I am sorry to hear about your father-in-law, I wish a speedy recovery for him and your family.
I’ll give you #4, but it is awfully vague.
I have not yet begun to rant!
At least they are bathing. But, Jee-zuuus Chriiist!
You cannot go to a bar, but you can get a stiff one in your ass from a stranger.
Hence, why everything should be open. I think public warnings about entering at your own risk is prudent, but let people live life.
2 Likes
No you’re spot on. These anti-mask anti-social distance it’s all a hoax “muh freedom and muh rights” can just fuck off at this point.
1 Like
Thanks man
Thanks. The doctors are cautiously optimistic, but then again he’s almost seventy and in that age cohort the mortality are not to be taken lightly. What pisses me off is that this was an entirely preventable situation brought by politicization of no-nonsense public health measures.
What’s next? Wake up sheeple, it’s the Big Soap that convinced us to wash our hands after defecating?
Thank you
1 Like
Spoiler, but the health dept has until January 2021 to come up with new regulations to allow the bath houses to open, and until social distancing requirements are dropped statewide they cannot open. City supervisors do not expect them to open by January 2021.
The article says this:
“Gay bathhouses could have an easier time returning to San Francisco, after the board of supervisors approved an ordinance that would ease restrictions for adult sex venues on July 21 with a unaminous vote.”
yes. Literally, the sub-headline says “The new ordinance will not affect San Francisco’s Covid-19 Reopening timeline”.
the eased restrictions have to do with private rooms, doors, and safe sex practices. Not opening up before Coid restrictions are lifted for everyone else.
You should look into the story more, its not what you think.
I will admit the sentence construction was poor. I couldn’t tell by it’s wording whether or not the board approved the vote on July 21, or that’s when they said the bath house restrictions would be eased.
Hopefully you take it as a lesson to do your own research… especially if something seems outrageous but fits your personal political narrative.
The restrictions that would be lifted, have nothing to do with covid, and the covid restrictions supersede the restrictions talked about in that article.
That’s insane. If you hear something that seems outrageous you should only do research if it doesn’t fit your narrative.
Why would everything be free? We don’t need to tell farmers to get off their fields, because we can theoretically (yes, I know this will never happen) pay them fair wages with taxpayer money.
But, we need to help the people who can’t afford to buy food in the first place because they’ve been out of work for 4 months. I think the easiest and most efficient way to go about that is through a government-approved check and a stay-at-home mandate.
The stay-at-home mandate would probably only apply to work environments where there are multiple people entering, using, and exiting the same building. Office jobs pose extra risk for catching COVID-19 because of the “contaminated surfaces” factor. Fields don’t have that issue. Also - fresh air.
Outdoor labor jobs and farming jobs that can be conducted using proper social distancing practices should probably keep at it. Or else, like you said, we’ll have no food when everything is free and everyone is sitting on their ass.
Some people need to remain working, but for those who literally cannot go to work and have no other source of income circumstances are different. If anyone is still employed through this mess, they’re lucky. Many people aren’t. Layoffs happened by the hundreds of thousands from hugely populated, low-skill factory worker jobs. They also happened in schools, offices, and major retail chains.
Should I tell a mother trying to feed her kids to start a fucking vegetable garden or something?
I feel as though some people would rather everyone starve than have a few groups of people remain working for fair wages to feed the populace. I’m not referring to you, Chris, but the overwhelming attitude amongst almost everyone I see when it comes to government stimulus checks (and sustained at-home monetary provisions for lower-income families) is vengeful.
Instead of understanding that poorer groups literally need the money to survive, people are infuriated to learn that they are, more often than not, ineligible for the check because they’ve eaten every day that week.
Why are “farmers in the Midwest giving grocery stores their potatoes” and “single mothers out of work with families to feed” being compared to each other?
One group can directly help the other if the whole “Oh, you’re not working and you’re getting paid? Fuck you, I’m not doing any work either” attitude goes away.
I really think it’s that simple. Fund low-income communities and pay farmers extra. The only problem with that solution is its lack of partisanship. But, partisanship is literally preventing food from reaching the mouths of hungry children.
Honestly, not being sarcastic or mean, but this is a good idea.
Victory gardens, neighborhood gardens, etc. Are a viable contribution to one’s self and community.
I know that isn’t possible for everybody, but for the past few years a bunch of local churches have been growing community gardens and donating the yield to a food bank. Their results are freakin amazing.
This concept has very good results and history.
1 Like
Yes, and I agree, but in the immediate short-term this won’t feed anyone. It’s a great practice to implement, for sure, but it can’t solve a time-sensitive problem that only continues to grow unless it’s been given the time to work.
It’s not a sustainable solution, that’s what we have going on here in Canada and the federal deficit went up 10x, the biggest since WW2.
There are outbreaks among farm workers too. I don’t know about the US, but over here we have migrant workers coming on temporary work visas from various places, they have shared facilities to live in. If each one had their own apartment then the cost of food would skyrocket.
It’s a combination of capitalism and too many people being assholes.
Agreed, it’s not sustainable, but is it ethical to at least try our best irrespective of the federal deficit? I can’t say I know how many lives depend on the reduction of the federal deficit but we can quantify the number of people we’re able to save right now by continuing to provide monetary assistance to needy families.
The shared facilities certainly don’t help with spreading the virus but are necessary for cost reasons…it seems there is no good solution. And I’m not sure about the US either. It’s just that almost no work has been done to help anybody over here.
It’s shameful, really. Mass testing and contact tracing haven’t even begun to make their appearance in the American public. States are entirely responsible for maintaining their infection rates because Trump shit the bed and told everyone to handle the virus themselves after realizing he wasn’t qualified to make a single statement on definitive federal re-opening guidelines. He’s had his hands off the wheel here, just watching America careen into the side of a gigantic mountain while he monitors the polls to see what he should say about COVID-19 next.
He hasn’t talked to Fauci, the leading disease expert, in two months. They’ve hidden data signaling the rapid rise of COVID-19 cases in 18 states (because they were all Republican states that reopened by Easter). I don’t know how else to express that these people are incredibly corrupt.
This was declared a national emergency March 13th.
If someone started a garden in April they would be eating fresh vegetables right now.
But Yeah, I know, it’s not engrained in people to go “oh! An emergency! Plant a garden!”.
But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t an absolutely viable option.
It’s not about reducing the deficit, it’s about not letting it completely explode. If taxes go up and prices go up as a result then there will be more problems. Last I heard there was some kind of unemployment benefit supplement in the US for COVID, what’s up with that?
The US is in a bad situation because of the number of cases and the fact that it’s not under control at all in most places. I don’t really know what to do to fix that, it’s too late. If you totally cripple the economy it could potentially end up worse in the long run than just letting the virus spread.
Oh, it is viable and it’s actually a really good idea. I’m all for it. It’s just too late for it to work before the fall.
The Republican Senate quashed the extra $600/month going to poor families after citing that adding extra money to their unemployment checks would incentivize them not to work. They totally ignored the fact that there is no work.
And that’s about where we’re at. There is no control over this thing in the USA; people are wearing face masks to bed in Miami. The economy is also already crippled, and there’s no ground for us to move forward on until the virus is taken care of.