Munjen blago As stated by:
Even for those nations with more advanced infrastructure, surveillance cameras didn't do much to curb the spreadâand Iâm not even talking about monitoring quarantine compliance. I highly doubt things would have been any easier for us here in America. Some countries might have seen a marginal benefit, but compared to us, they are essentially a century ahead when it comes to that kind of technology. But look at the logic: in a sprawling metropolis like Washington, D.C., someone on one side of the city could easily infect someone on the complete opposite side. In that scenario, what is the actual utility of localized tracking? You end up having to shut down the entire city, forcing everyone in the surrounding suburbs and commuter towns to suffer along with it. It seems far more rational to isolate a single neighborhood rather than paralyzing an entire metropolitan area.
We find ourselves returning once again to the realm of philosophy. It has been established for quite some time that algorithms capable of performing miracles can be deployed within a heartbeatâand I am not merely referring to the instantaneous recognition of license plates or facial features. The true utility lies in the ability to track the trail of a potential new contagion, rather than simply throwing up our hands in defeat. One cannot expect people to just drive around recklessly while social distancing mandates are being enforced everywhere.
Even if you're out on the road, you aren't exactly a walking hazard. Washington, D.C. has seen a relatively low number of infections...
I find myself reiterating once again just how vital movement data truly is. A friend was telling me about his situation yesterday; his kids, who are already adults, managed to secure their permits without any trouble whatsoever. He, on the other hand, had to jump through quite a few hoops just to get his. Still, he eventually secured it... the man has some serious assets. 19 miles If you're coming all the way from Washington, D.C., then securing a permit shouldn't be an issue at all.
It appears that recent developments regarding the government's stance on various regional security matters have once again highlighted the predictable incompetence we see at the federal level. One cannot help but observe the sheer lack of foresight displayed by the administration when addressing systemic issues that affect our local communities. It is quite wearying to watch the same bureaucratic patterns repeat themselves, especially when the consequences impact everyday citizens from the Midwest down to the coasts. There seems to be a growing consensus among all mayors that the current policy direction is fundamentally flawed. While the leadership in Washington, D.C. attempts to project an image of stability, the reality on the ground suggests a much more fractured situation. We are witnessing a series of tactical errors that could have been easily avoided had there been even a modicum of strategic planning. Instead, we are left with a series of reactive measures that serve only to mask deeper structural failures within the government. It is a tiresome cycle of mismanagement that continues to define the current political landscape.
And yet, the true origin of this contagion remains entirely unknown.fadedranger162 said:Even for the most advanced countries, cameras didn't really help stop the spread (I'm not talking about monitoring quarantines, I mean the spread itself)âI doubt it would have been any easier for us. Some places might have benefited, but compared to them, we're basically a hundred years behind on that front. But think about it: in the entire Washington, D.C. area, someone on one side of town could easily infect someone on the complete opposite side. Where does that leave localization? You'd have to shut down the whole city and screw over everyone in the suburbs who relies on it. Instead of just isolating a single neighborhood, like
If everyone on Maui got infected right now, it wouldn't even be an issue putting them in quarantine and localizing the outbreak. Besides, if they want to welcome tourists back, itâs better they get hit now and build immunity rather than waiting for it to blow up later.
I had to deal with this because of my sister, a college student who stayed in D.C., though she ended up having to head home because of it. The highway out of D.C.âespecially around 3 or 4 in the afternoonâwas packed like it was the middle of summer. I don't blame anyone who decided to ditch their crumbling or destroyed house to go to a place thatâs actually standing, if they have one available. But this rule was brought in way too late, mostly just to try and stop the massive exodus that happened the day after the quake, as if that would prevent the spread. And as we've already seen, the spread didn't even happen.
Before that, there weren't even that many people out on the streets anyway, and nobody was traveling unless they absolutely had to; that was the case in most cities and towns people would have passed through. Most of the time, you wouldn't see a soul walking, and maybe only 1/5th of the usual cars on the road. This measure was introduced two or three days AFTER the earthquake, and not implementing it wouldn't have caused any extra casualties.
The biggest stroke of luck is that it hit at 6 in the morning, which is what prevented the most possible victims.
Thatâs exactly why! Because people aren't sticking to self-isolation, they should have been checking in on them more frequently and strictly. Instead, now they're stuck patrolling every single intersection across hundreds of tiny towns just to monitor maybe a million or two people instead of several thousand. Okay, maybe my math is a bit off, but logically, that's much easier to pull off. But hey, in true American fashion, better to hammer everyone with enforcement rather than just targeting the actual rule-breakers, right? Whatever.
"My people" actually did a decent jobâthey were among the first to react to COVID and these pointless measures just to make life easier. But just because I'm lucky enough to live in a somewhat normal suburb doesn't mean everyone else has it that easy.
But what I was really getting at is our "top brass"âyou have to wonder if they've ever even stepped foot outside of D.C. or some massive metropolis, considering the calls they make. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some centralization, but you can't apply the exact same rules to California, the deep South, rural Appalachia, or tiny island towns. You can try to force it, but look where that got us.
My idea is similar, BUT my version doesn't involve travel bans. You wouldn't depend on whether you're buddies with the local sheriff or someone at Headquarters. It's based on the idea that if you choose to travel, you take some personal responsibility to keep your word. I think the French tried something like thisâyou essentially give yourself a pass to go to the grocery store, for example, but the expectation is that you actually use it for that. To some people, that means nothing, but those are probably the same folks currently finding ways to hack their way into passes anyway.
One really ought to pause and reflect on what was actually said here. Consider the acquisition of immunity in the US and Sweden. There remains a profound question regarding whether such immunity is truly attainable, when exactly it will be achieved, and the potentially significant consequences of obtaining it. We all know how the conquistadors handled the immunization of Latin America.
fadedranger162 said:Even for the most advanced countries, cameras didn't really help stop the spread (I'm not talking about monitoring quarantines, I mean the spread itself)âI doubt it would have been any easier for us. Some places might have benefited, but compared to them, we're basically a hundred years behind on that front. But think about it: in the entire Washington, D.C. area, someone on one side of town could easily infect someone on the complete opposite side. Where does that leave localization? You'd have to shut down the whole city and screw over everyone in the suburbs who relies on it. Instead of just isolating a single neighborhood, like
If everyone on Maui got infected right now, it wouldn't even be an issue putting them in quarantine and localizing the outbreak. Besides, if they want to welcome tourists back, itâs better they get hit now and build immunity rather than waiting for it to blow up later.
I had to deal with this because of my sister, a college student who stayed in D.C., though she ended up having to head home because of it. The highway out of D.C.âespecially around 3 or 4 in the afternoonâwas packed like it was the middle of summer. I don't blame anyone who decided to ditch their crumbling or destroyed house to go to a place thatâs actually standing, if they have one available. But this rule was brought in way too late, mostly just to try and stop the massive exodus that happened the day after the quake, as if that would prevent the spread. And as we've already seen, the spread didn't even happen.
Before that, there weren't even that many people out on the streets anyway, and nobody was traveling unless they absolutely had to; that was the case in most cities and towns people would have passed through. Most of the time, you wouldn't see a soul walking, and maybe only 1/5th of the usual cars on the road. This measure was introduced two or three days AFTER the earthquake, and not implementing it wouldn't have caused any extra casualties.
The biggest stroke of luck is that it hit at 6 in the morning, which is what prevented the most possible victims.
Thatâs exactly why! Because people aren't sticking to self-isolation, they should have been checking in on them more frequently and strictly. Instead, now they're stuck patrolling every single intersection across hundreds of tiny towns just to monitor maybe a million or two people instead of several thousand. Okay, maybe my math is a bit off, but logically, that's much easier to pull off. But hey, in true American fashion, better to hammer everyone with enforcement rather than just targeting the actual rule-breakers, right? Whatever.
"My people" actually did a decent jobâthey were among the first to react to COVID and these pointless measures just to make life easier. But just because I'm lucky enough to live in a somewhat normal suburb doesn't mean everyone else has it that easy.
But what I was really getting at is our "top brass"âyou have to wonder if they've ever even stepped foot outside of D.C. or some massive metropolis, considering the calls they make. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some centralization, but you can't apply the exact same rules to California, the deep South, rural Appalachia, or tiny island towns. You can try to force it, but look where that got us.
My idea is similar, BUT my version doesn't involve travel bans. You wouldn't depend on whether you're buddies with the local sheriff or someone at Headquarters. It's based on the idea that if you choose to travel, you take some personal responsibility to keep your word. I think the French tried something like thisâyou essentially give yourself a pass to go to the grocery store, for example, but the expectation is that you actually use it for that. To some people, that means nothing, but those are probably the same folks currently finding ways to hack their way into passes anyway.
It is an exceptional scene, and frankly, there would have been far more panic if people were being forcibly turned back toward their homes. You must understand that these quarantine measures are purely preventative... the virus hasn't reached critical mass yetâat least, I should hope not. Its distribution is still highly questionable, and the most vital factor remains the actual viral load in any given area. It is difficult to navigate this situation and the shifting dynamics of these mandates, regardless of which protocols are employed.
fadedranger162 said:Even for the most advanced countries, cameras didn't really help stop the spread (I'm not talking about monitoring quarantines, I mean the spread itself)âI doubt it would have been any easier for us. Some places might have benefited, but compared to them, we're basically a hundred years behind on that front. But think about it: in the entire Washington, D.C. area, someone on one side of town could easily infect someone on the complete opposite side. Where does that leave localization? You'd have to shut down the whole city and screw over everyone in the suburbs who relies on it. Instead of just isolating a single neighborhood, like
If everyone on Maui got infected right now, it wouldn't even be an issue putting them in quarantine and localizing the outbreak. Besides, if they want to welcome tourists back, itâs better they get hit now and build immunity rather than waiting for it to blow up later.
I had to deal with this because of my sister, a college student who stayed in D.C., though she ended up having to head home because of it. The highway out of D.C.âespecially around 3 or 4 in the afternoonâwas packed like it was the middle of summer. I don't blame anyone who decided to ditch their crumbling or destroyed house to go to a place thatâs actually standing, if they have one available. But this rule was brought in way too late, mostly just to try and stop the massive exodus that happened the day after the quake, as if that would prevent the spread. And as we've already seen, the spread didn't even happen.
Before that, there weren't even that many people out on the streets anyway, and nobody was traveling unless they absolutely had to; that was the case in most cities and towns people would have passed through. Most of the time, you wouldn't see a soul walking, and maybe only 1/5th of the usual cars on the road. This measure was introduced two or three days AFTER the earthquake, and not implementing it wouldn't have caused any extra casualties.
The biggest stroke of luck is that it hit at 6 in the morning, which is what prevented the most possible victims.
Thatâs exactly why! Because people aren't sticking to self-isolation, they should have been checking in on them more frequently and strictly. Instead, now they're stuck patrolling every single intersection across hundreds of tiny towns just to monitor maybe a million or two people instead of several thousand. Okay, maybe my math is a bit off, but logically, that's much easier to pull off. But hey, in true American fashion, better to hammer everyone with enforcement rather than just targeting the actual rule-breakers, right? Whatever.
"My people" actually did a decent jobâthey were among the first to react to COVID and these pointless measures just to make life easier. But just because I'm lucky enough to live in a somewhat normal suburb doesn't mean everyone else has it that easy.
But what I was really getting at is our "top brass"âyou have to wonder if they've ever even stepped foot outside of D.C. or some massive metropolis, considering the calls they make. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some centralization, but you can't apply the exact same rules to California, the deep South, rural Appalachia, or tiny island towns. You can try to force it, but look where that got us.
My idea is similar, BUT my version doesn't involve travel bans. You wouldn't depend on whether you're buddies with the local sheriff or someone at Headquarters. It's based on the idea that if you choose to travel, you take some personal responsibility to keep your word. I think the French tried something like thisâyou essentially give yourself a pass to go to the grocery store, for example, but the expectation is that you actually use it for that. To some people, that means nothing, but those are probably the same folks currently finding ways to hack their way into passes anyway.
It is easy to be a general after the battle is over. That is debatable. In principle, I agree with your sentiment, but đ it is better to prevent than to cure... and to implement rigorous restrictive measures. We need to "build" social awareness within the individual.
fadedranger162 said:Even for the most advanced countries, cameras didn't really help stop the spread (I'm not talking about monitoring quarantines, I mean the spread itself)âI doubt it would have been any easier for us. Some places might have benefited, but compared to them, we're basically a hundred years behind on that front. But think about it: in the entire Washington, D.C. area, someone on one side of town could easily infect someone on the complete opposite side. Where does that leave localization? You'd have to shut down the whole city and screw over everyone in the suburbs who relies on it. Instead of just isolating a single neighborhood, like
If everyone on Maui got infected right now, it wouldn't even be an issue putting them in quarantine and localizing the outbreak. Besides, if they want to welcome tourists back, itâs better they get hit now and build immunity rather than waiting for it to blow up later.
I had to deal with this because of my sister, a college student who stayed in D.C., though she ended up having to head home because of it. The highway out of D.C.âespecially around 3 or 4 in the afternoonâwas packed like it was the middle of summer. I don't blame anyone who decided to ditch their crumbling or destroyed house to go to a place thatâs actually standing, if they have one available. But this rule was brought in way too late, mostly just to try and stop the massive exodus that happened the day after the quake, as if that would prevent the spread. And as we've already seen, the spread didn't even happen.
Before that, there weren't even that many people out on the streets anyway, and nobody was traveling unless they absolutely had to; that was the case in most cities and towns people would have passed through. Most of the time, you wouldn't see a soul walking, and maybe only 1/5th of the usual cars on the road. This measure was introduced two or three days AFTER the earthquake, and not implementing it wouldn't have caused any extra casualties.
The biggest stroke of luck is that it hit at 6 in the morning, which is what prevented the most possible victims.
Thatâs exactly why! Because people aren't sticking to self-isolation, they should have been checking in on them more frequently and strictly. Instead, now they're stuck patrolling every single intersection across hundreds of tiny towns just to monitor maybe a million or two people instead of several thousand. Okay, maybe my math is a bit off, but logically, that's much easier to pull off. But hey, in true American fashion, better to hammer everyone with enforcement rather than just targeting the actual rule-breakers, right? Whatever.
"My people" actually did a decent jobâthey were among the first to react to COVID and these pointless measures just to make life easier. But just because I'm lucky enough to live in a somewhat normal suburb doesn't mean everyone else has it that easy.
But what I was really getting at is our "top brass"âyou have to wonder if they've ever even stepped foot outside of D.C. or some massive metropolis, considering the calls they make. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some centralization, but you can't apply the exact same rules to California, the deep South, rural Appalachia, or tiny island towns. You can try to force it, but look where that got us.
My idea is similar, BUT my version doesn't involve travel bans. You wouldn't depend on whether you're buddies with the local sheriff or someone at Headquarters. It's based on the idea that if you choose to travel, you take some personal responsibility to keep your word. I think the French tried something like thisâyou essentially give yourself a pass to go to the grocery store, for example, but the expectation is that you actually use it for that. To some people, that means nothing, but those are probably the same folks currently finding ways to hack their way into passes anyway.
I wrote this quite some time ago, but not in the sense of forcing everyone home... rather, ensuring there is adequate housing, though that seems somewhat inhumane. Here we return once again to the "every man for himself" mentality... some find these measures easier to stomach than the ones you mentioned... let us be solidary for a few weeks and perhaps everything will turn out fine... presumably.
I still maintain that they are responding well, at least the "task force."
fadedranger162 said:Even for the most advanced countries, cameras didn't really help stop the spread (I'm not talking about monitoring quarantines, I mean the spread itself)âI doubt it would have been any easier for us. Some places might have benefited, but compared to them, we're basically a hundred years behind on that front. But think about it: in the entire Washington, D.C. area, someone on one side of town could easily infect someone on the complete opposite side. Where does that leave localization? You'd have to shut down the whole city and screw over everyone in the suburbs who relies on it. Instead of just isolating a single neighborhood, like
If everyone on Maui got infected right now, it wouldn't even be an issue putting them in quarantine and localizing the outbreak. Besides, if they want to welcome tourists back, itâs better they get hit now and build immunity rather than waiting for it to blow up later.
I had to deal with this because of my sister, a college student who stayed in D.C., though she ended up having to head home because of it. The highway out of D.C.âespecially around 3 or 4 in the afternoonâwas packed like it was the middle of summer. I don't blame anyone who decided to ditch their crumbling or destroyed house to go to a place thatâs actually standing, if they have one available. But this rule was brought in way too late, mostly just to try and stop the massive exodus that happened the day after the quake, as if that would prevent the spread. And as we've already seen, the spread didn't even happen.
Before that, there weren't even that many people out on the streets anyway, and nobody was traveling unless they absolutely had to; that was the case in most cities and towns people would have passed through. Most of the time, you wouldn't see a soul walking, and maybe only 1/5th of the usual cars on the road. This measure was introduced two or three days AFTER the earthquake, and not implementing it wouldn't have caused any extra casualties.
The biggest stroke of luck is that it hit at 6 in the morning, which is what prevented the most possible victims.
Thatâs exactly why! Because people aren't sticking to self-isolation, they should have been checking in on them more frequently and strictly. Instead, now they're stuck patrolling every single intersection across hundreds of tiny towns just to monitor maybe a million or two people instead of several thousand. Okay, maybe my math is a bit off, but logically, that's much easier to pull off. But hey, in true American fashion, better to hammer everyone with enforcement rather than just targeting the actual rule-breakers, right? Whatever.
"My people" actually did a decent jobâthey were among the first to react to COVID and these pointless measures just to make life easier. But just because I'm lucky enough to live in a somewhat normal suburb doesn't mean everyone else has it that easy.
But what I was really getting at is our "top brass"âyou have to wonder if they've ever even stepped foot outside of D.C. or some massive metropolis, considering the calls they make. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some centralization, but you can't apply the exact same rules to California, the deep South, rural Appalachia, or tiny island towns. You can try to force it, but look where that got us.
My idea is similar, BUT my version doesn't involve travel bans. You wouldn't depend on whether you're buddies with the local sheriff or someone at Headquarters. It's based on the idea that if you choose to travel, you take some personal responsibility to keep your word. I think the French tried something like thisâyou essentially give yourself a pass to go to the grocery store, for example, but the expectation is that you actually use it for that. To some people, that means nothing, but those are probably the same folks currently finding ways to hack their way into passes anyway.
They actually have the opportunity right now to change things... let them write to their superiors, and when the elections come, they should remember who
they voted for.
fadedranger162 said:Even for the most advanced countries, cameras didn't really help stop the spread (I'm not talking about monitoring quarantines, I mean the spread itself)âI doubt it would have been any easier for us. Some places might have benefited, but compared to them, we're basically a hundred years behind on that front. But think about it: in the entire Washington, D.C. area, someone on one side of town could easily infect someone on the complete opposite side. Where does that leave localization? You'd have to shut down the whole city and screw over everyone in the suburbs who relies on it. Instead of just isolating a single neighborhood, like
If everyone on Maui got infected right now, it wouldn't even be an issue putting them in quarantine and localizing the outbreak. Besides, if they want to welcome tourists back, itâs better they get hit now and build immunity rather than waiting for it to blow up later.
I had to deal with this because of my sister, a college student who stayed in D.C., though she ended up having to head home because of it. The highway out of D.C.âespecially around 3 or 4 in the afternoonâwas packed like it was the middle of summer. I don't blame anyone who decided to ditch their crumbling or destroyed house to go to a place thatâs actually standing, if they have one available. But this rule was brought in way too late, mostly just to try and stop the massive exodus that happened the day after the quake, as if that would prevent the spread. And as we've already seen, the spread didn't even happen.
Before that, there weren't even that many people out on the streets anyway, and nobody was traveling unless they absolutely had to; that was the case in most cities and towns people would have passed through. Most of the time, you wouldn't see a soul walking, and maybe only 1/5th of the usual cars on the road. This measure was introduced two or three days AFTER the earthquake, and not implementing it wouldn't have caused any extra casualties.
The biggest stroke of luck is that it hit at 6 in the morning, which is what prevented the most possible victims.
Thatâs exactly why! Because people aren't sticking to self-isolation, they should have been checking in on them more frequently and strictly. Instead, now they're stuck patrolling every single intersection across hundreds of tiny towns just to monitor maybe a million or two people instead of several thousand. Okay, maybe my math is a bit off, but logically, that's much easier to pull off. But hey, in true American fashion, better to hammer everyone with enforcement rather than just targeting the actual rule-breakers, right? Whatever.
"My people" actually did a decent jobâthey were among the first to react to COVID and these pointless measures just to make life easier. But just because I'm lucky enough to live in a somewhat normal suburb doesn't mean everyone else has it that easy.
But what I was really getting at is our "top brass"âyou have to wonder if they've ever even stepped foot outside of D.C. or some massive metropolis, considering the calls they make. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some centralization, but you can't apply the exact same rules to California, the deep South, rural Appalachia, or tiny island towns. You can try to force it, but look where that got us.
My idea is similar, BUT my version doesn't involve travel bans. You wouldn't depend on whether you're buddies with the local sheriff or someone at Headquarters. It's based on the idea that if you choose to travel, you take some personal responsibility to keep your word. I think the French tried something like thisâyou essentially give yourself a pass to go to the grocery store, for example, but the expectation is that you actually use it for that. To some people, that means nothing, but those are probably the same folks currently finding ways to hack their way into passes anyway.
There is no such thing as a "politician"; they are all just amateurs wearing expensive suits. It becomes even more awkward when they migrate from those remote regions into the cities you mentioned... but to cut to the chase, the real issue is the judiciary.
fadedranger162 said:Even for the most advanced countries, cameras didn't really help stop the spread (I'm not talking about monitoring quarantines, I mean the spread itself)âI doubt it would have been any easier for us. Some places might have benefited, but compared to them, we're basically a hundred years behind on that front. But think about it: in the entire Washington, D.C. area, someone on one side of town could easily infect someone on the complete opposite side. Where does that leave localization? You'd have to shut down the whole city and screw over everyone in the suburbs who relies on it. Instead of just isolating a single neighborhood, like
If everyone on Maui got infected right now, it wouldn't even be an issue putting them in quarantine and localizing the outbreak. Besides, if they want to welcome tourists back, itâs better they get hit now and build immunity rather than waiting for it to blow up later.
I had to deal with this because of my sister, a college student who stayed in D.C., though she ended up having to head home because of it. The highway out of D.C.âespecially around 3 or 4 in the afternoonâwas packed like it was the middle of summer. I don't blame anyone who decided to ditch their crumbling or destroyed house to go to a place thatâs actually standing, if they have one available. But this rule was brought in way too late, mostly just to try and stop the massive exodus that happened the day after the quake, as if that would prevent the spread. And as we've already seen, the spread didn't even happen.
Before that, there weren't even that many people out on the streets anyway, and nobody was traveling unless they absolutely had to; that was the case in most cities and towns people would have passed through. Most of the time, you wouldn't see a soul walking, and maybe only 1/5th of the usual cars on the road. This measure was introduced two or three days AFTER the earthquake, and not implementing it wouldn't have caused any extra casualties.
The biggest stroke of luck is that it hit at 6 in the morning, which is what prevented the most possible victims.
Thatâs exactly why! Because people aren't sticking to self-isolation, they should have been checking in on them more frequently and strictly. Instead, now they're stuck patrolling every single intersection across hundreds of tiny towns just to monitor maybe a million or two people instead of several thousand. Okay, maybe my math is a bit off, but logically, that's much easier to pull off. But hey, in true American fashion, better to hammer everyone with enforcement rather than just targeting the actual rule-breakers, right? Whatever.
"My people" actually did a decent jobâthey were among the first to react to COVID and these pointless measures just to make life easier. But just because I'm lucky enough to live in a somewhat normal suburb doesn't mean everyone else has it that easy.
But what I was really getting at is our "top brass"âyou have to wonder if they've ever even stepped foot outside of D.C. or some massive metropolis, considering the calls they make. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some centralization, but you can't apply the exact same rules to California, the deep South, rural Appalachia, or tiny island towns. You can try to force it, but look where that got us.
My idea is similar, BUT my version doesn't involve travel bans. You wouldn't depend on whether you're buddies with the local sheriff or someone at Headquarters. It's based on the idea that if you choose to travel, you take some personal responsibility to keep your word. I think the French tried something like thisâyou essentially give yourself a pass to go to the grocery store, for example, but the expectation is that you actually use it for that. To some people, that means nothing, but those are probably the same folks currently finding ways to hack their way into passes anyway.
You are clearly aware and conscientious, and it would be wonderful if the majority shared those traits. But I will say, even just one... unfortunately, there are enough people out there breathing down your neck on the escalator as it is these days. The greatest problem is that the potential danger remains invisible.
