As a gay man, I will begrudgingly volunteer as a sacrificial genital checker. I will sit at the entrance to the men's restroom, like a bouncer of a club, and the men that are concerned about who is in which bathroom can show me their penis prior to gaining entry to the restroom. That way, we can make sure restrooms are safe for all.
I'm struggling with this at my current job: nobody communicates about anything in asynchronous channels, doesn't want any form of daily synchronous meeting (e.g., standups), and won't agree to ad hoc meetings outside of our 1 hour once per week meeting. So lots of decisions and work get done in vacuums, which cause errors in various systems that would have been easily caught and addressed if someone just said "hey, I'm changing this column name from X to Y". So, just to say that the counterfactual here isn't "no stress because no notifications"-- it can be more stress from failed coordination.
There are in betweens here, with the major one being threads in slack. Everyone gets notified about a single message at the start of the thread, but does not get notified for any subsequent discussion. Any interested party can read more and participate as needed. For someone like me (a leader on paper but not really in practice), I'd read all the message and look for dependency or similar problems, but for others they may not need to.
You forgot the secret ingredient - quantum computing. That's what will enable us to run everything efficiently using coal energy that's offset by purchasing carbon credits.
I like the way you think... Wanna join my startup? I'm looking for a technical cofounder. A ninja. A 100x engineer. I can offer 36k/yr and 0.1%. I'm a fast-paced ideas guy, and I need you to be on your implementation game. I'm in touch with some top notch investors-- just waiting for them to respond to my emails, and then we're going to be the next unicorn. This comp package is going to be your ticket to early retirement-- just think, Apple has a 3.5bn market cap, so if you have 0.1% of that you'd be sitting on millions.
(I think I've been in the SF tech scene too long-- I've literally had every one of those things pitched to me before)
> In general I’m frustrated that patients can’t just order the exact tests they want.
See jasonhealth.com (for Quest) or ownyourlabs.com (for Labcorp). The main issue is that you can't bill insurance without a provider's order, but a lot of tests are cheaper when not billed through insurance.
I did this recently and it was so easy I felt like I was cheating somehow.
For me to get an appointment with and talk to my doctor to try to convince them to prescribe the test cost, not including the actual draw and test results themselves, would have cost several times more than paying for the test myself.
It's similar to how getting my prescription with insurance costs three times more than getting it from Cost Plus Drugs.
ACH often refers to filtration and not ventilation; that is, recycled air counts for ACH calculations but won't decrease CO2 because that's not scrubbed by the filters. So it's possible you can have high CO2 levels but also no virus or particulate matter in the air; this is why some places will report PM2.5 as well as CO2, as a proxy for filtration. To make it more complicated, you can also use UV-C to inactivate pathogens, which may not decrease PM2.5 and won't decrease CO2.
I'm not saying this is the case necessarily for planes, but I'm just trying to provide context for how proxy measures of air quality may not tell the full story.
> They just implemented authoritarian measures such as lockdowns that had little to no effect, but simply served those politicians' own self-serving purposes
Had all states had restrictions/"lockdowns" in 2020-2022 that were as strict as the strictest state's mitigation measures, we would have saved ~360k more lives[1].
Maybe. That's far from certain, though. What's more, this would have come at a tremendous cost - and not just in the strict economic sense of the word. Lockdowns and other restrictions do have severe side effects.
You moved the goal posts. Your claim was that "lockdowns" did little or nothing, and I provided a study that shows that simply isn't true. You're now disagreeing (without any evidence) but have shifted to arguing they have side effects that you find too severe.
That's a completely different argument, and one that really can't be objectively measured (e.g., how do you value a life saved?). But lockdowns were effective at saving lives in 2020, and since we knew nothing about SAR-CoV-2 and had limited treatment options there was basically no other option. Nobody (other than you) has mentioned reinstating lockdowns.
> Your claim was that "lockdowns" did little or nothing
I still stand by that claim. Compared with alternative, less restrictive measures, lockdowns achieve very little, especially when considering the massive downside they come with.
Like you said, lockdowns were justified in early 2020 when we knew very little about COVID-19. Later, though, they amounted to nothing more than authoritarian virtue signalling.
> Nobody (other than you) has mentioned reinstating lockdowns.
Not explicitly. More often than not that's what people mean when they're saying that politicians have given up on fighting Covid.
Multiple citations needed here, but your response suggests science isn't driving your beliefs here, so I'll just point out one thing and then will leave this thread:
> More often than not that's what people mean when they're saying that politicians have given up on fighting Covid.
I know a lot of people in public health and disability spaces, and every person I know that talks about the failure of public health around the covid pandemic is referring to the dismantling of surveillance (e.g., testing), the lack of investment in next generation vaccines and treatments, the failure to upgrade ventilation and filtration, and removing mask mandates in targeted places (like emergency rooms). I haven't heard anybody in the US discuss lockdowns in years. I haven't even heard people talk about broad (i.e., outside healthcare) mask mandates in over a year. You need to get "mitigations = lockdowns" out of your head, that's not what people are "implying" when they discuss fighting covid.
> but your response suggests science isn't driving your beliefs here
I find this kind of argument - which indeed seems to have become quite fashionable during the pandemic - to imply that dissenting opinions aren't supported by science to be pretty offensive, particularly when recent revelations (e.g., in Germany, since that country has been mentioned in this thread) have shown that quite often mandates were driven by politics rather than being supported by science.
> targeted places (like emergency rooms).
While ERs aren't the first places that come to mind, because for the most part they don't treat patients with communicable diseases, there's nothing that keeps hospitals from implementing such mandates. I'd welcome that, because as should have become obvious from this this thread I'm very much in favour of wearing masks.
> that's not what people are "implying" when they discuss fighting covid.
While they don't have any actual expertise on the matter, there still is a small but very vocal #ZeroCovid bubble (e.g., on the social network formerly known as Twitter) that quite literally implies that - and little else - for fighting COVID-19 today.
> to imply that dissenting opinions aren't supported by science to be pretty offensive
Unless I missed something, you have yet to share the science that supports your view. I'm not bowing out of discussing this because we have different opinions, I'm bowing out because I shared a study (and could provide more) and you responded by shifting goal posts and standing by your claim, not by responding in kind with similar studies or different interpretations of the data. There's not much discussion to be had if we're not working from a shared understanding of data and facts, and those data and facts aren't driving our opinions and beliefs. Anyway, best of luck out there!
I volunteered as a crisis counselor: was trained in crisis counseling, and then thrown on phone lines for hundreds of hours. I use those skills every day in work and my personal life.
The three biggest parts that I learned and got good at, which have come in really handy are: reflective listening, non-directive communication, and not asking "why" questions.
Reflective listening is repeating back what the person is saying to them. It's definitely more art than science, since if you do it too overtly it just feels cheesy and not genuine. But done subtly and well, people open up in really noticeable ways.
Non-directive communication means not telling people what to do. That doesn't mean you don't have opinions about the situation or that you don't push them towards a decision... it just means that your role is to be a sounding board. If someone comes to you saying "My partner cheated on me", the response many people have is "dump them!" -- but you're not living their life, you don't know all the complexities of the situation even if this is your best friend. So, instead of "dump them", a series of questions can often help someone through the situation and leave everyone feeling more seen and heard ("What happened? How are you feeling about that? What do you think this means for your relationship? What would have to happen for you to trust them again? How would you feel staying with them? breaking up with them?" etc)
Not asking why questions is difficult, but once you get the hang of it it's really easy. "Why" questions are almost impossible to say without there being some tone or judgement. "Why did you do that? Why did that thing break? Why didn't you tell me that?" You can often rephrase the question to a more neutrally worded question (sometimes they also sound judgmental, so tone and context matter a lot): "What were you hoping would happen? How did you see this playing out? What do you think led to the system breaking? What can I do differently to allow you to feel comfortable sharing?"
Ultimately it all takes practice, and fundamentally you need to have the time and space to be a good listener. If you only have 2 minutes between meetings, then you're probably not going to have the capacity to listen to your friend talk about their divorce or health scare. But ultimately people like talking about themselves while feeling safe-- so anything you can do to create and encourage that environment will cause people to feel like you're a good listener.
