CharonY

The fact that it did not eliminate him outright is a bit of scary thing, isn't it? Actually on reflection, one viable strategy is probably to do as much economic harm as possible and blame it on the dems. If Fox plays ball it should work quite well.

I do the usual cloning sacrifices to Damballa and more rarely Papa Legba, when the former does not respond. Also the mass spec demands blood on a semi-regular basis to the heavenly engineer of "Who-the F-puts sharp-edges-in-here?" as part of the blood ritual called pump maintenance.

Which is a huge issue. Don't know or don't care. For many, democracy is just a slogan. It is 11 electoral votes. More than e.g. Nevada, similar to Wisconsin, but only about half of PA (and less than either NC or Georgia). Politically I suspect it has much to do with how popular McCain was.

As a serial immi(or emi-)grant, I can tell you that it is not exlusively Americans. It is just more visible due to confluence of factors.

You make it sound that the only issues there are with the pandemic response are his rallies. However, disassembling existing structures of pandemic response (including the dismantling of the pandemic response team) are policy. Using the White House and other officials to spin the death toll is another form of policy (directed at (mis)information dissemination). Systematically weakening the influence of science in the decision-making process is clearly a policy decision. Which folks to put in charge of the response (or health services in general) is a policy decision, and so on (e.g. in context of deregulation and weakening associated structures). Not making certain measures mandatory is a policy decision and so on. I am not sure what you try to say here, honestly. Do you mean to say that the WH did have policies but they were generally correct and all things went to hell because he was being an idiot independent of it? If so, that is clearly not what happened. If you meant something else, it would help if you could specify what kind of policies you refer to.

I disagree, it is precisely because of his policies. His policy was to diminish the awareness of the dangers (rather than promoting it) and make it harder to put in restrictions. His policies created uncertainty among the populations, which then went to those rallies. I.e. there is a direct line between his policies and the overall outcome. You forget one important aspect, even if many measures are done on the state level, traditionally the CDC would coordinate those responses. Countries that had a strong central support did way better than those that tried to piecemeal a pandemic response. And on top, Trump's policies made it harder for the states to get tests, PPE and other essentials. It was not just laissez-faire, which would be bad enough, it was actively sabotaging them. And the cherry on top is that by discrediting science, the GOP has now created such a strong anti-science base that I am honestly already worried about the next outbreak. And that will take a long time to mend (perhaps too long).

I would disagree. His pandemic response reflects his rallies quite well (a study suggests that about 700 folks died due to exposure at one of his rallies), and especially his immigration policy strongly reflects the values he espouses to his base. His tax policies disadvantages about a quarter of the population (mostly mid-low income folks). There are positive policies, too, but he himself does not highlight them, mostly because I guess he does not quite understand them.

I think you are kind of assuming that the issue is with Trump alone. He is the symptom, not the cause. Folks that have it clear that they do not want mask mandates for examples, will almost certainly not reverse course if there is no legally binding power behind it.

So do identity politics, but just in a way I feel comfortable about it? Is it about that? It is more about the fact that conservatives are bitterly complaining about it, but engaging in it wholeheartedly. The underlying though behind it is of course the assumption that certain folks are considered the norm and therefore pandering to them is not identity politics. However, if something benefits other then them suddenly it it is pandering or identity politics. Specifically it is historic mindset that has marginalized experiences different from what one would consider the majority.

How would folks identify with them instead?

Like it or not, a big part is a referendum on identity politics. One, which is basically based on white supremacy or the other which at least outwardly embraces the diversity as a result of demographic shifts.

Here are a few reports outlining mitigation strategies in Africa. An somewhat older article from May https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-african-nations-are-teaching-the-west-about-fighting-the-coronavirus And a newer one looking at some of the key elements: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54418613 In Europe, Canada and USA it seems that contact tracing has been reportedly overwhelmed by cases and they basically scaled down in many areas, which again shows how harmful the initial delays were. And it is still surprising to me that it has not been ramped up to a similar scale or following model from other countries. E.g. Japan was doing old-school contact tracing without apps and surprisingly successful, too.

If only it was just ignorance. At this point we see full frontal insanity. And I do not mean that in a partisan way. I mean taking what kids post on a trolling board seriously and make it mainstream, kind of of insane. I mean, there are just so many things just over the top (A prophetic internet troll? Satanic child sacrifices?), it is honestly scary that folks think them to be true and effing run for congress.

Here is a pretty good article with regard to the US response (or lack thereof): https://www.jsonline.com/in-depth/news/2020/10/14/america-had-worlds-best-pandemic-response-plan-playbook-why-did-fail-coronavirus-covid-19-timeline/3587922001/ While not exhaustive, it does provide a few insights into responses elsewhere in the world.

Yep, have tried both extremes for mass data storage. As a whole I found swansont's suggestion regarding tags with shallow folder structure most efficient.

Or for users. How likely is it that someone is specifically looking for a discussion on met-ethics but really does not want to encounter social philosophy on the way? Since we are a low activity forum we do not have that many active topics at any given point, so organizing them just to have a proper classification just does not make any sense.

I think there is little argument that both elements are important, though things like policy can mainly only address access whereas self-motivation is more difficult to achieve. However, it is important not to use issues of the latter as an excuse to not address the former. This happens everywhere, and generally speaking I have the feeling that folks are barking up the wrong tree quite a bit. Especially for underprivileged folks the issues start way before college and need addressing. Even simple things like counseling (if done correctly!) during high-school can make an impact. Obviously teacher quality is also immensely important, and I do not think that folks invest enough in areas which clearly need more support.

I think for exams that is for the most part not a huge issue. Typically there are so many that you do not spend a lot time looking at their names and in quite a few systems student IDs are used. It is getting trickier when it comes to say, admission in the first place but also later on for graduate student selection. But again, the socioeconomic issues do have other costs, too which can affect performance. After entry to college it might be too late to do anything, so measures have to be taken before that.

Sure, my point is that it is not an either or situation. And even worse, bad life situation can make it more difficult to put in an effort (or one could argue that it would mean that one would need to put disproportionate amount of effort which may or may not be possible). As such it is difficult to disentangle, unless some of the barriers are removed. I.e. if you compare attitudes among folks with similar standing. Not only that, but also because of overcriminalization. I.e. stronger and more frequent persecution for similar offenses than their white counter-parts. That being said while still disproportionate, there are more families with a black father than without out there.

I doubt that in order to study ethics one needs to be an ethical person. For the same way as studying infections does not require you to be infected. I have been a first generation immigrant in a few countries now (and the first time being a kid myself). As such I would like to try to add to your experience a bit. First, the salary situation has changed. While your (and my parents) were able to work themselves out of poverty, it is now quite a bit more difficult. Second, for folks that have been subjected to economic penalties (which includes African Americans, but also indigenous folks whom there were additional barriers, such as simple things such as getting housing) also are still catching up. It is pretty well documented that there is quite a bit of a difference between immigrants depending on when they immigrated (and where from). This is also the reason why e.g. African immigrants outperform African Americans as well as white folks in the US, for example. Many recent immigrants start off with a higher education level and are able to obtain bachelors with a higher frequency. However, that is not true for all immigration waves (there are a few studies looking at performance based on subgroups, which quite critically dissects the myth of overperforming Asian communities for example). The second and third generation issue is real, but you might be missing the reason. First generation immigrants expect that they need to work harder than their counterparts. However, kids being born into the system do not have any other perspective rather than being, say, Canadian or US American. But if they are still treated as immigrants, it causes a certain amount of disenfranchisement. I.e. they do not understand that they still need to outperform in order to be seen as equals. That can lead to downward spirals in performance. That all being said, I still do see a higher rate of entitlement among non-immigrant kids (though nowadays rich second or third generation immigrants are pretty close, so there might be some equalization...).

I am not sure they are the worst (though in some ways they may be), but growing up in an area where you have underfunded schools and little career encouragement has been shown to be a big hindrance. Especially in working class areas there is often the base assumption that the kids will not go on to higher education. Even if there is interest, the quality of the high school has been shown to be a determining factor in entering higher education. Often, students in poorer school areas are underprepared, may never of hardly had any access to computers or the internet etc. Even overcoming these issues there is of course the cost of higher education in many systems (such as UK or NA) is prohibitive for many (which feeds back into the thought process for lower-income folks who just do not expect to be able to afford it to begin with). Even after getting university there are additional hardship for low-income folks which especially now has become quite apparent. Some cannot afford a laptop or stable internet, for example. I think that if especially affluent folks which all the benefits fail, it is more likely on them. However, for the others, there are clearly barriers that they need to overcome and they are not always well prepared for it. That all being said, an inquisitive mind with willingness to learn is clearly an important element. At the same time, I do understand that this in itself is a luxury that not everyone can afford.

Indeed. There are plenty of examples where folks used bad science to justify their actions and policies. In either case unquestioning adherence can become a bit issue. Of course, most would say that science is about questioning things, which in principle is true. However, the reality is that many do not put in the time and effort, especially if what is being said conforms with their preconceived notions.

Yeah, stupid bylaws here, too. Based on weather patterns there is going to be an uptick of ehm ticks. Unless one is already in a highly tick infested zone, not sure whether the numbers are projected to increase even further. But yet another reservoir for diseases.

Unless, of course it turns out that we actually to develop new ways to deal with resistant bacteria and/or they become resistant against the new weapons, too. Often it is not about having better and newer tools, but how prudent we are in their use. And unfortunately our track record is not that great.

Time to let out the chicken and ducks. And potentially opossums? But seriously though, tick-borne diseases are likely to become an increasing problem with potentially very serious consequences.