Strangest COVID-19 stuff you have witnessed

[Chief]

On 5/6/2020 at 10:27 PM, ATXZJ said:

Ben white and 1st on the westbound lane shoulder. The homeless camp had a god damned front loading washing machine.

Hey if there's no virus, I'll be looking forward to seeing all of our "leaders" out supporting the small business they claim to love so much. Set an example right?

I'm sure they can find one with wheelchair access.

It's hard to support local businesses from your gated community.

[GFisher]

Never been much of an Adler fan, but as far as any 'Leadership' we have, I'd say he is one of few that seems to have any common sense. 

“The governor said we couldn't enforce face coverings with a criminal or civil penalty. In the city order, it's still mandatory. The penalty now is that more people will get sick and some of them will die. That ought to be penalty enough,” said Adler.

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/stay-at-home-order-extended-for-travis-county

Edited May 9, 2020 by GFisher

[ATXZJ]

7 minutes ago, GFisher said:

Never been much of an Adler fan, but as far as any 'Leadership' we have, I'd say he is one of few that seems to have any common sense. 

“The governor said we couldn't enforce face coverings with a criminal or civil penalty. In the city order, it's still mandatory. The penalty now is that more people will get sick and some of them will die. That ought to be penalty enough,” said Adler.

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/stay-at-home-order-extended-for-travis-county

With you on this one. His approach to dealing with the homeless crisis had me seeing red. I am glad to have our screechy little mayor running things in Austin with the current pandemic .

Edited May 9, 2020 by ATXZJ

[Sluggo]

I wasn’t even close to Walnut Creek. 

Edited May 9, 2020 by Sluggo
need to do something with that cable

[AustinBike]

But you were backed in nonetheless...

[Sluggo]

much easier that way

[notyal]

I wasn’t even close to Walnut Creek. 

Did you test it for covid -19? Otherwise, please start a new thread.

[ATXZJ]

The truth is stranger than fiction.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/opinion/dave-eggers-coronavirus-questions.html

[Chief]

20 hours ago, ATXZJ said:

The truth is stranger than fiction.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/opinion/dave-eggers-coronavirus-questions.html

We don't need a patriotic song... we have the Blue Angels!

[ATXZJ]

1 hour ago, Chief said:

We don't need a patriotic song... we have the Blue Angels!

The empire is over. Tell covid to turn the lights off on the way out.

[JMR]

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2020 at 10:29 AM, ATXZJ said:

The truth is stranger than fiction.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/opinion/dave-eggers-coronavirus-questions.html

This is one of the most impressive things I have read in a long time.

[quixoft]

What is strange to me is all the vitriol and hate toward the people that want to open things up. 33 million people have lost their jobs and are struggling mightily. Our work force is around 165 million so that is 1 in 5 people who have lost their jobs.  Yet people get ridiculed because they want to open back up so they can actually work and feed themselves and their families. Many of those folks who have lost their jobs live paycheck to paycheck so have some empathy towards them.

In reality, the folks most susceptible and likely to die from COVID are the elderly. Those folks can easily isolate as most are retired already. The younger folks are highly unlikely to die although it does happen in rare cases as there are always exceptions. Quarantine people that test positive, isolate high risk folks like the elderly and immunocompromised, and open up everything else for the low risk folks who are willing to get out there. Yes, more will die and that is unfortunate but when does the cure become worse than the disease? 30% unemployment? 50%? How many suicides will we see from people who are isolated with no job, no money, no food, etc? How many people will be forced into poverty from this? How much economic hardship will we see over the next few years because we destroyed our economy? 

I get that others want to be more cautious and that's a perfectly reasonable choice. Those folks are free to stay at home and isolate but I don't think it should be forced upon people. It's not wrong for people who are struggling financially to want things to open up so they can work. They should be able to take that risk if they choose. The people that do not want to take that risk can choose to stay home. Last I checked, the death rate for folks age 20-44 was around 0.1-0.2%. That's a 99.8-99.9% chance of survival. I don't know about you but those are pretty damn good odds to me. I will take that bet every time.

Hell I'm willing to bet most folks on these forums have a higher chance of dying on a single track trail from a rogue squirrel encounter than they do of dying from COVID. 

In short, be nice and treat others with respect even if you disagree with them and think they're stupid. Chances are pretty good there are many people out there that disagree with you and think you're just as stupid.

Sources:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/weekly-initial-jobless-claims-slowed-3-million-week-n1201586
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105431/covid-case-fatality-rates-us-by-age-group/

Edited May 12, 2020 by quixoft

[notyal]

54 minutes ago, quixoft said:

What is strange to me is all the vitriol and hate toward the people that want to open things up. 33 million people have lost their jobs and are struggling mightily. Our work force is around 165 million so that is 1 in 5 people who have lost their jobs.  Yet people get ridiculed because they want to open back up so they can actually work and feed themselves and their families. Many of those folks who have lost their jobs live paycheck to paycheck so have some empathy towards them.

In reality, the folks most susceptible and likely to die from COVID are the elderly. Those folks can easily isolate as most are retired already. The younger folks are highly unlikely to die although it does happen in rare cases as there are always exceptions. Quarantine people that test positive, isolate high risk folks like the elderly and immunocompromised, and open up everything else for the low risk folks who are willing to get out there. Yes, more will die and that is unfortunate but when does the cure become worse than the disease? 30% unemployment? 50%? How many suicides will we see from people who are isolated with no job, no money, no food, etc? How many people will be forced into poverty from this? How much economic hardship will we see over the next few years because we destroyed our economy? 

I get that others want to be more cautious and that's a perfectly reasonable choice. Those folks are free to stay at home and isolate but I don't think it should be forced upon people. It's not wrong for people who are struggling financially to want things to open up so they can work. They should be able to take that risk if they choose. The people that do not want to take that risk can choose to stay home. Last I checked, the death rate for folks age 20-44 was around 0.1-0.2%. That's a 99.8-99.9% chance of survival. I don't know about you but those are pretty damn good odds to me. I will take that bet every time.

Hell I'm willing to bet most folks on these forums have a higher chance of dying on a single track trail from a rogue squirrel encounter than they do of dying from COVID. 

In short, be nice and treat others with respect even if you disagree with them and think they're stupid. Chances are pretty good there are many people out there that disagree with you and think you're just as stupid.

Sources:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/weekly-initial-jobless-claims-slowed-3-million-week-n1201586
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105431/covid-case-fatality-rates-us-by-age-group/

I don't completely disagree, but at the other end of the spectrum, what's up with people who protest and refuse to wear a mask in public? It's like wearing a seatbelt - it is a minor inconvenience and a little uncomfortable, but it might save your life. Unlike seatbelts, it might also save the lives of people around you. This is where (IMO), your argument falls apart a little. It only takes a few assholes that can't follow basic public safety guidelines to put many others at increased risk. It's the lowest common denominator effect. 

[ATXZJ]

Personally, my vitriol is not at the people who have to go back to work. It's at our leaders who told us to stay home,  gave away OUR money to the banks and big business and then told the serfs to go back to work and die of covid, or stay home and die of starvation. F@ck them. Also the data shows that not just the elderly are suffering as minorities are severely at risk of this virus. Just looking at the Travis county tracker illustrates this with the amount of covid cases per zip.

Governor ironsides decided to "reopen texas for business" with NO backup plan. I'd be on board with limited business openings as I understand that people are struggling but have a f@cking plan for if/when it starts going bad and share that with the public. Hell, not ONE state in the 40 that opened has even met president cheeto's outline of a two week decline in cases. Also before you think this is a political party rant, it's not. The dogshit dems all voted for the handouts to the banks as well. F@ck them too.

It's not what happens to you, it's how you handle it. This country is handling it about as good as my teenager would.

Edited May 12, 2020 by ATXZJ

[quixoft]

27 minutes ago, ATXZJ said:

Personally, my vitriol is not at the people who have to go back to work. It's at our leaders who told us to stay home,  gave away OUR money to the banks and big business and then told the serfs to go back to work and die of covid, or stay home and die of starvation. F@ck them. Also the data shows that not just the elderly are suffering as minorities are severely at risk of this virus. Just looking at the Travis county tracker illustrates this with the amount of covid cases per zip.

Governor ironsides decided to "reopen texas for business" with NO backup plan. I'd be on board with limited business openings as I understand that people are struggling but have a f@cking plan for if/when it starts going bad and share that with the public. Hell, not ONE state in the 40 that opened has even met president cheeto's outline of a two week decline in cases. Also before you think this is a political party rant, it's not. The dogshit dems all voted for the handouts to the banks as well. F@ck them too.

It's not what happens to you, it's how you handle it. This country is handling it about as good as my teenager would.

Now that I can agree with. The leaders all across the board on both sides of the aisle have handled this poorly. 

[quixoft]

1 hour ago, notyal said:

I don't completely disagree, but at the other end of the spectrum, what's up with people who protest and refuse to wear a mask in public? It's like wearing a seatbelt - it is a minor inconvenience and a little uncomfortable, but it might save your life. Unlike seatbelts, it might also save the lives of people around you. This is where (IMO), your argument falls apart a little. It only takes a few assholes that can't follow basic public safety guidelines to put many others at increased risk. It's the lowest common denominator effect. 

I don't wear a seatbelt but I ride a motorcycle. 🙂  In my previous post, the idea was to open up for those who CHOOSE to take on the risk of possible infection from someone else and possibly death. No one would be forced to go out and about. So any deaths from infection would be by people who accepted that risk. There would obviously be outliers but hopefully I'm being a bit more clear here.

I understand where you're coming from but at some point people have to realize that life has inherent risks. I could walk to my mailbox right now and get hit by lightning, shot in a drive by, hit by my granny neighbor that drives like crap, slip in a puddle and break my neck, catch COVID, etc. Yes, most of those are unlikely(except my neighbor granny who has almost run me over twice) but the chance is still there. Now we can mitigate greater risks to society as a whole by making more rules and giving governments mor control on how people can interact, but how much freedom are you willing to give up for greater security/less risk? I think that is where all the arguments lie and I thinking giving governments more power over our lives, even small seemingly innocent things, is a slippery slope.

It's a sliding scale and everyone lies somewhere along it. Anarchy is at one end with unlimited freedom but zero security and huge risks. A police state is at the other where you lose most of your freedoms but enables the government to force us into submission a la China's response to COVID. I don't think any reasonable person wants either of those extremes and most people are somewhere in the middle. I probably I lean a bit more toward the freedom side at the expense of security and greater risk while others prefer more security and less risk and are willing to give up freedoms for it.

There is no right answer and lucky for us in the good old USA, we can have some input on our leadership and our rules for ourselves. The problem is that we keep electing poor leaders all across the board!
 

Edited May 12, 2020 by quixoft

[Chief]

Nobody would be struggling if everyone was able to make enough money to live and to be able to save some. Everything we need and purchase keeps going up exponentially but our wages remain stagnant. Meanwhile corporations use their profit to buy back their own stocks to bonus the CEO and executives, the people in my opinion who do the least to benefit the company. I hope/think this event is going to change a lot of things that we just excepted in the past. I don't know about anyone else but it enrages me when I'm being pissed on and they tell me it's just raining.

[quixoft]

2 minutes ago, Chief said:

Nobody would be struggling if everyone was able to make enough money to live and to be able to save some. Everything we need and purchase keeps going up exponentially but our wages remain stagnant. Meanwhile corporations use their profit to buy back their own stocks to bonus the CEO and executives, the people in my opinion who do the least to benefit the company. I hope/think this event is going to change a lot of things that we just excepted in the past. I don't know about anyone else but it enrages me when I'm being pissed on and they tell me it's just raining.

I would love to see some campaign reform, congressional term limits, limited corporate lobbying, etc. I think we still have one of the best countries and systems in history but we definitely need to start limiting the influence of corporations and politicians. 

[AustinBike]

Honestly, there are two "open now" groups.

One group wants to get back to work because they need the money. Nobody is arguing with them. Most of this group are probably not comfortable going back because they believe there is a risk but they are willing to take the risk for themselves.

The other (much louder) group wants everyone else go back to work because they are inconvenienced. They want "their" old life back. They don't care how many people die in the process. They want you to cut their hair and they don't need to wear a mask, because, MURICA. They are Karen and they WILL speak to your manager so make sure your manager comes back to work too.

It is the second group that people have an issue with, not the first group. 

[AustinBike]

6 minutes ago, quixoft said:

I would love to see some campaign reform, congressional term limits, limited corporate lobbying, etc. I think we still have one of the best countries and systems in history but we definitely need to start limiting the influence of corporations and politicians. 

I agree with the first and third. Term limits is a red herring. The voters that give you an AOC in NYC or a Louie Gohmert in TX are not gonna do a 180. If you lose Louie to term limits you'll get someone just as bad.

[quixoft]

2 minutes ago, AustinBike said:

I agree with the first and third. Term limits is a red herring. The voters that give you an AOC in NYC or a Louie Gohmert in TX are not gonna do a 180. If you lose Louie to term limits you'll get someone just as bad.

Good point but my reasoning is more that term limits would hopefully help lessen the grip of Corporation Inc. on our congress. The lifetime politician's pockets are so full of kickbacks that they will never go against Daddy Warbucks' wishes. New blood every 6 years or so could possibly help prevent that even if the new blood is still aligned in the same manner as the previous. I'm not a completer hater of AOC. I think she means well but just doesn't have a good grasp of basic economics. But her ignorance makes her dangerous. What's the phrase? The path to hell is paved with good intentions?

But I could be entirely wrong in my assumptions. Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last.

[quixoft]

Also, my apologies for this train of posts. I got a new bike last week and that has clearly caused the rain for this entire week so now I'm bored out of my mind and on the interwebs spewing nonsense.

Edited May 12, 2020 by quixoft

[notyal]

13 minutes ago, quixoft said:

I don't wear a seatbelt but I ride a motorcycle. 🙂  In my previous post, the idea was to open up for those who CHOOSE to take on the risk of possible infection from someone else and possibly death. No one would be forced to go out and about. So any deaths from infection would be by people who accepted that risk. There would obviously be outliers but hopefully I'm being a bit more clear here.

I understand where you're coming from but at some point people have to realize that life has inherent risks. I could walk to my mailbox right now and get hit by lightning, shot in a drive by, hit by my granny neighbor that drives like crap, slip in a puddle and break my neck, catch COVID, etc. Yes, most of those are unlikely(except my neighbor granny who has almost run me over twice) but the chance is still there. Now we can mitigate greater risks to society as a whole by making more rules and giving governments mor control on how people can interact, but how much freedom are you willing to give up for greater security/less risk? I think that is where all the arguments lie and I thinking giving governments more power over our lives, even small seemingly innocent things, is a slippery slope.

It's a sliding scale and everyone lies somewhere along it. Anarchy is at one end with unlimited freedom but zero security and huge risks. A police state is at the other where you lose most of your freedoms but enables the government to force us into submission a la China's response to COVID. I don't think any reasonable person wants either of those extremes and most people are somewhere in the middle. I probably I lean a bit more toward the freedom side at the expense of security and greater risk while others prefer more security and less risk and are willing to give up freedoms for it.

There is no right answer and lucky for us in the good old USA, we can have some input on our leadership and our rules for ourselves. The problem is that we keep electing poor leaders all across the board!
 

The other "risks" you list are mitigated by your actions and the actions of others. You probably don't walk around a bad part of town alone at night wearing gang colors. You probably don't dart out in the street when you see granny accelerating. Do you yell "FREEDOM" or "police state" when alifeguardd asks you to get out of the pool when it's lightning? 

It's a mask. It's not a tracking device or a ball and chain. It's a mask. It could save lives. Where is the downside??

[quixoft]

2 minutes ago, notyal said:

The other "risks" you list are mitigated by your actions and the actions of others. You probably don't walk around a bad part of town alone at night wearing gang colors. You probably don't dart out in the street when you see granny accelerating. Do you yell "FREEDOM" or "police state" when alifeguardd asks you to get out of the pool when it's lightning? 

It's a mask. It's not a tracking device or a ball and chain. It's a mask. It could save lives. Where is the downside??

I wear one in stores but I don't have a problem with others not wearing them. It's their choice imo and they shouldn't be forced to. And granny was up on the sidewalk both times. I have no idea how she still has a license.

Edited May 12, 2020 by quixoft

[notyal]

2 minutes ago, quixoft said:

I wear one in stores but I don't have a problem with others not wearing them. It's their choice imo.

So it's their choice to put potentially deadly particulate matter into the air, but I don't have the choice not to breathe. So who's liberties are being threatened here?

 

And yes, this rain has us all in a bad mood.