Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus

[DrG]

It's literally legal here to have aids and not tell someone before you have unprotected sex. To me that's a criminal act but the US at large apparently disagrees. /--/

Although laws vary by states, what you say there is not true. You can be held criminally libel for transmitting HIV in all sorts of ways, including various acts and not telling the other person of your status. That is how I read the laws here https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

Did you mean to say it that way?

[PlainName]

Again we're expecting everyone to catch it so protect those at risk and leave everyone else to their own devices.

Everyone's at risk, it's just a matter of what level of risk the line is drawn at. Since covid19 risk is rather higher than a vaccine risk, you'd expect a third of the US to be hiding under the bedclothes.

Again, I'm high risk so I stay home.

Well, that's easy for you. Typically, higher risk people are those that are forced to be exposed through poverty and such like.

[maginnovision]

Clearly not everyone is at risk or there would be no asymptomatic cases, right? I wouldn't expect people who live here to be hiding, I'd expect them to take the precautions they consider necessary because what they do is on them. Yea, it's easy for me to not go to parties, protests, and restaurants because... Why? I'm not rich, I have no income right now as a matter of fact so I don't think poverty has anything to do with it. You're not prevented from taking the precautions you'd like because you're poor since there is very little you can do that costs a bunch of money.

(HIV)Yea, in some states you can. In my home state it was a felony... Right up until they made it a misdemeanor about two years ago. UP TO 6 months for it. So you give someone a death penalty(and certainly a new way of life) and all you potentially suffer is 6 months? It's not even an HIV/AIDS law, it's just spreading communicable diseases. Yea, seems about right. The other issues is the lack of disclosure laws. Without requiring people to disclose people can't even make informed decisions.

For me I'd rather people make their own informed choices. The informed part is difficult with all the flip-flopping and lying but using best available data you do what seems right. Business doesn't require masks? Don't go there if that makes you uncomfortable. Every hospital I've been to requires a mask since this started. Don't go to parties if it makes you uncomfortable, don't go to a restaurant if it worries you. If your employer doesn't require masks ask for time off, find a new job if you're able, or just take precautions you can.

You can't even buy masks right now because of the institutional hoarding but if they hadn't panicked everyone it likely wouldn't have happened and they'd be available for everyone. The suppliers only ran out because everyone was expecting new york numbers(alternatively italy number) everywhere. They can still use the masks but with lots of hospitals not seeing "normal" numbers of patients they would have been better off not purchasing so many to begin with.

[james_s]

For me I'd rather people make their own informed choices. The informed part is difficult with all the flip-flopping and lying but using best available data you do what seems right. Business doesn't require masks? Don't go there if that makes you uncomfortable. Every hospital I've been to requires a mask since this started. Don't go to parties if it makes you uncomfortable, don't go to a restaurant if it worries you. If your employer doesn't require masks ask for time off, find a new job if you're able, or just take precautions you can.

That sounds great in theory except it doesn't work. Ok so I choose not to go to a business that doesn't require masks, but some other person does choose to go there and then they infect me and 5 other people, and then I infect 5 other people before I know I'm sick, and each of those 5 people infect other people, pretty soon everyone is sick. People have demonstrated time after time after time that they don't make informed decisions, either out of ignorance or they willfully don't care about anyone but themselves. If people DID behave sensibly we wouldn't need all these requirements, the requirements came after people already were not taking precautions. It's not a matter of protecting everyone from themselves, it's protecting the rest of us from people who don't protect themselves. We don't all live in isolation, what everyone does affects everyone they come into contact with, this is not a matter of personal choice.

[Nusa]

You can't even buy masks right now because of the institutional hoarding

That was true early on, but you're out of date, at least in California (which I believe is your location also). I've seen them on the shelves, or you can order them: https://www.walmart.com/browse/health/face-coverings-masks/976760_3386211

[maginnovision]

You can't even buy masks right now because of the institutional hoarding

That was true early on, but you're out of date, at least in California (which I believe is your location also). I've seen them on the shelves, or you can order them: https://www.walmart.com/browse/health/face-coverings-masks/976760_3386211

I should have specified. I meant masks that can protect the wearer(n/p/r). I usually keep stock of p95 masks for my own uses but since this started it's been all but impossible to get them. I've been using them and some sealed motorcycle sunglasses for all my doctor's appts(hospitals and specialists) and when I needed new tires installed(I can't balance single sided swingarm at home). I've started postponing my doctor appointments since I can't replenish my stock. Since the mask mandate the cheap masks that are more effective in protecting others have been available and cheap.

[paulca]

I admire the American constitution, but I don't understand why such an old document is not being kept up-to-date as time goes and society changes - surely America has moved on in 200 odd years...

YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE Nth AMENDMENT.

Dumbest thing ever said.... em.... it's an amendment.

It's like looking at a datasheet with an erratum and saying, "You can't change the 5th erratum!"

[tom66]

The US constitution is literally designed to be hard to change.

You need 2/3rd of senators and house members to agree.  Then to ratify it, 3/4ths of states have to agree.   Given most of the senate and states would disagree which day of the week it was to spite the other, I don't see anything but the most broadly-supported amendments passing.  Sadly.

[tom66]

If you knew you have HIV, would it be OK to express your freedom to have sex with whoever you want without telling them of your status?

And as often-cited, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can shout 'Fire!' in a packed theatre without consequences.

Neither of those involve illegal acts, so why is your freedom to pass covid19 around greater than someones freedom to not die prematurely because of your behaviour?

It is in fact illegal to knowingly pass HIV in the many states of the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV_in_the_United_States

It strikes me that COVID-19 should be similar.

[james_s]

The US constitution is literally designed to be hard to change.

You need 2/3rd of senators and house members to agree.  Then to ratify it, 3/4ths of states have to agree.   Given most of the senate and states would disagree which day of the week it was to spite the other, I don't see anything but the most broadly-supported amendments passing.  Sadly.

The fact that it's very hard to change is by design. We've never had a monarch who could be the final deciding factor, the constitution is quite literally the foundation on which the entire framework is built upon. If it was easier to change things would be chaotic, we already have problems in this era of social media mobs and rapid (mis)information flow of the sides shifting more and more toward polarized extremes, flipping from one to the other as people get sick of whichever side is in power and vote in the other side. The constitution provides inalienable fundamental rights, it is in a sense sacred. 

The dysfunction you noted is a serious problem though, stemming from the ever increasing polarization and I don't really know how to solve that. I'd really like to see much of the current government replaced with mature adults, people who have a pragmatic approach and some willingness to work together rather than viewing anyone on the other side as the enemy. I've never really understood the fanaticism and devotion so many people show toward their political party, both sides are occasionally right and often wrong, extremism is at risk of destroying us.

[VK3DRB]

Our Victorian government has made some stupid mistakes lately so a lot more people will be working from home very soon. They have allowed the selfish and irresponsible public (about 98% of shoppers) to not social distance and not wear masks . The public's ideology is to do WTF they want and to hell with everyone else. Testing, wearing masks and not keeping 1.5m distance in public is optional here, but it should be it should be mandatory and policed with heavy penalties with the help of the military. By the end of July this entire state of 6.4 million people will most likely be in full lock down once again. So very soon it will back to work from home for most Victorians.

Its used to be (to the tune of the seven dwarfs' song):
" I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go."
Soon it will be:
"Oh no, oh no, its work from home oh no."

[rstofer]

I admire the American constitution, but I don't understand why such an old document is not being kept up-to-date as time goes and society changes - surely America has moved on in 200 odd years...

YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE Nth AMENDMENT.

Dumbest thing ever said.... em.... it's an amendment.

It's like looking at a datasheet with an erratum and saying, "You can't change the 5th erratum!"

It's case law that matters, not the exact wording of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court decides if case law is reasonably consistent with the Constitution or their interpretation of the intent of the Constitution.  The sc is also in charge of deciding if new case law is consistent with old case law.

[Nusa]

And even with the best of intentions, one cannot change human nature even if you put it in the Constitution. The obvious example are the 18th and 21st amendments. The former created prohibition of liquor in 1919, and the latter repealed it in 1933 as a failure. Alcohol consumption merely went underground rather than going away, and created more organized crime and political corruption. (And worst of all, loss of revenue from all those sinners -- illegal alcohol is also untaxed alcohol.)

[SilverSolder]

And even with the best of intentions, one cannot change human nature even if you put it in the Constitution. The obvious example are the 18th and 21st amendments. The former created prohibition of liquor in 1919, and the latter repealed it in 1933 as a failure. Alcohol consumption merely went underground rather than going away, and created more organized crime and political corruption. (And worst of all, loss of revenue from all those sinners -- illegal alcohol is also untaxed alcohol.)

Parallels with the legalisation of marijuana?

[james_s]

Parallels with the legalisation of marijuana?

There are a lot of parallels there, both are widely used recreational drugs, both have similar effects, alcohol is arguably much more harmful of the two. It should have been legalized decades ago, or never been illegal in the first place as it's a plant that grows naturally. It's fine for it to be illegal to be high in public just as it's illegal to be drunk in public but what someone does in privacy is their own business. Stoned people are typically not violent, they're rarely out driving around, too lazy to be out causing trouble. I don't really understand why alcohol is so much more widely accepted, it's extremely harmful stuff but people are gonna drink it anyway. Prohibition doesn't work and never has.

[themadhippy]

I don't really understand why alcohol is so much more widely accepted, it's extremely harmful stuff but people are gonna drink it anyway.

money,not just from lost alcohol revenue,but also the oil and paper industry's were afraid they'd lose out to hemp.

[james_s]

money,not just from lost alcohol revenue,but also the oil and paper industry's were afraid they'd lose out to hemp.

That doesn't really make any sense. They legalized the stuff here in my state a few years ago and it has become a multibillion dollar industry and a huge tax windfall for the state. If hemp became popular as a base for paper I see no reason the existing paper industry couldn't jump on board with it.

[themadhippy]

That doesn't really make any sense. They legalized the stuff here in my state a few years ago and it has become a multibillion dollar industry and a huge tax windfall for the state.

If you've invested a large lump of money in forestry and lumber mills,or in the latest breakthroughs in oil based products like nylon  would you be happy about this weed called hemp,that can grow almost anywhere that threatens to make your product less valuable,or would you have a quiet word with your mate,who may have shares in your company, to see if they might be able to do something about the threat to there investments.

[maginnovision]

395.5 million out of 22.28 Billion is not what I'd call a windfall.


https://tre.wa.gov/portfolio-item/washington-state-marijuana-revenues-and-health/
https://ballotpedia.org/Tax_policy_in_Washington

[james_s]

If you've invested a large lump of money in forestry and lumber mills,or in the latest breakthroughs in oil based products like nylon  would you be happy about this weed called hemp,that can grow almost anywhere that threatens to make your product less valuable,or would you have a quiet word with your mate,who may have shares in your company, to see if they might be able to do something about the threat to there investments.

I wouldn't be worried at all. There is a huge market for wood, IMO it's a waste to use it for producing paper if there is any alternative. Lumber has gotten very expensive, virtually all houses in this region are made of wood. Oil is another resource that has virtually unlimited demand, plastics, paints, foams, lubricants, it's used either directly or indirectly in the manufacture of practically everything. No amount of alternative products are going to make a significant long term dent in the value of resources like wood or oil.

[james_s]

395.5 million out of 22.28 Billion is not what I'd call a windfall.


https://tre.wa.gov/portfolio-item/washington-state-marijuana-revenues-and-health/
https://ballotpedia.org/Tax_policy_in_Washington

You don't consider almost half a billion dollars for one single industry out of a total of only 22.3 billion for the entire state tax revenue to be a windfall?    I'd consider that HUGE.

[Zero999]

Alcohol can't be banned, because it's a very simple chemical, which can be fermented from any carbohydrate. Cannabis is more more tricky to produce.

[themadhippy]

Oil is another resource that has virtually unlimited demand, plastics, paints, foams, lubricants, it's used either directly or indirectly in the manufacture of practically everything

At the time the law was introduced  the full potential of oil was only just being discovered,lots of money invested no one had bothered to research the potential of hemp.

Cannabis is more more tricky to produce

[Zero999]

Cannabis is more more tricky to produce

Why is that funny, or are you just trolling? I can make alcohol from ingredients I already have in my kitchen cupboard. If I want to grow cannabis I have to get hold of the seeds first and I wouldn't know where to start.

[maginnovision]

395.5 million out of 22.28 Billion is not what I'd call a windfall.


https://tre.wa.gov/portfolio-item/washington-state-marijuana-revenues-and-health/
https://ballotpedia.org/Tax_policy_in_Washington

You don't consider almost half a billion dollars for one single industry out of a total of only 22.3 billion for the entire state tax revenue to be a windfall?    I'd consider that HUGE.

Apparently taxes for 2019 were 25.74 billion so it's even smaller a percentage(https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Docs/Reports/2019/Tax_Statistics_2019/Tax_Statistics_2019.pdf). So 1.5% of total tax revenue... No I don't think that's a windfall. It's fine to disagree. I'm not for or against marijuana(unless it's in my house). That goes for cigarettes and tobacco too. Alcohol was just barely beat out by marijuana and cigarettes and tobacco beat out both. All 3 together only made up 4.6% of tax revenue.