EXPOSED: The WHO's Bungled Covid Response

[_EAllusion]

I think there's an attempt to play on people's inability to keep the timeline straight in their mind. The initial outbreak in Wuhan likely started in late November. We know through reporting that this is when the Trump admin itself started developing intelligence on a disease outbreak in the region. There's an early period from then up until around the end of the year where China successfully suppressed information to the public about the extent of the epidemic and its risk and it appears the WHO abetted this by initially reporting out overly rosy information. The Trump admin had its own intelligence contradicting this, but did not listen to it. But then there was a whole separate phase where the Trump admin was getting clear warnings about the risk from within and without, which was also being paralleled in public reporting, and Donald Trump spent that time downplaying the warnings about the threat to the public and not preparing appropriately. That's not on China, the WHO, or anyone else but Donald Trump. It's conflating the WHO in mid Dec. with the WHO in late January.

Donald Trump's entire response to this, including in this very moment, appears to be dictated by avoiding blame and taking credit while trying to benefit his election chances in opportunistic, short-sighted decision making that seems to exist moment to moment. It's only possible to do this if you have a profound disregard to the human cost going on.

[_EAllusion]

Even on its own terms, downplaying the risk to try to prop up an antsy stock market was such a stupid, short-term thinking move. You can't ignore reality forever. It's very much in keeping with Trump's MO where he just takes gambles and tries to worm his way out when his chances don't break in his favor. That's why his entire adult life is framed by him parachuting out of colossal failures while he tries to leave others holding the bag. Conmen are gonna conmen.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Speaking of bungling Covid responses, Sweden's death toll has surpassed 1,600 in their attempt to reach a herd immunity. Their graph looks like this:

[url=https://ibb.co/s1vtzvM][img]https://i.ibb.co/949GS9C/F8916-C3-C-347 ... A2-E98.png[/img][/url]

To put it another way, they have a population of 10M. If you multiply by 33 (the approximate population of the US) the number is +52k. I do wonder what our numbers would’ve been had we just carried on normally, and then it’s naturally followed by wondering what the Conservatives would be arguing or who they’d be blaming within that scenario.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

I do wonder what our numbers would’ve been had we just carried on normally, and then it’s naturally followed by wondering what the Conservatives would be arguing or who they’d be blaming within that scenario.

As Trump has already tried to do, he would be blaming Obama. Moscow Mitch would be blaming Democrats for the December House impeachment trial supposedly ‘distracting’ from the Administration taking action. Fox News would be ardently pushing both angles, and their viewers would be following along like lemmings, endlessly repeating these excuses and demanding that we lock up whichever Democrat Governor Trump would tweet about, or whichever Democrat legislator that Hannity would whine about, on any given day.

[_ajax18]

The way Ajax conceptualizes this one is weird. Americans forgoing plastic straws doesn't make Chinese people use more straws. It's just an aggregate reduction in pollution of the commons, which is a good thing. It seem to be a small inconvenience to bring your own metal straw or just drink something without a straw. In order make this seem like a ridiculous cost for the benefit, Ajax ends up acting like not having a plastic straw is a great personal burden.

What measurable benefit has been gained for the environment from banning plastic straws in a few American cities? Exactly how many years back does this push our global extinction due to global warming? It is just a mild inconvenience. But it's stupid because it does absolutely nothing to help the environment on a global scale because it's not a global rule and it doesn't work.

[_EAllusion]

[quote]What measurable benefit has been gained for the environment from banning plastic straws in a few American cities? Exactly how many years back does this push our global extinction due to global warming? It is just a mild inconvenience. But it's stupid because it does absolutely nothing to help the environment on a global scale because it's not a global rule and it doesn't work.[/quote]I see you still think if Americans stop using disposable plastic straws, then people in Vietnam are going to drink their bubble tea with 3 plastic straws in response or something. This is...unlikely.

Something like a half billion disposable straws are used by Americans every day. Metric tons of it end up in the ocean where it harms ecology. The goal of straw bans is to put a dent in the plastics in the ocean. It isn't to solve the problem. It touches a fraction of a fraction of the problem. The aim to spread the practice, with more locations and companies phasing out plastic straw use, and hope more focus goes on preventing plastic waste from entering the ocean. Straws are picked, in part, because it's such a trivial thing to give up to have a positive impact. It does some good as long as it is collective and it promotes further good work. That's how social movements for cleaner environments normally work. A analogy would be the effort to reduce food being served in Styrofoam containers.

But here you are, a selfish ass hat, complaining that because it doesn't solve environmental problems all by itself, no one's gonna tell you can't pollute. It's no different than throwing trash out of your moving car, because after all, not doing that wouldn't end environmental pollution. Its not like your littering tips the scales. It's a drop in the bucket. And who is the government to tell you take you can't throw your trash in shared spaces anyway? Why should you be inconvenienced by having to make more effort about where you put your garbage? That's the other person's problem, not yours.

[_ajax18]

The goal of straw bans is to put a dent in the plastics in the ocean.

Does it accomplish that?

I have a hard time seeing how it matters much when as long as I go outside of city limits they give me (and everyone else by the way) all the plastic straws I want. I'm not the only one who thinks paper straws are horrible. Have you ever tried drinking a milkshake with a metal straw? I don't think this movement is something the majority is going to embrace. Is it a trivial thing to give up? Sure, but the benefit of going without a convenient plastic straw that works and doesn't get soggy and bend is even more insignificant still, like nonexistent.

It's no different than throwing trash out of your moving car, because after all, not doing that wouldn't end environmental pollution. Its not like your littering tips the scales. It's a drop in the bucket. And who is the government to tell you take you can't throw your trash in shared spaces anyway? Why should you be inconvenienced by having to make more effort about where you put your garbage? That's the other person's problem, not yours.

People can own land. If you outlaw and enforce littering in town you see an immediate benefit. If you organize efforts to pick up trash (provided you don't publicize it and encourage littering) it helps. We can't really own air or water. If a few towns deprive themselves of the use of plastics, plenty of it will just float in from other parts of the county or even from the other side of the world. It should start with the whole world together ending the use of plastics or fossil fuels otherwise there isn't much value in it.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why not drink the milkshake without a straw? It’s easier.

Edit: > Ajax unironically advocating for a global government

[_Jersey Girl]

We can't really own air or water.

Yes, you can own water. You can even own someone's rainwater. Not joking.

[_EAllusion]

[quote]The goal of straw bans is to put a dent in the plastics in the ocean.[/quote]

Does it accomplish that? [/quote]

Yes?

[quote]I have a hard time seeing how it matters much when as long as I go outside of city limits they give me (and everyone else by the way) all the plastic straws I want.
[/quote]You making straw runs Ajax? If so, lol. But also, know that enough people don't make special trips for plastic straws that the practice does reduce total plastic straw use. Also, understand that the idea is to spread the practice outward. McDonald's and Starbucks, for instance, are slated to give up plastic straws this year I believe.

[quote] I'm not the only one who thinks paper straws are horrible.[/quote]

It's right up there with rectal cancer, I'm sure. You're an optometrist. Buy a metal straw for a couple bucks if you can't handle the horrifying nightmare that is paper straws or strawless drinks.

[quote] Have you ever tried drinking a milkshake with a metal straw?[/quote]

Yes, 1950's diner's man, I have. We have larger metal straws for bubble tea and frozen bubble tea smoothies that are fine. And that wasn't for ecological reasons so much as not wanting to go through a bunch of straws. It doesn't seem to be problem. I don't know. Did you get a brain freeze or something? Did your lips get a little chilly? Is your focus on straws in a thread about bungled COVID response because of a debilitating experience trying to drink a milkshake out of a metal straw?

The public aversion to plastic straw bans driven by right-wing media you consume seems to be more about reflexive anti-environmentalism and the idea that no one can make you give up your lifestyle for the benefit of others, no matter how trivial the sacrifice. And make no mistake, slightly changing how you drink your drinks is trivial.

[quote]People can own land.[/quote]

Do you own the Pacific Ocean Ajax? Commons invite government action because there is no private property/tort mechanisms up to the task. Littering laws aren't about protecting people's private property so much as protecting public spaces.

[quote] If a few towns deprive themselves of the use of plastics, plenty of it will just float in from other parts of the county or even from the other side of the world. It should start with the whole world together ending the use of plastics or fossil fuels otherwise there isn't much value in it.
[/quote]Can you explain how reduction in plastic straw use in America, Britain, etc. will lead to a corresponding increase in plastic pollution in the ocean from other countries?