It is useful to see how the per capita infection rates have diverged based on the response to PH rules and vaccination rates. This highlights the differences which can be lost when comparing the accumulated infection and death rates that show relatively similar outcomes.
What is concerning is that even when presented with such evidence, there is no acknowledgment that just maybe this is a problem to be corrected. Rather, it seems this is the desired outcome as it scares the blue states' voters that red-state voters will eventually nurture a variant that will sweep through the blue states. Is this a mentality akin to the Confederacy losing a larger %age of their population but after Reconstruction claiming they had "shown those damn Yankees"?
It is enough for a technocrat to cry over their analyses.
I live in a California county with just a 35% vaccination rate. For a while it seemed as though many locals thought the pandemic was over and were going about maskless. Fortunately, this seems to have changed somewhat. This gives me some hope, especially as there is some evidence the current surge may have peaked. But with the latest research suggestion that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is less effective than the Moderna vaccine with the delta variant, we are not out of the woods yet.
The LeonHardt article in the NYTimes suggesting that Democrats were over-cautious based on the probabilities, it was based on a static analysis of the pandemic. Caution is still advisable as new variants may puncture the immunity of the vaccinated, booster shots or not. Plus, mask-wearing and social distancing is still effective in reducing transmission rates and therefore the opportunity to become infected or ill, as well as reducing the probability of locally generating new variants. Better to let those variants appear elsewhere and give us time to prepare updated vaccines before a really deadly variant emerges more like the 1918 Spanish Flu.
"Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel – not indeed to his country, but to humanity and humanity’s God”…"
I do not know who or what is humanity's God is. But IIRC, Christianity was quite supportive of slavery and its supporters made arguments why it was moral and supported by God. What we call white supremacism today was accepted as the natural place of Caucasians as the superior "race" and therefore to be on top of the evolutionary pyramid and therefore could subject other races to a lower standard, much as humans had subjected the animals. This strain of thinking has never completely been expunged, especially in the US.
It was mainly the sect of Quakers that started the abolition of slavery movement in England in the 18th century. Their opponents were mostly the mainstream Church of England. So two Christian sects had opposing views of slavery backed by their different interpretations of the Bible.
I find it interesting that Adam Smith argued against slavery as it was inefficient. Had it been determined that slavery was more efficient, would he have supported slavery?
"The pro-WFH group probably underrates how psychologically discombobulating it can be for extroverts to interface w/ peers via only screens for too long…"
Extroverts are a cost sink: they make decisions for social reasons, they won't generally allow quantified analysis to be constraining on their preferences, they're relentlessly handsy, they're frequently incapable of being quiet or focused, they insist things are about their feels in a makes-demands way (rather than an avoids-harm way) and they take it drastic personal if they're expected to follow a process that won't make exceptions confirming their personal specialness.
Fewer extroverts in the business is a net win. The only reason you need some now is to deal with the other firm's extroverts. It's not like this is news, either; any of the "let's make a cult out of systemically effective process" approaches _need_ to be cults to get enough social articulation to suppress the extroverts, and you have to suppress them to scale past a certain point because you can't afford the terrible feels-based decisions.
Now, perhaps I am being unjust to some quiet diligent persons who just like people more than the population median; it is indeed likely that I am. But it is also likely such persons will do just fine in a distributed environment. The back-slapping extroverts can go work in performing arts, where they'll be happy, and the folks doing the stuff that just isn't in any way feels-based will be happier to not be trying to get work done around the extroverts.
(It is also surpassingly likely that a distributed environment with systemic support to be a distributed environment works just fine. Distributed work environments are not new, and there are bunch of successful examples from long before VLSI.)
It is useful to see how the per capita infection rates have diverged based on the response to PH rules and vaccination rates. This highlights the differences which can be lost when comparing the accumulated infection and death rates that show relatively similar outcomes.
What is concerning is that even when presented with such evidence, there is no acknowledgment that just maybe this is a problem to be corrected. Rather, it seems this is the desired outcome as it scares the blue states' voters that red-state voters will eventually nurture a variant that will sweep through the blue states. Is this a mentality akin to the Confederacy losing a larger %age of their population but after Reconstruction claiming they had "shown those damn Yankees"?
It is enough for a technocrat to cry over their analyses.
I live in a California county with just a 35% vaccination rate. For a while it seemed as though many locals thought the pandemic was over and were going about maskless. Fortunately, this seems to have changed somewhat. This gives me some hope, especially as there is some evidence the current surge may have peaked. But with the latest research suggestion that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is less effective than the Moderna vaccine with the delta variant, we are not out of the woods yet.
The LeonHardt article in the NYTimes suggesting that Democrats were over-cautious based on the probabilities, it was based on a static analysis of the pandemic. Caution is still advisable as new variants may puncture the immunity of the vaccinated, booster shots or not. Plus, mask-wearing and social distancing is still effective in reducing transmission rates and therefore the opportunity to become infected or ill, as well as reducing the probability of locally generating new variants. Better to let those variants appear elsewhere and give us time to prepare updated vaccines before a really deadly variant emerges more like the 1918 Spanish Flu.
"Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel – not indeed to his country, but to humanity and humanity’s God”…"
I do not know who or what is humanity's God is. But IIRC, Christianity was quite supportive of slavery and its supporters made arguments why it was moral and supported by God. What we call white supremacism today was accepted as the natural place of Caucasians as the superior "race" and therefore to be on top of the evolutionary pyramid and therefore could subject other races to a lower standard, much as humans had subjected the animals. This strain of thinking has never completely been expunged, especially in the US.
It was mainly the sect of Quakers that started the abolition of slavery movement in England in the 18th century. Their opponents were mostly the mainstream Church of England. So two Christian sects had opposing views of slavery backed by their different interpretations of the Bible.
I find it interesting that Adam Smith argued against slavery as it was inefficient. Had it been determined that slavery was more efficient, would he have supported slavery?
On "sorta work": PCR analysis is the very best example.
"The pro-WFH group probably underrates how psychologically discombobulating it can be for extroverts to interface w/ peers via only screens for too long…"
Extroverts are a cost sink: they make decisions for social reasons, they won't generally allow quantified analysis to be constraining on their preferences, they're relentlessly handsy, they're frequently incapable of being quiet or focused, they insist things are about their feels in a makes-demands way (rather than an avoids-harm way) and they take it drastic personal if they're expected to follow a process that won't make exceptions confirming their personal specialness.
Fewer extroverts in the business is a net win. The only reason you need some now is to deal with the other firm's extroverts. It's not like this is news, either; any of the "let's make a cult out of systemically effective process" approaches _need_ to be cults to get enough social articulation to suppress the extroverts, and you have to suppress them to scale past a certain point because you can't afford the terrible feels-based decisions.
Now, perhaps I am being unjust to some quiet diligent persons who just like people more than the population median; it is indeed likely that I am. But it is also likely such persons will do just fine in a distributed environment. The back-slapping extroverts can go work in performing arts, where they'll be happy, and the folks doing the stuff that just isn't in any way feels-based will be happier to not be trying to get work done around the extroverts.
(It is also surpassingly likely that a distributed environment with systemic support to be a distributed environment works just fine. Distributed work environments are not new, and there are bunch of successful examples from long before VLSI.)