Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

I simply adore all the potential connections that researchers are exploring.

Bald Men At Higher Risk Of Severe Coronavirus Symptoms

That is quite interesting, however they didn't seem to mention anything about age. I would surmise that a vast majority of bald men are probably older, and thus at higher risk because of that.

That’s the best you’ve got? I so look forward to the weekly Gonch post to this thread to stir things up a bit. What a letdown!

Sorry, but there's nothing to add. Everyone has been debating what I think I summed up already 4 pages and a week ago:

Lord Gonchar said:

Generalizing and stereotyping, of course. But if you're in the "stay the **** home" group, you either have to be angry that these protesters are putting you at risk or concede that there are reasons to accept increased risk...and you finally found your line.

Because this is what happened.

You can't have it both ways. You're either pissed that these people are putting you at risk or you accept that there are circumstances that make the risk acceptable.

And if it's the latter, then you certainly have to understand all the shades of grey that people might choose to paint that line with.

I haven't really jumped in because there's nothing to debate. It's A or B.

Did anyone ever say there are NO circumstances in which it's okay to gather? I'm genuinely curious. They may have, but I don't remember it. We've all been going to the grocery store, right?

I mean, I think there's a false equivalency being drawn (as Jeff pointed out) between wanting to get a haircut or go to the beach because someone told you not to and standing against the four century old systematic oppression (and in this case, murder) of a race of people. I think the two things being compared are so different from each other that unless someone was completely and totally black and white in their arguments, they can still have a consistent point and say one is okay and the other isn't.

TheMillenniumRider said:

Everyone is very quick to throw race into the mix, and this just furthers the divide between the population. I don't doubt there are pockets of racism still in existence. But I often wonder if defaulting to racism in cases of different race just exacerbates the issue instead of helping to solve it.

This is spoken from the point of view of someone who really does not recognize the pervasive and systemic injustices across all levels of society. Ignoring such injustices will not make them go away. People point to racism, not as a scapegoat, but because it permeates every avenue of advancement, opportunity, and support in our society.

Corona virus is biologically color blind. Why is it disproportionately killing people of color?

ApolloAndy said:

Did anyone ever say there are NO circumstances in which it's okay to gather? I'm genuinely curious. They may have, but I don't remember it. We've all been going to the grocery store, right?

I mean, I think there's a false equivalency being drawn (as Jeff pointed out) between wanting to get a haircut or go to the beach because someone told you not to and standing against the four century old systematic oppression (and in this case, murder) of a race of people. I think the two things being compared are so different from each other that unless someone was completely and totally black and white in their arguments, they can still have a consistent point and say one is okay and the other isn't.

Beaches and haircuts, sure, but there are people who couldn’t be with their dying relatives because the risk was too great, and yet protests, which have the potential to expose tens of thousands of people very quickly, are somehow totally okay? Doesn’t it effectively trash everything we were told for months?

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see how we can say, “Screw it, this is worth it,” on something of this magnitude, no matter how valid the argument behind the protests, and then justify continuing the vast majority of COVID-19 preventative measures.

Are we still doing "can't visit your dying relatives?" We're in Santa Clara County (San Jose), California, one of the strictest counties in one of the strictest states and we just went and had a socially distanced picnic with the cousins today for the first time in 13 weeks. If this were two months ago, I would have said the protests were a no-go, but if Universal Orlando can open, I think a protest is about as dangerous and WAY more important.

That last line is where I am confused too. We need to social distance and still not be anywhere close to normal in every other facet of life. But the protests are worth it.

I am a bleeding heart liberal and fully support and understand the protests. But if we're doing these protests, are the other precautions all just for show at this point?

Andy - I think it comes down to the fact that your picnic was distanced. The theme park experiences are distanced and altered. People still can't visit elderly relatives. There are no sports. But the protests don't even pretend to be socially distanced.

It's not like the protesters are coughing in each others' mouths. At least here in Santa Clara, 99% of them were wearing masks and the protest was outside in a decent wind (enough to make holding a sign difficult).

I think Gonch said it from the start (and I would point out that I've never disagreed): there is some trade off that everyone/society has to make between what's worth staying home for and what's worth going out for. I don't see why it's contradictory, inconsistent, or hypocritical to say that the cost in transmission vs. jobs/entertainment for Universal Orlando opening up is not worth it, but the cost in transmission vs. protesting the systematic oppression of a race including their murder without repercussion is worth it. That seems like a perfectly consistent position to maintain (and the one I personally maintain).

Edit: Saw BrettV's post. I think my point could also stand with "social distancing" in place of "opening up."

ApolloAndy said:

Corona virus is biologically color blind. Why is it disproportionately killing people of color?

There is plenty of research out there on the health numbers of various populations. It has little to do with race, it has everything to do with living conditions and income levels. This isn't an easy one to resolve, at the end of the day someone has to make burgers at McDonalds. Those who live in poverty are likely to continue the cycle. Poor people usually have poor children, rich people usually have rich children. It's just how it works, people are likely to continue the behaviors in their upbringing. There are of course those few who transition into different outcomes than their parents.

If you are low income, it doesn't bar you from opportunity. What bars you from opportunity is speaking poorly, being completely uneducated, having zero respect for other people or property, looking like you just came out of prison, etc. Those people have basically zero chance of succeeding in someone else's world, so they better be really good entrepreneurs, otherwise they will likely be living in poverty.

Or you can be the rarity, you can separate yourself from your upbringing, spend time in the library, learn some basic skills, start on a career path and begin building yourself up. I know a few of these people. One built his business from the ground up and he made substantial sums of money, he was a smooth talker, and an opportunist. It all falls back on the responsibility discussion we had earlier. It is easy to say I'm poor because I grew up in a bad area, etc. It is much harder to take responsibility for your future and improve yourself.

Oh, and people were told not to gather period, funeral, park, beach, protest. People were protesting to open things up and they were called out left and right.

If we are good to cram into small spaces to protest, then we are good to open up all outdoor activities.

TheMillenniumRider said:

If you are low income, it doesn't bar you from opportunity.

Really? You think poor people have access to the same opportunities rich people do?

TheMillenniumRider said:
What bars you from opportunity is speaking poorly, being completely uneducated, having zero respect for other people or property, looking like you just came out of prison, etc. Those people have basically zero chance of succeeding in someone else's world, so they better be really good entrepreneurs, otherwise they will likely be living in poverty.

All of that is a symptom of generational poverty.

Or you can be the rarity, you can separate yourself from your upbringing, spend time in the library, learn some basic skills, start on a career path and begin building yourself up. I know a few of these people. One built his business from the ground up and he made substantial sums of money, he was a smooth talker, and an opportunist. It all falls back on the responsibility discussion we had earlier. It is easy to say I'm poor because I grew up in a bad area, etc. It is much harder to take responsibility for your future and improve yourself.

It's great that some people do it. That doesn't mean that everyone has the same opportunity. Mugsy Bogues (5'3") played in the NBA. Does that mean that every 5'3" person just needs to work really hard and they have an equal chance to play in the NBA as taller athletes? Is the existence of Mugsy Bogues evidence that the NBA isn't ridiculously biased towards tall people?

Money begets money. Poverty begets poverty. An entire race of people started the race miles behind the starting line, have had a headwind and an uphill climb, are denied opportunities by the health, housing, educational (like the libraries you mentioned) systems, and are targeted by the justice system, and your solution is "Try harder than everyone else to to get to the same place they've gotten."

I think we all know that education is probably the primary ticket to break the cycle of poverty and we also all know that good education is not available to most poor people.

No one is outright saying it, but I feel like there's some weird delight in finding some loophole that proves people are hypocrites. That feels pretty icky considering the subject matter.

I hate the term "white privilege," because it sounds like something you earn, and I know I didn't earn being white. I don't know what the better word is, but the idea that I don't have to think about the same things as a non-white person, many of which are issues of life and death, are very real and very serious. If anything, the pandemic is yet another thing that manifests the racial inequality of our society, and already desperate times have become more desperate for significant parts of the population. Do you really think that this is just about George Floyd? The list of names is centuries long. Not being able to see and understand why that's troubling is the privilege not everyone has. It has everything to do with race.

I use the crewed rocket launch last weekend as an example. SpaceX engineers include women of color, and the company is led by a woman and owned by an immigrant. Then the coverage switches to NASA mission control for the space station. Literally every person in that room is a white man. Are the hiring managers all going to Klan rallies? Of course not, but that outcome is systemic racism.

It's not just racism either... I've seen sexism, xenophobia, ageism... often as unconscious bias but also deliberate intent in the workplace. White sounding names on resume statistically are far more likely to get interviews with the same resume text.

TheMillenniumRider, please tread carefully. I think you should try to listen more right now.

TheMillenniumRider said:

If we are good to cram into small spaces to protest, then we are good to open up all outdoor activities.

I've said this three or four times before, but just to reiterate, yet again:
Are you saying that going to baseball game is the same as a protest to stop the systematic oppression of a race of people?

Nobody defending the protests and also saying "stay at home" is painting in these all-or-nothing strokes.

ApolloAndy said:

Nobody defending the protests and also saying "stay at home" is painting in these all-or-nothing strokes.

To be fair, I have a a co worker and a couple former co worker social media acquaintances that are doing just that. Which is 99% of my frustration on the topic.

I'm sure there are holes with this and I'm sure many will discount it, but I'm also sure that many of you will take it on good faith and allow yourselves be challenged by it:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

Pick the "race" implicit attitude test. It may ask you a bunch of other research questions before you get to the important part (where you press the 'e' and 'i' key). Look at the results. Then think about how that compounds over every police stoppage, teacher recommendation, and job interview over centuries.

For what it's worth, I am ashamed to admit that I got "moderate preference for white" and that's something I am actively working on in my life.

BrettV said:

ApolloAndy said:

Nobody defending the protests and also saying "stay at home" is painting in these all-or-nothing strokes.

To be fair, I have a a co worker and a couple former co worker social media acquaintances that are doing just that. Which is 99% of my frustration on the topic.

Fair enough. But then I don't agree with them and I think they're wrong and I think you should tell them I said so. That will set them straight. ;)
Edit: In all seriousness, I think "Stay home for everything except racism protests" is a consistent and defensible but also an unrealistic and kind of narrow position.

Jeff said:

TheMillenniumRider, please tread carefully. I think you should try to listen more right now.

Please, explain further. You wouldn't be attempting to categorize me and make a quick judgement now would you?

This could be a very interesting exercise, please, don't hold back. I'm curious what you might think my beliefs or my background could be.

I've been thinking about this question a lot since Gonch posed it a few days ago - as someone who was pretty squarely in the "stay at home" camp and is now in the "I hope you're being safe, but protest your butts off" camp. There is, in fact, some dissonance there that I've been trying to resolve.

Where I've landed is mostly a bit more humility. But: primarily I was wrong before - with a side of, or I might be wrong now, we'll see.

I would say now there is a continuum of activities where not social distancing is more or less justified. I'd put the protests in the "more justified" category. Previously I would have said religious ceremonies were less (or simply not) justified, but I'm questioning that now. For many, a worship service is a pretty essential part of life. For some, you need a minyan (10 Jews) to hold certain services. There are better and worse ways to do that, and certainly one of the problems is that religious ceremonies tend to be long and indoors.

(There are better and worse ways to protest, too - although most protesters are at least wearing masks (in NYC anyway) whereas the cops are not, and the cops are using teargas which exacerbates things in various ways.)

Funerals - I don't know. Maybe less justified; again, there are better and worse ways. A friend lost his father recently and they had a small memorial service on the lawns with people sitting far apart. In a church for two hours has been shown to be a Bad Idea.

Medical or dental emergencies are obviously justified. Medical or dental exams or routine services? Tougher call.

Eating out in a restaurant? Bowling? Haircuts? And, yes, amusement parks ... not really essential, and I feel comfortable saying it's reasonable to be doubtful about whether restarting those activities is a good idea.