Quo Vadis GOP?

[The Minsky Moment]

What seems to be important is that I was wrong.

I think there are least a *few* more important things.

[crazy canuck]

What seems to be important is that I was wrong.

Understanding it is not all about you is part of growing up.  You will get there.

[Eddie Teach]

It's not all about you either. Dorsey is correct that society has to engage in cost/benefit analysis.

[Jacob]

It's not all about you either. Dorsey is correct that society has to engage in cost/benefit analysis.

Of course there's always a cost/ benefit analysis. The issue is how you count the costs and benefits.

[alfred russel]

I don't think people left NYC during the pandemic due to Covid restrictions.  They left because they could do their job just as well from their vacation home, and I image most people prefer their vacation home to their apartment in the crowded city.

What is worth remembering is this is where I first started getting shit. When I first got the sense that this was going to cause work to go remote (I work with an office in China that did in early February), I was excited: "This isn't going to end soon, so I'm going to spend the next year renting a series of cabins across the country and visiting national parks and other outdoor areas." Grey Fox anticipated correctly the parks would shut down--which I thought was insane because why would you close a park with wide open spaces in a pandemic (I get the visitor's center but the hiking trails)?

In the early days leaving the cities for the countryside was not cool. The idea covid was ever staying out of towns outside of major cities was insane. Some counties in Georgia even banned people from Atlanta from entering. Now their death rates are just as high, no one will wear masks or get vaccinated, and half the people think covid was a plot to undermine trump.

[The Minsky Moment]

AR - what I've noticed is that in talking about COVID you've frequently mixed together your analytical views of about what was going on with your own personal experience and perspective.  When you do that you run the risk that an analytical disagreement bleeds over into personal commentary.  Everyone brings a personal perspective and it can make sense to mention that perspective by way of explaining background, experience and even potential bias.  But if it gets too mixed up, it becomes difficult for someone to critique what you are saying without it coming off as a personal attack.

For example, from the beginning you took the position that restrictions on rural, outdoor activities was a bad idea.  That was a rational, defensible position then and now.  But you also cast that position in very personal terms about what you personally were doing or could or could not do.  That made it hard to critique your position without seeming to cast blame on you personally. 

That trend is continuing here.  The discussion isn't about whether showing whether your are right or wrong or whether you are prophet, an a-hole or both. At least it shouldn't be about that.  But it keeps creeping back in because the discussion always seems to veer back into "I couldn't go to National Park X" or "Berkut was reffing a football game" 

[alfred russel]

You didn't. Increased volume just scales the cost/benefit ratio, it doesn't fundamentally alter it.

Oh well.

EDIT: okay, maybe that's a bit dismissive, but I'm really not interested in trying to convince anyone here.

Basically it's not about cost/benefit, it's about overall risk - that is, absolute numbers. Increased volume increases the risk straight up. Letting, say, 25 people in tightly controlled circumstances is unlikely to be disastrous even if it goes wrong. Letting 250,000 people in means the circumstances are going to be much less tight, and if it goes wrong it's more likely to be disastrous. So yes, increased volume absolutely does alter the risk factor.

Secondly, the profile of people travelling from the US to Denmark is going to be different than the potentially travellers between the US and Canada, which again alters the risk profile.

I could be reading Canada's policy wrong, but I don't think their issue is US specific. It seems they don't offer tourists a chance to demonstrate they are not a risk while Denmark does (unless they are from a country designated as at particular risk).

It seems they really do have significantly different policies.

[DGuller]

AR - what I've noticed is that in talking about COVID you've frequently mixed together your analytical views of about what was going on with your own personal experience and perspective.  When you do that you run the risk that an analytical disagreement bleeds over into personal commentary.  Everyone brings a personal perspective and it can make sense to mention that perspective by way of explaining background, experience and even potential bias.  But if it gets too mixed up, it becomes difficult for someone to critique what you are saying without it coming off as a personal attack.

For example, from the beginning you took the position that restrictions on rural, outdoor activities was a bad idea.  That was a rational, defensible position then and now.  But you also cast that position in very personal terms about what you personally were doing or could or could not do.  That made it hard to critique your position without seeming to cast blame on you personally. 

That trend is continuing here.  The discussion isn't about whether showing whether your are right or wrong or whether you are prophet, an a-hole or both. At least it shouldn't be about that.  But it keeps creeping back in because the discussion always seems to veer back into "I couldn't go to National Park X" or "Berkut was reffing a football game"

I think these are wise words.

[The Larch]

Don't we have another specific thread for AR to get dunked on repeatedly on all kind of Covid related topics? I thought this was about GOP politicians saying stupid things, not for AR doing so.

[alfred russel]

Don't we have another specific thread for AR to get dunked on repeatedly on all kind of Covid related topics? I thought this was about GOP politicians saying stupid things, not for AR doing so.

To circle this back to the thread topic, I had to go down to midtown Saturday with my wife to pick up some papers, and we decided to take the chance to eat at a restaurant in the heart of the city. First time since the pandemic started: the first three restaurants we went to had all permanently closed. There were a lot of empty store fronts.

I kind of get the impression from the discussion with Jake upthread that he is kind of indifferent to policies regarding nonessential international travel. Canada basically shuts it down, he is cool with that, Denmark allows it, he is cool with that too. Why should he care? Like almost all of us he is a middle aged college educated white guy, with a career involving staring into a computer screen with enough spare time to post on languish during the workday. His whole career isn't based around some shop selling dumb shit to tourists or selling them ice cream. Those people are totally fucked but they aren't represented on languish or probably our social circles.

I used to get all my work clothes professionally cleaned--I'd drop clothes off every couple weeks and knew the owners of the shop--a couple from India. Late last year I stopped by for the first time in forever since I don't wear work clothes anymore--one owners said things were so bad and he was praying every day people would start going back to the office. I didn't have the heart to tell him that it isn't going to go back to the way it was anytime soon, if ever (I'm not going back until September, and even then just two days a week). I drive by that cleaners and they keep cutting back their hours and it is always empty--they just need to shut down. It is a sinking ship. Oh well--none of us work at a dry cleaner! We elected Biden who gave them $1,400 - what more could they want? If the business actually goes under, they will also get $300 in extra unemployment. What a gravy train!

The point here: in 2020 Trump and the GOP made significant gains with minority voters. There was a lot of head scratching on why. Are minority voters attracted to racism against them? I think the answer is that a lot of working class voters are just desperate to work, and get their kids into schools, and the GOP is associated with opening up and the democrats with shutting things down. Which if true is probably good news for the DNC: covid will go away in four years. But the bigger issue is being totally out of touch with the working class.

[Berkut]

It's good to know your rage over not being able to rock climb in Utah is all really a proxy for your heartfelt concern for immigrants and the working class. Touching.

[Jacob]

Dorsey, as MM said you do have some reasonable points though you're making them poorly IMO. As someone else said, they appreciate that you're bringing a different perspective to the threads. I agree with both of those things.

However, you're being a complete cunt about it - ironically attempting to bait me the same way you get so upset about (even in this very thread) when done to you.

I recognize now that it was a mistake for me to respond to your initial points.

[Berkut]

During the early days of WW2, after Germany declared war on the US, there was pressure to implement blackout procedures along the East Coast, along with making moving merchant ships in convoys mandatory (up until then it was optional).

Some people resisted these efforts as being either too much of a burden. Not letting people travel after dark along the coasts would hurt businesses, and tourism. Small businesses would go out of business. And would it even work anyway?

And why do people need to blackout in areas where Uboats could not realistically get to, like inside harbors or estuaries?

The Germans sent about half a dozen Uboats over to the US East Coast, were they had the German "Happy Time" - Uboats destroying ships at will, killing large numbers of merchant marine sailors, and generally wreaking havoc along the US East coast. Due to range considerations, the Germans focused Operation Drumbeat on the northern East Coast - North Caroline to Maine, primarily.

And what a happy time it was for them.

For the five Type IX boats in the first wave of attack, known as Operation Drumbeat, it was a bonanza. They cruised along the coast, safely submerged through the day, and surfacing at night to pick off merchant vessels outlined against the lights of the cities.

Reinhard Hardegen in U-123 sank seven ships totalling 46,744 tons before he ran out of torpedoes and returned to base;
Ernst Kals in U-130 sank six ships of 36,988 tons;
Robert-Richard Zapp in U-66 sank five ships of 33,456 tons;
Heinrich Bleichrodt in U-109 sank four ships of 27,651 tons; and
Ulrich Folkers on his first patrol in U-125 sank one 6,666-ton vessel, the West Ivis (he was criticized by Dönitz for his poor performance, although he would later win the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross).[3]:p271

The tanker Pennsylvania Sun torpedoed by U-571 on 15 July 1942 (was saved and returned to service in 1943).

When the first wave of U-boats returned to port through the early part of February, Dönitz wrote that each commander "had such an abundance of opportunities for attack that he could not by any means utilize them all: there were times when there were up to ten ships in sight, sailing with all lights burning on peacetime courses."

Now, I don't doubt that there were people before the restrictions went into place that complained about them. Too restrictive! It's not that bad! Most people on those ships that are sunk probably survive anyway!

But of course once the German got going, most of those objections quickly went away - it was obvious that the threat was real and serious.

I have to wonder  though - were there people in 1943 saying "You know, it really wasn't THAT bad! We didn't need to black out and form convoys, after all! And just look - those convoys lost lots of ships too, it's not like they actually worked! Also, I said it was silly to make the blackouts mandatory everywhere, and I was proven right because hardly any ships were sunk off the Texas coast, so obviously I was right!"

I bet there were....

[alfred russel]

Dorsey, as MM said you do have some reasonable points though you're making them poorly IMO. As someone else said, they appreciate that you're bringing a different perspective to the threads. I agree with both of those things.

However, you're being a complete cunt about it - ironically attempting to bait me the same way you get so upset about (even in this very thread) when done to you.

I recognize now that it was a mistake for me to respond to your initial points.

that is probably fair. I have an extremely negative attitude.

[alfred russel]

I have to wonder  though - were there people in 1943 saying "You know, it really wasn't THAT bad! We didn't need to black out and form convoys, after all! And just look - those convoys lost lots of ships too, it's not like they actually worked! Also, I said it was silly to make the blackouts mandatory everywhere, and I was proven right because hardly any ships were sunk off the Texas coast, so obviously I was right!"

I bet there were....

What is the point here? Is it that because people were against blackouts along the coast in WWII, and you think there might have been people that thought the blackouts were bad ideas in 1943, we shouldn't let vaccinated people with negative covid tests (and able to produce evidence of both) travel for tourism?