing, and why the phone apps rate 15 minutes of close proximity as enough exposure to warrant a test.
Just like with rubbing alcohol, time and amount have to be taken into account. Water will put out nearly any household fire. But only if other controls accompany it, and there is enough of that water for enough time to have the desired effect.
She took her mask off to read. They were all in that contaminated environment for most of the day. There is every reason to expect infections in such an environment.
Here's my hope: E2E encryption. Maybe the government is throwing a fit about Apple harboring potential CP on its server if it's E2E encrypted, so apple says, "fine well review it prior to upload, and then E2E encrypt the upload itself"
The purest forms of evil that we know about predate the internet. Not to mention, removing anonymity also removes a real resource for individuals.
I was depressed a lot as a young person and considered suicide. I’d never share these feelings offline. Online, I was able to connect with individuals that I can speak truthfully to.
Also, anonymity makes me take every post at value. For example, if you’re biased against a religion, political affiliation, race, etc, you might find that you ignore posts made by those you’re biased again. Anonymous posters don’t have this worry - I don’t know who you are. Thus, the only thing I can judge is your words. Not past words, but words here and now.
There’s positives and negatives but in this case the negatives far outweighs the positives.
> The purest forms of evil that we know about predate the internet.
Correct, but they didn't say that it was only available through that means.
This is a difficult and complex topic. I've been thinking about it for years.
Going from Plato's The Republic and the dialog about the Ring of Gyges, I don't think pure untrammelled anonymity is worth the possibility of the evil that can be done. Look at Twitter, psyops and the power of a hand full of people with programming chops, a chip on their shoulder and time on their hands. Empires will fall and millions will die because of the apparent mob of opinion that's really only a thin shell.
