Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

ApolloAndy said:

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

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 atheletes?

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.

I believe that anyone who shows up to a job interview who has some background in the respective field and speaks and looks decent enough has a pretty good shot at equality. The only "but" I have here is if they have a much older old school hiring manager, then there could be some racism at play as it was a bigger problem in older generations.

It's more or less a BFOQ to be tall to play in the NBA, taller people just have an advantage that shorter ones don't. But then again the NBA isn't really a good yardstick for the average worker either.

I think education is a good starting point, once you are established a bit in your field, I truly believe higher education right out of HS is a waste of time unless you get it for free.

Whoa, lots of posts, but I’ll try to go back to the point I was trying to make.

Look, I’m not trying to attack the protests. In and of themselves, I think they’re fine. What I’m attacking is the narrative we got fed for weeks that we were opening things up to soon and that we were rushing our response. Trump got criticized for leaving Dr. Birx and Dr. Fauci out of the briefings. People who dared defy the shutdowns or restrictions were ridiculed and shamed. Now, all of a sudden, there’s a cause the vast majority of us can get behind, and suddenly all the shaming and warnings just disappear? Ending racism is FAR more important than Karen getting her mani-pedi, but the important part that so many are not acknowledging is that COVID-19 doesn’t become any more or less of a risk based on the motivation for throwing social distancing to the wind. Everyone who was throwing out warnings, shaming, or criticism about efforts to end social distancing just a week or so ago but is choosing to stay silent now has essentially forfeited the right to worry about COVID-19 running rampant anymore, and has also effectively destroyed the argument for social distancing. These protests are about the worst thing imaginable when it comes to the virus spreading based on all the information we’ve been fed.

Again, it’s high time we fight racism with everything we have, but the manner in which it is being done has essentially destroyed nearly every argument for treating COVID-19 as a legitimate concern.

TheMillenniumRider said:

I believe that anyone who shows up to a job interview who has some background in the respective field and speaks and looks decent enough has a pretty good shot at equality.

This is demonstrably false. "Ethnic" and "black" sounding names have a lower call back rate on the exact same resume. And that's before the job interview even happens.

https://www.google.com/search?q=black+sounding+names+resume&safe=active

It's more or less a BFOQ to be tall to play in the NBA, taller people just have an advantage that shorter ones don't. But then again the NBA isn't really a good yardstick for the average worker either.

Sure. But your point that some people make it out of the cycle of poverty does not invalidate the fact that it is much harder to do so, in the same way that the existence of Mugsy Bogues does not invalidate the fact that being short makes it much hard to enter the NBA.
"It's more or less of a BFOQ to be white to get certain jobs. White people just have an advantage that people of color do not. But then again typical hiring practices aren't a really good yardstick for the average worker either."

I think education is a good starting point, once you are established a bit in your field, I truly believe higher education right out of HS is a waste of time unless you get it for free.

But surely you must admit that education, even at the high school level, is not equally available to all.

Just look up workplace discrimination (racism) in regard to natural hair.

ApolloAndy said:

This is demonstrably false. "Ethnic" and "black" sounding names have a lower call back rate on the exact same resume. And that's before the job interview even happens.

Hence I said show up for the interview. I believe the entire process of filtering resumes is a disaster for all applicants. Don't get me started on keyword scanning, personality tests, and cover letters. It's all a dog and pony show for the computer. You are lucky if you even make it to the hiring manager's desk these days. I have seen that study some time ago.

Sure. But your point that some people make it out of the cycle of poverty does not invalidate the fact that it is much harder to do so, in the same way that the existence of Mugsy Bogues does not invalidate the fact that being short makes it much hard to enter the NBA.

I never said it was easy, but it is certainly possible. The deck is stacked against you. People tend to fit in better with their own social group, and thus you end up working double time to break away from these norms. Nerds hang out with nerds, jocks hang out with jocks, etc. The same thing often happens with race, religion, occupation, whatever. People look for commonality to build relationships. It takes extra effort to break out of these groups. Poverty is the same thing, it is a group of people, they pass their beliefs and norms down to their children, those children frequently repeat the cycle. It takes the person to say screw this, I'm not continuing this cycle and do a 180. However, most people are a product of their environment.

But surely you must admit that education, even at the high school level, is not equally available to all.

The whole problem with education is that the bar is continually being raised. So unless you have a free ride you have to take on huge debt to even remain competitive these days. Education is certainly on the increase overall for the population. Government number from 2017 show 92.5% of people under 25 completed HS. What are the contributing factors to dropping out for the other 7.5%?

Everything you said supports the point that generational poverty creates an unfair playing field and undermines opportunity specifically for people of color. You admitted that hiring is biased against people of color. You admitted that networking is biased against the poor and people of color. You admitted that education is biased against the poor and people of color.

Now think about the fact that historically we kidnapped millions of black people and then made them poor (after we made them slaves, but somehow that's not even the main point here).

And yet your response isn't "Wow. This is unfair. We should do something about this if we want to be the land of liberty." Your response is, "Some people made it out, so it must not be a problem." I don't get it.

sirloindude said:

Everyone who was throwing out warnings, shaming, or criticism about efforts to end social distancing just a week or so ago but is choosing to stay silent now has essentially forfeited the right to worry about COVID-19 running rampant anymore, and has also effectively destroyed the argument for social distancing. These protests are about the worst thing imaginable when it comes to the virus spreading based on all the information we’ve been fed.

Shaming is never appropriate and I think is also counter productive, so "boo" on anyone who used shame to make a point (did I just shame someone?). But I don't understand the point you're making. We all went grocery shopping, even the shamers, right? Nobody was running around saying "If you go to the grocery store, you're an idiot" were they? I think across the board the line was "Grocery shopping is essential so just be careful when you do it. Going to beach is not essential so don't do it." Why is it so incongruous to modify that line to "Grocery shopping and protesting racial injustice are essential so just be careful when you do it. etc."?

We also have learned that being outside and wearing a mask greatly mitigates the risk of transmission, so there's that.

Slavery isn't unique to our country, nor is poverty. Slavery still exists today, Africans still own slaves, which I find interesting, but back to the point being discussed.

Yes, life isn't fair. I busted my behind to get where I am today, and I am by no means well off or rich. I don't look at the rich and get upset, they made their moves and I made mine. Some people are extremely good at finding and executing on opportunity. Others not so much. I know poor people who have made millions, I know rich people who squandered everything.

I see a whole bunch of people protesting, I strongly believe most are jumping on the bandwagon to look better to their friends and family, but that deep down they don't care. I think people go to the protest and snap some photos for their social media to look good and look like they care. But honestly, they really don't.

The ones who actually care and seek change aren't going to get it by holding up signs.

The only way change will occur is when we break down the existing government and system and rebuild it to meet the needs of today's society. But let's be honest, good luck getting that done.

Social security is a broken system that consumes ~25% of the government operating budget. Why not reroute that into fixing conditions for the poor?

I feel like we're going around in circles and or flying off on random tangents that have nothing to do with the main point that I think we both agree on: "The country is systemically biased against the poor and people of color." I guess if we agree on that and you choose to say "that's okay" then there's not much else to talk about. Just know that in my view, that is about the least "okay" thing there is.

Speaking of tangents, lets go on another brief one. I read a book in one of my college courses called Weapons of Math Destruction. It was all about bias against groups of people in our society.

Things that are biased against the poor: credit scores, lending, banks, credit cards, housing, hiring, purchasing a vehicle, education, recidivism risk, and a bunch more that I can't even think of off the top of my head.

Basically any system in society is going to be stacked against the poor. The poor have to pay more because they are poor, they are a high risk of not paying so they have to pay more. It is just how business works, but you need to flip the equation if you want equality.

What about traffic tickets, shouldn't you pay a percentage of your income instead of a flat fee? Those are biased too.

Everything is biased, evolution has designed us to make quick judgements based on traits and patterns. It is how we have built our society. It takes ten times the amount of work to remove bias from your personal life, but trying to eradicate it from society in my eyes will probably never happen because you are taking about rebuilding basically every policy, every system from the ground up.

So I agree that it exists, but my concern with it is ensuring I place myself in as good of a position as possible to not be affected by it. I can't spend my limited time and energy worrying about the rest of the population when I cannot fix their problems.

I remember a long while back learning about circle of concern vs. circle of influence. There are a myriad of items in my circle of concern, but I have little to no control over them. However my circle of influence contains items I can change. I do my best to live there, I can hire someone who might be disadvantaged at work. I will do my best to hire that person whenever possible. That is how I can help, but I cannot worry about the state of everyone else.

TheMillenniumRider said:

I can't spend my limited time and energy worrying about the rest of the population.

I think this perfectly sums up the difference between us.

ApolloAndy said:

Shaming is never appropriate and I think is also counter productive, so "boo" on anyone who used shame to make a point (did I just shame someone?). But I don't understand the point you're making. We all went grocery shopping, even the shamers, right? Nobody was running around saying "If you go to the grocery store, you're an idiot" were they? I think across the board the line was "Grocery shopping is essential so just be careful when you do it. Going to beach is not essential so don't do it." Why is it so incongruous to modify that line to "Grocery shopping and protesting racial injustice are essential so just be careful when you do it. etc."?

We also have learned that being outside and wearing a mask greatly mitigates the risk of transmission, so there's that.

It's incongruous to modify that line because the human body doesn't require protesting injustice as part of a large throng in the middle of a global pandemic for its survival. Food is a literal essential item. This argument that combating racism is important enough to warrant eschewing social distancing, but numerous other significant issues (lifesaving surgeries, being with loved ones on their deathbeds, employment) aren't, is at best a very slippery slope and at worst damaging to the cause.

Shoot, let's briefly consider Karen who wants her mani-pedi. Her getting that might not be essential, but to the person providing it, that paycheck certainly is. And what of those who wanted to go to Disney World? Was it so long ago that we lamented the limited options for all those low-income employees here in central Florida, only to then tell them to suck it up because of COVID-19? Now we're suddenly lamenting the lack of economic opportunity for the black community, which I understand to be in so many ways a significant underlying cause of why they are being disproportionately affected by COVID-19, right after we just spent weeks saying that the economy was a secondary concern? Yes, it's a righteous battle to fight, but I think it would take outright denial to say that it didn't involve moving goalposts and flip-flopping.

I'll be perfectly honest with you: my first thought when these protests started was not, "Oh no! Millions will die!" I didn't even worry about what effect, if any, they could have on the pandemic until a bit of a ways into them when I realized that the warnings about spread, opening too soon, etc. all disappeared.

My argument isn't about the validity of the protests. My argument is that the very people who just a week or so ago were throwing out warnings that we might be reopening too soon and championing the science and the experts that supported it suddenly decided they didn't think it was important anymore to broadcast those risks. It's irresponsible for sure, and a strong case could be made that it's hypocritical.

I believe there are two probable outcomes: COVID-19 is either going to make a massive resurgence, or it isn't. If it does, statistically speaking, it's probably going to be as a result of these protests. If that happens, there will be no more credibility to the arguments that it's the people who had to have their Universal vacations, the people having Ozark pool parties, or Trump. It's going to be the people that took a perfectly valid cause and chose a method to champion it that put themselves and the population at large at exponentially higher risk.

The other outcome is certainly far better, but it will not only destroy the arguments supporting social distancing, it will also call into scrutiny all the warnings, all the past procedures, all the science and experts that said we were moving too quickly. The win in terms of eliminated health risk outweighs all of that, but suffice to say, it'll be a bad day for the credibility of the science and the experts. Most of us will simply look at it as part of the learning experience with the understanding that science carries with it the inevitability that we'll get some things wrong, but many others won't see it that way, and because of the way in which this is all being done, it's going to result in a lot of backlash.

In the end, please understand that I'm not attacking the cause behind these protests. I'm not even trying to attack the protests themselves, or their participants. I'm not trying to attack the decisions we've made just yet as it's too early to say if they were right or wrong, although I and many others will absolutely question them if there's no appreciable COVID-19 spike from here. All I'm trying to say is that the media, the protesters, the politicians/celebrities/everyone who championed both the shutdowns and the protests, and/or the science community are going to have a really, really bad day here pretty soon depending on how these events affect the spread of the pandemic. Hopefully we'll walk away with a win against racism AND without a spike in COVID-19 cases, but regardless of how it turns out, it will be at a considerable loss of credibility for a lot of people and/or entities.

And lastly, Jeff, I didn't acknowledge your comment earlier, and it may or may not have been meant for me, but I assure you I am not looking for delight in calling people hypocrites. What I'm looking for is the ability to have civil discussion that can only come about when all of us, and I mean us as society, can admit when we're wrong. It's clear that our nation isn't there yet.

I apologize again if emotion is clouding my logic, and as always, I thank you all for putting my statements up to scrutiny. I appreciate the patience you all are showing with me as I make my arguments, and I hope you all feel that I am returning the favor.

sirloindude said:

It's incongruous to modify that line because the human body doesn't require protesting injustice as part of a large throng in the middle of a global pandemic for its survival.

There are many people who would disagree with you. They are in the streets now. Does it need to happen in the middle of a pandemic? Well, maybe it could wait. But the moment for a political movement comes when it comes, and to wait six months or a year would be to lose it.

I appreciate your effort to work this out. I would not say, however, that people will lose credibility with me if we don't see a spike as a result of protests. Both scientists and politicians (some of them) learn over the course of a new situation. That is practically a definition of what science is. We've learned that masks are important. We seem to have learned that outdoors is better than indoors (people are leaning pretty heavily on that one right now; I hope it proves out). The public has learned new behaviors like washing hands, etc., which as they are increasingly ingrained allow us to move the slider a little bit. And if there isn't a massive outbreak of new infections in two weeks, we may be able to learn something from that, too.

And, maybe politicians overreacted initially, to prevent the worst case scenario, and the various reopening experiments in different places are providing more information. That doesn't make the initial cautiousness the wrong thing to have done, in a near-total absence of information.

In a purely biological sense, no, a physical human body doesn't require protest for survival, and a purely biological sense was what I meant. I'm aware of the impact ending racism has on long-term survival odds for the black community, but I wasn't getting at that. What I was trying to get at was the definition of an immediate, essential service. A grocery store fits that bill. A protest over literally anything does not.

I'm also aware that new things are learned over the course of situations like this pandemic. I don't expect a 100% accuracy rate from the scientists and experts. This is uncharted territory for our generation. What I'm trying to convey is that a political cause, no matter how noble, doesn't negate the science of a pandemic, and so to suddenly go silent on the COVID-19 risk these protests present when we were literally told right up until they started how dangerous large gatherings just like them could be severely undermines the validity of those warnings. As I've said numerous times, COVID-19 doesn't care what your motivations are for gathering. It'll hit you just as hard in something like this as it would if you were gathering at the beach. Despite the nobility of the cause, any participants in these protests, or anyone championing them, is no different under the umbrella of COVID-19 from the people who protested the shutdowns in Michigan, the people on the beaches in Florida, or the people who were at that that pool party in the Ozarks. Your motivation is far more noble, but your participation in or support of these makes you just as complicit in any potential further spread of Coronavirus as those who insisted on continuing to gather at churches or those who were throwing COVID parties.

To put things another way, we had 2016, when only 58.1% of us bothered to vote, and 2018, when even fewer of us did, to try and combat racism and police brutality. At any point along the way, including now, we have/had the ability to contact our elected officials and suggest policy reform. Participating in and/or championing these protests is perfectly fine, but to choose to fight the battle this way is to accept forfeiture of a voice on the risks of COVID-19 spread. It's either/or, no matter how important our reason for doing so.

I realize that I'm throwing out a lot of arguments, but I should probably clarify where I fall on this: I am someone who is hoping and praying these protests force the change they should, and I'm trying to do my socially-distant part to push for change, but I am absolutely concerned about amplifying the spread of the disease in the process, and I'm very concerned about the major media outlets that aren't exercising journalistic responsibility by reporting on what they should. They're clearly putting politics over safety, and I am really curious to see how it could be argued otherwise.

sirloindude said:

Now, all of a sudden, there’s a cause the vast majority of us can get behind, and suddenly all the shaming and warnings just disappear?

I feel like you've already answered your own question. "There was a pandemic where we were asked to stay home, then something exceptional happened that seemed more serious and worth the risk?" Yes, it was that. And by the way, the warnings didn't disappear. Look at the photos from every protest around the world. Generally people are at least wearing masks.

Jeff said:
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.

I'm quoting myself here, because I don't feel like anyone heard it. This is systemic racism. If you think that racism is just a bunch of dickless white supremacists walking around with guns and confederate flags, no, it's bigger than that. There are cultural and institutional shortcomings that have kept people of color from even attempting the "pursuit of happiness." Sure, sometimes you get lucky and you really can pull yourself up by the bootstraps and overcome the odds of "making it" despite the color of your skin. But the odds shouldn't be against you in the first place. Yeah, I worked my ass off to be successful, I earned it, but I never had the fundamental problem of my race, gender or sexual orientation getting in the way of that. There are outcomes everywhere that objectively show that this is happening today.

Saying, "People get along better with their own kind." Accepting that is racism, even if you love your brother from another mother.

sirloindude said:

...but I am absolutely concerned about amplifying the spread of the disease in the process, and I'm very concerned about the major media outlets that aren't exercising journalistic responsibility by reporting on what they should. They're clearly putting politics over safety, and I am really curious to see how it could be argued otherwise.

I agree with a lot of what you've said. I disagree with quite a bit, too. I'm just going to focus on this one, because I think it's just wrong and is being used as a backdrop to a large part of your argument, which seems to suggest that people are just ignoring the pandemic when its convenient as opposed to making a Gonch-like choice to move the slider. When the protests first started, you are correct to note that most just ignored the angle of COVID risks, but that didn't last more than a couple of days and, frankly, given the violence, looting, fires and the message of the protest, it naturally took a backseat. However, since then, if you haven't seen those stories, you're just not watching / reading / looking. Here's one from 7 days ago.

<blockquote><i>sirloindude said:</i><br /><p>Okay, fair enough. Let me focus my energies against CNN. I can't find anything on there stating that protesters are creating the risk of a major COVID-19 spread. Don't you think that if they truly cared about these communities and these individuals, or anyone who is at risk of contracting the virus, they'd publish an article about the risk of spread stemming from protests like these?</p>

From Today

From two days ago

From 2 Days ago: Link 1, Link 2

From 5 days ago

That's not just multiple stories from CNN, but multiple viewpoints. I'm sure there are more, but I didn't look very hard. I just searched "cnn covid protests" and took the first 5, which were naturally the most recent. I have no doubt that if you did a similar search for NYT, NBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post or any other mainstream outlet, you'd find many more.

On this thread in general, without quoting, I'm a little surprised to see some who are unable (or pretend to be unable) to understand the difference between a generational civil rights protest on the heels of a string of deaths at the hands of police and wannabe police that has, literally, spread worldwide and the apparent moral imperative to go to Applebee's.

Well, I must say I'm glad to be wrong, then. I checked CNN a few times, but I suppose that timing is everything, and my Apple News feed, which is usually culling from multiple media outlets, didn't post those articles. Forgive my initial skepticism, and thank you for those links.

As I said, my concern was not with the merit of the protests. I want them to get the change that should've happened generations ago. I just perceived silence on the COVID risks on the parts of some outlets, but clearly I missed the articles. Thanks for posting them!

I do want to briefly address the comment about Applebee's being a moral imperative. If I gave that impression, my apologies, but when I've supported other activities being permissible in this environment, it was less about people being able to have fun and more about the employees of the various establishments being able to keep their jobs, seeing as losing them or at least their ability to keep collecting a check for a while could result in a host of other more serious problems for those people.

Of course, I get that there's still a difference. I'm not trying to suggest a moral equivalence. Getting the necessary change here will have a host of benefits the likes of which are hard to even imagine and that far exceed the benefits of Joe Ride Op going back to work Splash Mountain. I'm just saying that some people, entities (less so CNN than I thought, though), etc. made an argument absolute up until they found something they could get behind, and then things weren't so absolute anymore. I've no problem with the sliders, whether they be economy vs. safety or morality vs. safety, but I wish people, myself included, would do a better job of being honest with themselves and others before dealing with absolutes or taking judgmental stances against others (see the whole COVIDiot movement, me going off on CNN, etc.).

Here's a survey of 500+ epidemiologists and when they think we'll do "normal" stuff. It's actually more optimistic than I expected, but it's still generally three months beyond what we're doing now.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/08/upshot/when-epidemio...virus.html

For some of the activities, there was significant disagreement.

Looks like even epidemiologists have sliders.

I was surprised by their numbers on the return to school. I found their comments on this to be interesting.

I am a bit confused by the 3-12 month time frame. Is that a hypothetical time for having a vaccine? If it is not, then what is different in 3 months from what we have now? As an example, 16% would eat in a restaurant now, 56% in 3-12 months. Without a vaccine what makes 3 months from now any safer for eating in a restaurant?

I think (and this applies to a whole lot of stuff discussion about regulations, opening, closing etc.) the point is that there are still lots and lots of unknowns. Initially in March, we had no idea what precautions would be effective to avoid millions of deaths, so we were all told to take the most extreme measures short of China style lockdown. By mid-May, we were seeing that sheltering-in-place was extremely effective and could reduce transmission risk substantially if needed and could keep hospitalization rates within healthcare capacity. Now approaching mid-June we have learned physically distanced, outdoor, masked events pose low threat of transmission (we will see if that continues to be the case as the quantity of such events increases). Maybe the epidemiologists are guessing that in 6 months we'll have a lot more data about what is and isn't safe and the best ways to protect ourselves while doing those activities. Or maybe they're guessing that the case numbers will decrease to the point that the threat of transmission is low because the occurrence of the virus is low?

And that's probably the thing that I lost track of the most around mid-May and maybe I need to eat a little crow on that? I'm still not sure. It is true that the situation isn't fundamentally different than it was in mid-March. BUT we gained new information about the effectiveness of a variety of strategies to combat transmission. I still think we should have more, better testing and our contact tracing is laughable (our county has gotten 50 out of a desired 700 contact tracers. One of my church folks wanted to volunteer and they asked him for a 6 month 40 hr/week commitment for no pay). But maybe the knowledge that shelter-in-place is extremely effective and mask wearing/outdoor/distanced events are low threat is a good enough reason to let people to go to the beach or Universal. Or maybe we'll see in 2-3 months that we made a catastrophic mistake?