That's actually a pretty cool site! It takes a nice, middle-of-the-road approach to adequately warn readers, while also explaining that it isn't so bad as to cause a collapse of society or...
That's actually a pretty cool site! It takes a nice, middle-of-the-road approach to adequately warn readers, while also explaining that it isn't so bad as to cause a collapse of society or infrastructure. Frankly, the only shortages I'm worried about will be caused by panic-buying of toilet paper or beans.
I'll do more to push the "Flattening the curve" idea, it's solid.
It is quite good but they probably shouldn't talk about single-payer on this page since the political fight distracts from the core message. (Maybe on a second page about longer-term political...
It is quite good but they probably shouldn't talk about single-payer on this page since the political fight distracts from the core message. (Maybe on a second page about longer-term political considerations.)
I feel like COVID-19 is a major argument for adopting single-payer healthcare. Not mentioning how much this would help in addition to the other points on her list would be neglectful on her part....
I feel like COVID-19 is a major argument for adopting single-payer healthcare. Not mentioning how much this would help in addition to the other points on her list would be neglectful on her part.
Talking directly about the political fight - everything these days is a political fight for some group of people. Global Warming. Evolution. Immigration. Protecting the rights of women and minorities. There are so many lines in the sand these days that it's impossible to say something and not, as a person, be rejected outright by a large group with opposing viewpoints. Society is effectively fragmented with the different groups going so far as rejecting the reality of the others. However, that's not an argument for treading lightly to increase readership, but rather to say what you mean no matter what people think.
I think there is a very good argument for making testing and treatment for infectious diseases free to patients and paid for by the government. It might be possible for Congress to pass a focused,...
I think there is a very good argument for making testing and treatment for infectious diseases free to patients and paid for by the government. It might be possible for Congress to pass a focused, temporary measure quickly, without seeing resistance due to the larger political debate.
However, money is not really the major issue right now. The health care system is going to fight this with the resources they have or can get quickly.
Also, the audience for this article isn't members of Congress and it's not an exercise in "saying what you mean no matter what people think" either. It's about persuading as many people as possible to take the crisis seriously, even if they disagree on other things.
If Congress could pass a temporary measure, what's to stop them from passing a permanent one? Wouldn't the people the exact audience to promote single-payer healthcare to? After all, wouldn't it...
I think there is a very good argument for making testing and treatment for infectious diseases free to patients and paid for by the government. It might be possible for Congress to pass a focused, temporary measure quickly, without seeing resistance due to the larger political debate.
If Congress could pass a temporary measure, what's to stop them from passing a permanent one?
Also, the audience for this article isn't members of Congress and it's not an exercise in "saying what you mean no matter what people think" either. It's about persuading as many people as possible to take the crisis seriously, even if they disagree on other things.
Wouldn't the people the exact audience to promote single-payer healthcare to? After all, wouldn't it be them that either pressure their representatives to adopt this policy or run for office on that platform? Also, there's a sizeable group of people in this country who will not take the crisis seriously no matter what you say. Global Warming is the perfect example of this, with some conservatives saying that it's not man-made and will blow over, while others outright deny that it exists at all. Even the Democrats are split on how much time we have before irreversible damage is done.
Toning down the message is not going to help more people take COVID-19 seriously.
You may have noticed that Congress is divided. It would be a long debate, it would slow things down, and might not happen at all. It's hard to argue against temporary emergency measures though.
If Congress could pass a temporary measure, what's to stop them from passing a permanent one?
You may have noticed that Congress is divided. It would be a long debate, it would slow things down, and might not happen at all. It's hard to argue against temporary emergency measures though.
This is the single best thing I've read about COVID-19 (admittedly, it also includes a lot of good things I've read elsewhere - but it's all in one place here). Thank you! P.S. I've done my bit:...
This is the single best thing I've read about COVID-19 (admittedly, it also includes a lot of good things I've read elsewhere - but it's all in one place here). Thank you!
P.S. I've done my bit: I've posted this on Facebook (as a status, and in a private group I'm a member of).
Offtopic: This is super, super nitpicky, but the Tildes tag coronaviruses.covid19 isn't medically or epidemiologically accurate. A coronavirus is a family of similar RNA viruses, which includes...
Offtopic: This is super, super nitpicky, but the Tildes tag coronaviruses.covid19 isn't medically or epidemiologically accurate. A coronavirus is a family of similar RNA viruses, which includes the viruses which causes SARS and MERS. The specific coronavirus at the epicentre of this pandemic is SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, which is the disease caused by having the virus—COVID-19 isn't the name of the virus itself. This is separate still from the outbreak/phenomenon itself, which wikipedia has called "2019-2020 coronavirus outbreak".
So effectively the tag syntax is [virus family].[disease] which is a bit weird. I'd probably would have gone for [virus family].[virus], i.e. coronaviruses.sarscov2. If you really wanted, you could tag the disease further down the chain to separate discussions on the virology/genetics/medicine from the human factors: coronaviruses.sarscov2.covid19 but that's getting a bit too verbose, probably (yes, this is coming from the same person who argued nested tags should usually be avoided, har har).
Pragmatically, all this doesn't matter all that much I guess, I'm still using the tag as it appears widely accepted now, I just wanted to talk to the void about it. It's also just interesting in general.
Yes, after all a major reason we have tags is to avoid encoding hierarchies into identifiers. A flat namespace can work very well if you have the ability to rename to disambiguate only where...
Yes, after all a major reason we have tags is to avoid encoding hierarchies into identifiers. A flat namespace can work very well if you have the ability to rename to disambiguate only where necessary, as Wikipedia does.
That's actually a pretty cool site! It takes a nice, middle-of-the-road approach to adequately warn readers, while also explaining that it isn't so bad as to cause a collapse of society or infrastructure. Frankly, the only shortages I'm worried about will be caused by panic-buying of toilet paper or beans.
I'll do more to push the "Flattening the curve" idea, it's solid.
It is quite good but they probably shouldn't talk about single-payer on this page since the political fight distracts from the core message. (Maybe on a second page about longer-term political considerations.)
I feel like COVID-19 is a major argument for adopting single-payer healthcare. Not mentioning how much this would help in addition to the other points on her list would be neglectful on her part.
Talking directly about the political fight - everything these days is a political fight for some group of people. Global Warming. Evolution. Immigration. Protecting the rights of women and minorities. There are so many lines in the sand these days that it's impossible to say something and not, as a person, be rejected outright by a large group with opposing viewpoints. Society is effectively fragmented with the different groups going so far as rejecting the reality of the others. However, that's not an argument for treading lightly to increase readership, but rather to say what you mean no matter what people think.
I think there is a very good argument for making testing and treatment for infectious diseases free to patients and paid for by the government. It might be possible for Congress to pass a focused, temporary measure quickly, without seeing resistance due to the larger political debate.
However, money is not really the major issue right now. The health care system is going to fight this with the resources they have or can get quickly.
Also, the audience for this article isn't members of Congress and it's not an exercise in "saying what you mean no matter what people think" either. It's about persuading as many people as possible to take the crisis seriously, even if they disagree on other things.
If Congress could pass a temporary measure, what's to stop them from passing a permanent one?
Wouldn't the people the exact audience to promote single-payer healthcare to? After all, wouldn't it be them that either pressure their representatives to adopt this policy or run for office on that platform? Also, there's a sizeable group of people in this country who will not take the crisis seriously no matter what you say. Global Warming is the perfect example of this, with some conservatives saying that it's not man-made and will blow over, while others outright deny that it exists at all. Even the Democrats are split on how much time we have before irreversible damage is done.
Toning down the message is not going to help more people take COVID-19 seriously.
You may have noticed that Congress is divided. It would be a long debate, it would slow things down, and might not happen at all. It's hard to argue against temporary emergency measures though.
That's my point. If they could do it temporarily, then it's hard for either side to make an argument to not just make it permanent.
This is the single best thing I've read about COVID-19 (admittedly, it also includes a lot of good things I've read elsewhere - but it's all in one place here). Thank you!
P.S. I've done my bit: I've posted this on Facebook (as a status, and in a private group I'm a member of).
Offtopic: This is super, super nitpicky, but the Tildes tag
coronaviruses.covid19isn't medically or epidemiologically accurate. A coronavirus is a family of similar RNA viruses, which includes the viruses which causes SARS and MERS. The specific coronavirus at the epicentre of this pandemic is SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, which is the disease caused by having the virus—COVID-19 isn't the name of the virus itself. This is separate still from the outbreak/phenomenon itself, which wikipedia has called "2019-2020 coronavirus outbreak".So effectively the tag syntax is
[virus family].[disease]which is a bit weird. I'd probably would have gone for[virus family].[virus], i.e.coronaviruses.sarscov2. If you really wanted, you could tag the disease further down the chain to separate discussions on the virology/genetics/medicine from the human factors:coronaviruses.sarscov2.covid19but that's getting a bit too verbose, probably (yes, this is coming from the same person who argued nested tags should usually be avoided, har har).Pragmatically, all this doesn't matter all that much I guess, I'm still using the tag as it appears widely accepted now, I just wanted to talk to the void about it. It's also just interesting in general.
Yes, after all a major reason we have tags is to avoid encoding hierarchies into identifiers. A flat namespace can work very well if you have the ability to rename to disambiguate only where necessary, as Wikipedia does.