Thoughts on Covid 19

[Robbie C.]

16 hours ago, pahonu said:

I’m not sure about their pensions, but they wouldn’t lose any service time, I would think.  Whether they reach maximum pension benefits is another question.  Perhaps some of them were very close to that maximum.

Something similar has been happening in education.  Teachers very close to maximum benefits in both age and service have been retiring one or two years early as the pandemic continues.  They lose more than a small amount of their benefit, but have made that choice for health reasons typically.  

Five teachers at my wife’s and my high schools left one or two years early.  A member of my own department is now looking at going a year early after a second school year of incredible change.

Pensions are typically a negotiated benefit, and would kick in at specific times once a person is considered vested (which can be five years service in some cases). Many are "calibrated" on a twenty-year service mark for half pay (not unlike the military system), although there have been moves in some places for newer hires to not get the full benefit until they reach thirty years service. Most also have an age marker that will kick in as well. Anyone pushed out prior to those dates will lose benefits. But they're still better off than the retail workers forced out when their local shops and restaurants shut down forever.

And you will never see the end of this because it's a virus. They mutate. People need to wrap their heads around that. You can contain it to a degree, but the odds of you eradicating a swiftly-mutating virus are pretty much zero.

[jpaul1]

since day 1, the goal hasn't been to eradicate the virus.But to end the hospitals surges waves. maybe this is what is confusing anti-vaxxers mind ..?

[Christine]

Covid will probably remain an issue forever, but I would imagine that subsequent generations, like my now 17-month-old granddaughter, will be better able to cope with this virus. I'm thinking of the missionaries who came to the jungle villages a few hundred years ago, carrying their viruses and bacteria that were harmless to our region. Many of the natives fell ill and died because their bodies could not cope with the foreign, invisible invaders. Today, their descendants no longer have problems with these diseases.
However, vaccination is still the best means of combating covid. However, the opponents will not be able to explain this. My photo on Facebook currently has the frame "I'm vaccinated against Covid" and below it was a prompt post, " I feel sorry for you and you'll see in 2 - 3 years what you get out of it." 
I was tempted to write underneath, "You may not live to see it though because by then you will have contracted Covid and perhaps passed away."
I refrained from doing so, because you can't counter such people with reasonable arguments anyway.
What I found terrible was the short-lived discussion of baiting vaccination opponents with a premium. But I think the idea has already been dropped again. That would have been a real hit if people who refuse to vaccinate ended up getting a hundred euros or so for doing something for themselves and society.

[Ferrariman]

3 hours ago, jpaul1 said:

since day 1, the goal hasn't been to eradicate the virus.But to end the hospitals surges waves. maybe this is what is confusing anti-vaxxers mind ..?

I think what’s causing the confusion is too much misinformation.  If you really care there’s a wealth of information on various legitimate websites. On the other hand, if you only listen to 1 source of info such as Facebook or FOX, you’ll probably end up following the anti-vaxers down the rabbit hole.  Another problem is simply human nature. Given a choice most will do the right thing, but tell people they have to do it and you get resistance.

[Ferrariman]

1 hour ago, Ferrariman said:

I think what’s causing the confusion is too much misinformation.  If you really care there’s a wealth of information on various legitimate government and medical websites. On the other hand, if you only listen to 1 source of info such as Facebook or FOX, you won't get all the facts and you’ll probably end up following the anti-vaxers down the rabbit hole.  Another problem is simply human nature. Given a choice most will do the right thing, but tell people they have to do it and you get resistance.

 

[Robbie C.]

4 hours ago, Ferrariman said:

I think what’s causing the confusion is too much misinformation.  If you really care there’s a wealth of information on various legitimate websites. On the other hand, if you only listen to 1 source of info such as Facebook or FOX, you’ll probably end up following the anti-vaxers down the rabbit hole.  Another problem is simply human nature. Given a choice most will do the right thing, but tell people they have to do it and you get resistance.

I think it's the media writ large, not just one or two outlets. NBC, for example, is very prone to "Entertainment Tonight"-style broadcasting, where everything is a crisis unlike any ever seen in human history. Also, they fail to understand or make subtle distinctions, preferring to present everything as a zero-sum game. They much much to answer for, but will likely never be brought to task.

[vicegirl85]

30 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

I think it's the media writ large, not just one or two outlets. NBC, for example, is very prone to "Entertainment Tonight"-style broadcasting, where everything is a crisis unlike any ever seen in human history. Also, they fail to understand or make subtle distinctions, preferring to present everything as a zero-sum game. They much much to answer for, but will likely never be brought to task.

Nothing to really say about NBC, but you definitely have a point.  I think all of the "all-news" outlets drone on and on about each story.  Even if there are no new developments, no new knowledge, i.e. NOTHING NEW TO REPORT, they continue to speculate, seek comments from either their usual expert sources, or try to put a new spin on the non-information from another perspective, such as diversity or rural vs urban, red state vs blue state, etc.

It's the same thing with passing bills in Congress, the economy, climate change, critical race theory being taught in elementary schools or not (news flash--it's not being taught in elementary schools), Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Ben Affleck's comments on his alcoholism and marriage, abortion laws and the Supreme Court, the January 6 riots and the current hearings about them.  In addition, each thing is often covered in a very superficial manner.  I'm not saying any of these topics aren't important (well, maybe Prince Harry and Meghan aren't that important!).  But 24/7 news coverage is a monster that must be fed constantly, even if there is really nothing new to report and no actual deeper investigation or nuance.

[pahonu]

14 minutes ago, vicegirl85 said:

Nothing to really say about NBC, but you definitely have a point.  I think all of the "all-news" outlets drone on and on about each story.  Even if there are no new developments, no new knowledge, i.e. NOTHING NEW TO REPORT, they continue to speculate, seek comments from either their usual expert sources, or try to put a new spin on the non-information from another perspective, such as diversity or rural vs urban, red state vs blue state, etc.

It's the same thing with passing bills in Congress, the economy, climate change, critical race theory being taught in elementary schools or not (news flash--it's not being taught in elementary schools), Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Ben Affleck's comments on his alcoholism and marriage, abortion laws and the Supreme Court, the January 6 riots and the current hearings about them.  In addition, each thing is often covered in a very superficial manner.  I'm not saying any of these topics aren't important (well, maybe Prince Harry and Meghan aren't that important!).  But 24/7 news coverage is a monster that must be fed constantly, even if there is really nothing new to report and no actual deeper investigation or nuance.

As a 25+ year social studies teacher in high school and also part time history professor at a community college, I can say definitely that critical race theory is not being taught in California high schools, let alone elementary schools, and almost certainly not in community colleges, which are in large part remediation courses for post-high school courses.  CRT is an academic lens used largely at universities, and then almost wholly for history majors in upper division course work, rather than in GE requirements.  It has become a point of contention by those that don’t understand the academic concept of critical lenses, historical, literary, or otherwise, and is being used as a political wedge issue.

For example, when I teach about the second rise of the KKK in the 1920’s targeting Catholics, Jews, and any non-WASPs during the nadir of race relations in US history, it is not from the position of entrenched systemic racism in our institutions.  It is from the social history of the Klans massive rise in popular membership during that post-WWI era, and the rise in lynchings not only in the black community, but elsewhere.  These events are historic facts, not something speculative based on views through any academic lens.  The same is true of the segregation of the armed forces during WWII.  It is historically factual and clearly based on societies racial norms of the time.  Those norms have changed (in part due to Truman’s then unpopular decision to desegregate the armed forces) but that doesn’t change the historic fact that such segregation was once the norm.  How else might a teacher explain historic racial segregation without calling out prevalent racist attitudes and policies of that era? 

The fact that such racist attitudes and policies originated from the dominant white society of the era is also historically factual.  I am white myself, and don’t feel responsible for the behaviors of past generations, but I will also not pretend it didn’t happen because current generations may be uncomfortable with the historic reality.  Those who argue CRT is the problem in public education today are doing just that, denying the historic reality of our nation’s past to somehow ease their conscience, or perhaps more sadly to intentionally try and hide from historic truths.
 

 

[Robbie C.]

54 minutes ago, pahonu said:

As a 25+ year social studies teacher in high school and also part time history professor at a community college, I can say definitely that critical race theory is not being taught in California high schools, let alone elementary schools, and almost certainly not in community colleges, which are in large part remediation courses for post-high school courses.  CRT is an academic lens used largely at universities, and then almost wholly for history majors in upper division course work, rather than in GE requirements.  It has become a point of contention by those that don’t understand the academic concept of critical lenses, historical, literary, or otherwise, and is being used as a political wedge issue.

For example, when I teach about the second rise of the KKK in the 1920’s targeting Catholics, Jews, and any non-WASPs during the nadir of race relations in US history, it is not from the position of entrenched systemic racism in our institutions.  It is from the social history of the Klans massive rise in popular membership during that post-WWI era, and the rise in lynchings not only in the black community, but elsewhere.  These events are historic facts, not something speculative based on views through any academic lens.  The same is true of the segregation of the armed forces during WWII.  It is historically factual and clearly based on societies racial norms of the time.  Those norms have changed (in part due to Truman’s then unpopular decision to desegregate the armed forces) but that doesn’t change the historic fact that such segregation was once the norm.  How else might a teacher explain historic racial segregation without calling out prevalent racist attitudes and policies of that era? 

The fact that such racist attitudes and policies originated from the dominant white society of the era is also historically factual.  I am white myself, and don’t feel responsible for the behaviors of past generations, but I will also not pretend it didn’t happen because current generations may be uncomfortable with the historic reality.  Those who argue CRT is the problem in public education today are doing just that, denying the historic reality of our nation’s past to somehow ease their conscience, or perhaps more sadly to intentionally try and hide from historic truths.
 

 

CRT, or doctrines based on it, have actually mutated beyond academia. What you're talking about as teaching methods I encountered in academia as a history major back in the 1980s and 1990s and that I used as an instructor later on. What is new is dividing students up based on racial identity, assigning blame for past events based on racial identity, and so on. We had a "training" at my former job based on just this concept, with the main presenter (a university professor, no less) saying we were all racist because we were white. Full stop. And he steadfastly refused to deal with any historical examples (the use of Chinese and Irish labor in the transcontinental railroad, for example, or rampant discrimination against Italian immigrants...not to mention the internment of German Americans in both world wars) that didn't fit his specific agenda. His entire presentation reminded me of National Socialist propaganda, actually. All you'd have to do is change a couple of racial identifiers.

I'll stop as we're entering into political territory now, but I wanted to point out that this academic lens is being twisted into something else entirely outside of academia...and it's not a good thing.

[Ferrariman]

2 hours ago, vicegirl85 said:

Nothing to really say about NBC, but you definitely have a point.  I think all of the "all-news" outlets drone on and on about each story.  Even if there are no new developments, no new knowledge, i.e. NOTHING NEW TO REPORT, they continue to speculate, seek comments from either their usual expert sources, or try to put a new spin on the non-information from another perspective, such as diversity or rural vs urban, red state vs blue state, etc.

It's the same thing with passing bills in Congress, the economy, climate change, critical race theory being taught in elementary schools or not (news flash--it's not being taught in elementary schools), Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Ben Affleck's comments on his alcoholism and marriage, abortion laws and the Supreme Court, the January 6 riots and the current hearings about them.  In addition, each thing is often covered in a very superficial manner.  I'm not saying any of these topics aren't important (well, maybe Prince Harry and Meghan aren't that important!).  But 24/7 news coverage is a monster that must be fed constantly, even if there is really nothing new to report and no actual deeper investigation or nuance.

Agree 100%.  That's why I record such news shows, so I can skim through them and pick what I want to see or skip.  

I once was watching a news report on some disaster (don't remember what) and the broadcaster actually said "Well I don't have anything new to tell you so I'll tell you again anyway"  

[pahonu]

52 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

CRT, or doctrines based on it, have actually mutated beyond academia. What you're talking about as teaching methods I encountered in academia as a history major back in the 1980s and 1990s and that I used as an instructor later on. What is new is dividing students up based on racial identity, assigning blame for past events based on racial identity, and so on. We had a "training" at my former job based on just this concept, with the main presenter (a university professor, no less) saying we were all racist because we were white. Full stop. And he steadfastly refused to deal with any historical examples (the use of Chinese and Irish labor in the transcontinental railroad, for example, or rampant discrimination against Italian immigrants...not to mention the internment of German Americans in both world wars) that didn't fit his specific agenda. His entire presentation reminded me of National Socialist propaganda, actually. All you'd have to do is change a couple of racial identifiers.

I'll stop as we're entering into political territory now, but I wanted to point out that this academic lens is being twisted into something else entirely outside of academia...and it's not a good thing.

The question I think is who is doing the twisting.  I don’t believe it’s coming from K-12 public school teachers.  I too studied at university in the late 80’s and early 90’s and encountered CRT.  My point was that it isn’t part of the framework for public school curriculum in my state of California.  We simply don’t teach to any such depth of analysis at that level.  At the high school level we teach from post-Reconstruction to the modern era in just two semesters.  It is essentially an introduction to American history.  

I do teach about anti-German sentiment during WWI encouraged by US war propaganda, and post-war anti-Italian sentiment such as the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti.  Discrimination isn’t relegated to only one race, clearly. The Civil Rights movement, AIM, the Chicano movement, and the ERA are also in the curriculum.  The one thing these have in common is they were all pushing back against control by the majority white male culture of America in their eras.  Learning about that reality in our curriculum is not about singling out my white students as responsible for past actions.

I can’t speak to your experiences in your workplaces or for university professors that were hired by your employers.  I can say that this is not the curriculum outlined by the state framework of California for public education in history.  I have coworkers of quite varied political views and I can say that none of them are pleased at being targeted by these kind of inaccurate claims.  

Particularly, I have two long-time colleagues and friends that are quite conservative who have both questioned the scrutiny social studies teachers are now facing.  They have rightly compared it to the Scopes Trial and the type of scrutiny experienced by biology teachers over the decades, which incidentally includes my wife.  We have had these conversations many times over the years.  Based on recent news, literature courses and book-banning seems to be next in line, sadly.

[Robbie C.]

10 minutes ago, pahonu said:

The question I think is who is doing the twisting.  I don’t believe it’s coming from K-12 public school teachers.  I too studied at university in the late 80’s and early 90’s and encountered CRT.  My point was that it isn’t part of the framework for public school curriculum in my state of California.  We simply don’t teach to any such depth of analysis at that level.  At the high school level we teach from post-Reconstruction to the modern era in just two semesters.  It is essentially an introduction to American history.  

I do teach about anti-German sentiment during WWI encouraged by US war propaganda, and post-war anti-Italian sentiment such as the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti.  Discrimination isn’t relegated to only one race, clearly. The Civil Rights movement, AIM, the Chicano movement, and the ERA are also in the curriculum.  The one thing these have in common is they were all pushing back against control by the majority white male culture of America in their eras.  Learning about that reality in our curriculum is not about singling out my white students as responsible for past actions.

I can’t speak to your experiences in your workplaces or for university professors that were hired by your employers.  I can say that this is not the curriculum outlined by the state framework of California for public education in history.  I have coworkers of quite varied political views and I can say that none of them are pleased at being targeted by these kind of inaccurate claims.  

Particularly, I have two long-time colleagues and friends that are quite conservative who have both questioned the scrutiny social studies teachers are now facing.  They have rightly compared it to the Scopes Trial and the type of scrutiny experienced by biology teachers over the decades, which incidentally includes my wife.  We have had these conversations many times over the years.  Based on recent news, literature courses and book-banning seems to be next in line, sadly.

I was simply providing another context for your statements. And actually anti-German sentiment was much more vicious during World War I (the Sedition Acts were aimed at German-Americans in particular, and anti-German sentiment can be traced back to the Civil War if not before). And discrimination against the Irish and Italians wasn't just a product of Sacco and Vanzetti (one of the largest mass lynchings in this country took place near New Orleans in the late 1800s and the targets were Italians). I would say a much more accurate description of the majority culture would be Protestant and English, at least prior to 1900 or so. That's why I push back against blanket statements like white male. Nuance is important, even if it's not popular these days.

As for the twisting, I would say a reasonable amount of it comes from journalists and academics trying to make names for themselves (and not just on one side of the spectrum).

[pahonu]

3 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

I was simply providing another context for your statements. And actually anti-German sentiment was much more vicious during World War I (the Sedition Acts were aimed at German-Americans in particular, and anti-German sentiment can be traced back to the Civil War if not before). And discrimination against the Irish and Italians wasn't just a product of Sacco and Vanzetti (one of the largest mass lynchings in this country took place near New Orleans in the late 1800s and the targets were Italians). I would say a much more accurate description of the majority culture would be Protestant and English, at least prior to 1900 or so. That's why I push back against blanket statements like white male. Nuance is important, even if it's not popular these days.

As for the twisting, I would say a reasonable amount of it comes from journalists and academics trying to make names for themselves (and not just on one side of the spectrum).

I was referring to the Creel Committee or CPI when I wrote about anti-German sentiment during WWI.  The Alien and Sedition Acts also appeared but I made no mention of WWII beyond the segregated military.  Anti-Catholic sentiment certainly goes back before the Civil War, witness the Know Nothing Party, but it became particularly intense in the 20’s as the Klan’s anti-papist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant views grew to the largest membership in Klan history.

American white male political control goes beyond English ancestry in just the US presidency, including Dutch, Scottish, German, and even French.  Washington’s ancestry was English and French. Protestant Christianity does factor in heavily, almost exclusively.  Perhaps Northern and Western European Protestant male would be more accurate, but the nuance you speak of seems not to be equally present on both sides of the political spectrum currently. 

My comments about the twisting of CRT is based on the fact that it is school boards, school teachers, and the K-12 curriculum that are currently being targeted by many who simply don’t understand CRT, yet make accusations against those groups.  I don’t argue that university academics and perhaps even journalist may be using the issue for personal self-gain, but the angry parents yelling at school board members and other staff about CRT, also encouraged by other journalists, are the reality.

Edited December 19, 2021 by pahonu

[jpaul1]

omikron variant is super contagious. 91k+ new case in 24h here. absolute record. not sure that variant is more deadly, or equally deadly than the delta one at this stage though

Edited December 24, 2021 by jpaul1

[pahonu]

2 hours ago, jpaul1 said:

omikron variant is super contagious. 91k+ new case in 24h here. absolute record. not sure that variant is more deadly, or equally deadly than the delta one at this stage though

If the omicron variant does cause fewer hospitalizations, it may still strain an already overworked healthcare system, because of the dramatically higher number of potential cases.  A lower percentage of hospitalizations combined with a significantly higher number of overall cases may still lead to higher deaths, particularly among the unvaccinated.  Being fully vaccinated with a booster seems more important now than ever.

[jpaul1]

there's a new problem rising. nurses leaving their job. this is a something only a few talk about, but it's real. nurses are on the front line since 2 years now. some are just exausted. if the variants keep developing with the same dangerosity, we may have a big problem on the hands soon

[Ferrariman]

10 minutes ago, jpaul1 said:

there's a new problem rising. nurses leaving their job. this is a something only a few talk about, but it's real. nurses are on the front line since 2 years now. some are just exausted. if the variants keep developing with the same dangerosity, we may have a big problem on the hands soon

Nurses and others on the front lines have been leaving their jobs for a while now. In some situations the national guard has been called in to help.      During my time on the fire dept i’ve seen many who were assigned to the ambulance suffer burnout. A few even quit and what they experienced was nothing compared to what’s happening today. Honestly, can you blame them?!     Just imagine being a doctor or nurse and while you’re trying to help these people they’re screaming at you in denile that they don’t have covid!  It’s simply unbelievable!

[Robbie C.]

1 hour ago, jpaul1 said:

there's a new problem rising. nurses leaving their job. this is a something only a few talk about, but it's real. nurses are on the front line since 2 years now. some are just exausted. if the variants keep developing with the same dangerosity, we may have a big problem on the hands soon

Old, old news. Just because the media only cycles aware of this from time to time doesn't mean it's new. And it extends past nurses. I was one of those who left the health care sector, and I was more on the support side of things. And it's not just dealing with patients that causes burnout...our leadership was at least as difficult and problematic as any patient.

[mjcmmv]

10 hours ago, jpaul1 said:

there's a new problem rising. nurses leaving their job. this is a something only a few talk about, but it's real. nurses are on the front line since 2 years now. some are just exausted. if the variants keep developing with the same dangerosity, we may have a big problem on the hands soon

My daughter's a teacher, and that profession is experiencing the same problem. Some are retiring early while others are leaving the profession and going into something else. They're exhausted and burning out fast!

 

[Christine]

The nursing shortage is not a new issue, at least in our country. Those who work in nursing have poor working hours (weekends, holidays, shift work) and often receive too little pay for this. Especially in geriatric care, we are often ridiculed and referred to as (sorry for these strong words) "ass wipers". 
For two years now, Covid has been added to the mix with all its variations. In the homes, the staff additionally struggled with the sadness of the residents who had to and have to experience again and again that their relatives are not allowed to visit because, unfortunately, they are often people who refuse vaccination or do not want to be tested. The fact that colleagues also fall ill, resulting in massive extra work, is also a burden.
In our outpatient service, we also have to deal with relatives who do not see eye to eye or even patients who berate us savagely because we consider vaccination important and also vehemently defend this opinion.
All of this leads to nurses giving up at some point because they simply can't do it anymore.

[jpaul1]

1 hour ago, mjcmmv said:

My daughter's a teacher, and that profession is experiencing the same problem. Some are retiring early while others are leaving the profession and going into something else. They're exhausted and burning out fast!

 

this is interesting. but it's not the same problem than leaving a road crash patient, or cancer patient without appropriate care

2 minutes ago, Christine said:

The nursing shortage is not a new issue, at least in our country. Those who work in nursing have poor working hours (weekends, holidays, shift work) and often receive too little pay for this. Especially in geriatric care, we are often ridiculed and referred to as (sorry for these strong words) "ass wipers". 
For two years now, Covid has been added to the mix with all its variations. In the homes, the staff additionally struggled with the sadness of the residents who had to and have to experience again and again that their relatives are not allowed to visit because, unfortunately, they are often people who refuse vaccination or do not want to be tested. The fact that colleagues also fall ill, resulting in massive extra work, is also a burden.
In our outpatient service, we also have to deal with relatives who do not see eye to eye or even patients who berate us savagely because we consider vaccination important and also vehemently defend this opinion.
All of this leads to nurses giving up at some point because they simply can't do it anymore.

this. i was pointing out the worsening factor

[mjcmmv]

1 hour ago, jpaul1 said:

"this is interesting. but it's not the same problem than leaving a road crash patient, or cancer patient without appropriate care"

Since I'm a nurse myself, I'm well aware of that.

But a teacher's shortage is more than just "interesting". With teachers burning out (and that includes Nursing Instructors) we won't have educated students to fill nursing vacancies for years to come. 

 

[Robbie C.]

2 hours ago, jpaul1 said:

this is interesting. but it's not the same problem than leaving a road crash patient, or cancer patient 

This is an extremely shortsighted point of view. No teachers means the flow of nursing personnel from schools to clinics slows. 

[pahonu]

One of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics economic indicators is quit rate.  I was reading a Wall Street Journal article a few weeks ago showing the rapid rise in quit rate in healthcare over the last two years.  It’s certainly more than just anecdotal evidence that we have all talked about.  It is definitely not new as has been stated, but it should not be dismissed as old news either because it is accelerating rather dramatically… and worryingly.  

Also as others commented on, the article described educational services as having its highest quit rate since the statistic has been measured.  I believe it was first measured in the 80’s.  It’s no where near as high as healthcare but the highest in 30-40 years. Teaching is generally a pretty stable career with low turnover after the first several years.  There are already fewer teachers being prepared than will be necessary in the future for the US, and now early retirements due to the pandemic are exacerbating the problem.  

[jpaul1]

35 minutes ago, pahonu said:

... There are already fewer teachers being prepared than will be necessary in the future for the US, and now early retirements due to the pandemic are exacerbating the problem.  

what kind of teachers? medical

 

interesting debate tonight on the news. they were saying that the omicron has reached a level of contagiosity that may make it maybe the most contagious human virus in history. making any confinment measure or similar pointless. as the virus will get through the wall cracks. the maybe good news is that it seems, i insist on seems, the virus is less dangerous than the delta. there will still be an hospital beds problem, but not of ICU

Edited December 27, 2021 by jpaul1