Coronavirus: Updated OP; New OP coming soon

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Coronavirus: Updated OP; New OP coming soon

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

"their own website" being multiple domains of CUNY? With a complete, validated survey? From which multiple goons have already received their antibody test kits?

Are you delusional?

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:05 on May 7, 2020

# ¿ May 7, 2020 01:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

golden bubble posted:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1257476755574718470
https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/1258136404363808769

It is difficult to express the bounds of my frustration with the state of scientific and statistical policy.

# ¿ May 7, 2020 04:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It is remarkable how readily and smoothly you adopt Republican talking points, in contravention of evidence, law and common sense.

# ¿ May 7, 2020 15:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

FlamingLiberal posted:

It feels like the entire DNC has been silent the last two months. Meanwhile Trump has been on TV everyday, and while it is usually a joke there are absolutely people who think that he�s trying

"It feels like" should be the warning sign here. What you, personally, experience in media does not actually reflect what these individuals are doing. Pelosi had a press conference just this morning, as she has every week. Here's just the DNC press release listing. They've done four so far today.

# ¿ May 7, 2020 17:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

You can probably compress those posts a bit.

brugroffil posted:

ok cool what's the overall media coverage of this? how are they getting this message on to the nightly news that people watch, like Trump was doing with his pressers?

where's the indication that the public in general has any idea what the Congressional Democrats' proposals are or how much they trust them to handle this?

This is a really strange burden shift. The Democrats are attempting to do things, and are actually passing the legislation you are asking for, are shivving the Rs (or letting them shiv themselves) and attempting to force them to include goood provisions, despite being in a position of lesser power. You are blaming the Democrats for...not getting adequate press coverage? As the party not in power? For getting less media coverage compared to Trump? For not personally persuading you they are good?

You're blaming the Democrats for your own deliberate ignorance of the situation.

# ¿ May 7, 2020 17:47

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The house does not have the ability to unilaterally pass things into law. It is incredibly dumb to blame the Dems, with less power, for not producing ideal outcomes in a process in which the Republicans have far greater control. It, again, relies on deliberate, motivated ignorance of the situation.

# ¿ May 7, 2020 18:47

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

You are creating an impossible shifting standard to endlessly refocus blame on the Dems, frequently for things they are already doing. In the Coronavirus thread.

Go away.

# ¿ May 7, 2020 19:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Nitrousoxide posted:

I'm not leaving the house until the tests don't involve them shoving a swab into the front of your brain.

Fun fact the CDC protocol (which people generally aren�t following, which is resulting in false negatives) also calls for a �lung aspiration �.

# ¿ May 7, 2020 19:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's applying a sort of suction to your lungs to pull a deeper sputum sample, roughly. Honestly it's not as bad as the swab- but it sounds terrible.

# ¿ May 7, 2020 19:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Stickman posted:

Where are you seeing this in the guidelines? There are a bunch of recommended collection options and the only one that seems to mention aspiration is the nasalpharygeal wash/aspirate which is just washing a bit of liquid around the upper tract and then sucking it back out with a catheter and doesn�t involve the lungs at all. It�s not the primary recommended method either - that�s the simple swab which doesn�t involve any sort of aspiration.

There�s this line, but it�s just for hospitalized patients and involves collecting aspirate not active lung aspiration:

I may be behind, this was when I read their protocol near the start of the pandemic; I will check this PM

# ¿ May 7, 2020 20:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

goethe.cx posted:

blood thinners may help with the most severe cases: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/07/blood-thinners-coronavirus-clots/

enraged_camel, why is this study worthless?

It's a pre-proof of an observational study with a very high n and non-predetermined covariants. Its probitive value is near zero; I'd expect some element of treatment to produce significant effects on some outcome no matter what with that many people.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:50 on May 7, 2020

# ¿ May 7, 2020 23:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

After all this time making GBS threads on IHME I've gone through the work of winnowing through the currently popular models and I think I've narrowed things down to the most useful one.

The MMS-01 Model retains a human element in controls and is specifically designed to operate well in several different possible settings; it's the most forward-looking model, at least among those available in English language translated publications.

Please use this model when discussing what's likely to happen with COVID-19 among friends and family.

VanSandman posted:

Gundam Wing was exactly the kind of earnest stupid that twelve-year old me ate up like cake and asked for seconds.

A group watch during the plague might be fun.

This must be done.

KM I earnestly hope that you never bore witness to any of my childhood GW RP efforts.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:05 on May 13, 2020

# ¿ May 13, 2020 08:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Please, please stop promulgating unvetted preprints.

# ¿ May 15, 2020 17:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Folks, some general rules of thumb about corona research. I have run this past a couple scigoons:

Rules for parsing COVID-19 Science

1. All research- even peer-reviewed, published research, requires close scrutiny. The COVID crisis is also a crisis of scientific integrity. The academic world is as affected by incentives to rush to publication as anywhere else, and a lot of bad research gets published, even in top-tier journals, even from supposedly excellent researchers. The perverse incentives in science publishing have always been a problem, but right now they are a million times worse than usual-worse than they've been in my lifetime, worse than anytime I can think of since the advent of modern scientific methods.

2. Non-critical press coverage of research is almost always promotional. If an article is about "a recent study", and it's not focused on problems with the research, it is relying on press release materials and avails by the people who ran the study. You will not hear about the problems. The story the research promoters have on offer sells, so it gets printed without examination or meaningful context.

3. Antibody research is close to useless for public discussion. We do not know enough about the virus to interpret antibody data in a way that informs broader public policy. At this point, it doesn't tell us about prevalence, or risk, or immunity, or reopening. Getting an understanding of the virus that makes antibody data actually useful will take almost as long as vaccine development itself will.

4. Preprints are garbage. I don't care who the author is. I don't care what they are claiming. If it's valid research, it can get through peer review at a minimum. There's a reason we're seeing so many preprint and early data and bioRxiv findings being reported in the news- it's a way for the people behind the research to circumvent scrutiny and promote themselves. Wait for it to get actually, fully published, and see what other people from the same field, with actual qualifications, say about it. There are a few scigoons on the entire forums who are qualified enough to thoroughly critically parse a preprint, when the preprint is in their specialized field. Even I don't usually do it, because I can only catch relatively straightforward methods, citation and statistics issues. It's a waste of time.

5. Clinicians are not scientists. Yes, some have scientific training, and that helps. But if they're trading on their clinical background to issue opinions on policy or ethics or the science, they're not any more credible for their medical degree.
Being a clinician at a Famous School doesn't mean you actually know anything about interpreting epidemiological statistics, let alone how to translate those stats into meaningful policy. The NYT is trumpeting an editorial from Marty Makary, a surgeon/author/public health prof at Johns Hopkins, calling for reopening. But you know who else was a prominent surgeon, bestselling author and leading professor at JHU?

Bottom line:

You have to read the full study. If the method isn't available, if the data isn't public, if people who know the subject haven't weighed in, it's not actually been subject to critical refutation. It's not actually science. The abstract is not the full study. The abstract is literally an SEO-optimized advertisement for the study.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:39 on May 15, 2020

# ¿ May 15, 2020 23:30

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

briefly (and this is not my expertise area),

1. antibody tests for covid-19 are very inaccurate, especially against the lower bound
2. all of them are recently developed and several manufacturers have massively oversold their accuracy, frequently acting as if they were the equivalent of an infection test
3. having antibodies doesn't mean you are immune, resistant, or even were infected
4. mutations mean there's a risk (and the degree of risk is unclear) that some antibody measures may be misspecified

# ¿ May 15, 2020 23:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I mean, it does almost certainly mean all three of those things. There is very very little reason to think it's not going to play by the standard rules of infectious disease and by the rules other coronaviruses play by. It's just the WHO not wanting to definitively state those things as they are not fully confirmed. Like, they will be in the future unless something really really wild is going on. But no one is gonna make a claim like that and end it with 'well, we assume" even if it's clearly the case.

No. Having a positive antibody response can mean you were exposed to the virus (or possibly one strain of the virus) without an infection. Test measures of antibody response have also been very inaccurate, as I already explained.

# ¿ May 16, 2020 00:03

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

No, I am not interested in facilitating false hope through unreviewed low-quality advertisements pretending to be research. If you have a problem with people posting other poo poo, the way to deal with it is to get them to not post the other poo poo- not respond by posting different kinds of harmful poo poo.

If you know the news about the pandemic is causing you emotional harm, stop seeking out information about the pandemic. You're not informing or protecting yourself, you're feeding a cycle of panic and insecurity.

Discendo Vox posted:

Something that's easy to forget is that this is still a disease with a relatively low death rate, especially if you're otherwise healthy. You do not want to get the virus, mind you, and should still follow all social distancing guidelines, but...

This isn't doomsday. The world will not be ended by this outbreak. Other pandemics involved diseases that spread faster, killed harder, and did more lasting harm to survivors. You and your family are still unlikely to become infected, and if you are infected, you are unlikely to experience lasting harm.

If your family is getting harmed by the constant inflow of information, then this is actually a very good reason to stop taking the information in. It's entirely possible to develop a maladaptive, harmful relationship to checking for information about something. From reading your posts in this thread, I think that you and yours may be at that point.

The feeling that you need to check for this information is a desire for a sense that you can do something to control or mitigate it. Nothing is going to happen during this that will require immediate action; you need to become comfortable with the fact that there's nothing in particular for you to do.

Consider proposing that all internet devices be put in a drawer except for a specific period of the day, and organizing other activities to occupy your family. Make a personal rule about not checking the news during work from home.

...

[this] generally holds true about maladaptive information-seeking behavior by people in a crisis. We seek out information because we are looking for things that will give us a greater sense of control, or because on some unconscious level we believe there has to be some action we should take that we're missing.

This makes us seek out more information, which raises our anxiety, which makes it harder to parse the credibility of sources, which makes us seek out more information...it can be a toxic feedback loop. A situation like this, involving a complex, little-understood threat, lots of misinformation, and isolation in your home with an internet feed is practically ideal circumstances to create that loop.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:37 on May 16, 2020

# ¿ May 16, 2020 03:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

PT6A posted:

Thank you for this, actually, in a huge way. I have probably been giving the horror stories/worst-case-scenarios more weight than they ought to have, and you're completely right that the answer isn't to start paying more attention to hopeful stories, it's to ignore all the lovely, low-quality noise going about until we have more information in either direction. I've been putting too much trust in the bad news, and the answer to that isn't to try to put more trust into the good news, it's to evaluate the bad news more critically and wait for actual hard data in either direction.

That's actually very comforting.

EDIT: And I know I've said for a while: don't assume that bad news is more accurate or correct than good news, and here I am freaking myself out by not following my own drat advice.

No worries, we've all been there!

# ¿ May 16, 2020 06:00

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

NoDamage posted:

That stuff is cool but you're going to call me out for linking to a pre-print by actual researchers? Bullshit.

You're kinda demonstrating the point when you link a smooth corporate site brought to you by the people behind Biohub and Innovative Genomics.

QuarkJets posted:

So I just noticed that Gundam Wing is on Hulu and I'm going to start binge watching this trash on my tv while I do other things on my laptop, thanks for helping me make bad decisions, thread

e: Is this robot helmet guy seriously named Lieutenant Sex? He's talking a lot about Battle Seed, uhhh

Zechs, as in six. Most Gundam Wing characters are number names in different languages.

On the battle seed, though, yes absolutely :dong:

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 09:24 on May 16, 2020

# ¿ May 16, 2020 08:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

QuarkJets posted:

Trap sprung

# ¿ May 16, 2020 09:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

My effortpost had multiple parts. Only one of them was about how preprints are not a useful source of information for this thread, and that part also specifically emphasized that preprints are used as a marketing vector to bypass critical review in reaching lay audiences.

Which is what they do, which is why they're getting spread around in the thread. Which, as multiple people have attested to, is causing panic.

The very first part of my post was that we needed to apply much higher scrutiny to all research, including peer-reviewed and published material.

Please actually read and respond to my post.

# ¿ May 16, 2020 23:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I passed my post by multiple other scientists, including an epidemiologist, before posting it. They specifically had me add to the section on preprints to reiterate their lack of informative value for people outside their field.

My post also started with the point that peer-reviewed, published work was not sufficient for "faith". Again, actually engage with what I've written. My post was about evaluating covid-19 information as it's entering the thread, not some critique of the open access movement. The thread is not populated by epidemiologists. Your arguments from futility and personal experiences with the problems of peer review are not a good reason to spread advertisements-by-preprint in this space. It's intensely counterproductive.

# ¿ May 16, 2020 23:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Amniotic posted:

Hm. Also not really what's at issue in what Discendo Vox is saying.

They really, really want to conflate the thread with the broader academic review process, and make this some sort of trial of the open access movement. Their critical reading skills ain't too good.

# ¿ May 17, 2020 00:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I would be happy to contribute, as I already have been. The French or Stanford studies may be useful entry points simply because the audience already has largely understood that they've been debunked.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Aug 10, 2020

# ¿ May 17, 2020 20:00

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

IP you do understand the proposal still involves the normal clinical trials process, right? They're just making the product prior to clinical trials knowing that most if it will be disposed of as inferior/ineffective/unsafe.

# ¿ May 17, 2020 20:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Fritz the Horse posted:

Would you happen to have a link to a free, full-text version of either/both?

French (Gautret et al, aka the HCQ one):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996?via%3Dihub

Stanford (Bendavid et al, aka the ruined Jon Ioannidis's reputation one):
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1?versioned=true

Stanford revision:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v2

I find that bad research is frequently more effective for teaching critical evaluation of sources than good research. I collect and study bad scientific research, though usually in nutrition. If you would like other publicly available bad covid science in those areas (lots of plant derivative and nutrition claims, particularly out of the TCM vein and promoted by US disruptors), I can provide additional examples for discussion.

# ¿ May 17, 2020 20:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Science and Nature also have some of the most severe review problems, due to internal politics and their public-facing nature. See my earlier post on sourcing heuristics for the thread.

# ¿ May 17, 2020 20:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It varies intensely by sub-print and article to article. There's not good review consistency among staff.

# ¿ May 17, 2020 21:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

This varies heavily by field and even subfield, particularly in terms of subject competitiveness. In plenty of smaller or less well funded settings the scoop incentive isn�t there and the communication occurs circa publication both formally and informally, in conferences and more directly. Prepublication promotion isn�t a universal norm, because publication review is productive and the audience is smaller (or blinding is still valued).

The Oldest Man posted:

Yeah and if some bad poo poo starts to come out of those clinical trials, having 300 million doses of the poo poo on hand waiting to go out across the country definitely won't create a perverse incentive to suppress those results and claim everything is all good long enough to get everyone vaccinated so we can open 'er up.

They�re doing it with several different candidates, with the explicit plan to dispose of those that fail. This is one of the least objectionable programmatic activities involved. Please put your conspiracies back in your pants.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:43 on May 17, 2020

# ¿ May 17, 2020 21:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The discussion of preprints became plausible because it's happening in a different thread, and because we are doing the selection of preprints, for the purpose of education and critical analysis. If this is what it takes to get people doing the hard work of breaking studies down, great- but if that's the case, we need to be the ones serving as the gatekeeper. Not twitter, not PloS, and not a PR office.

The entire distinction here is that this thread is not the broader scientific community. It's a place where laypeople- many of them under-resourced or under signficant emotional pressure- are trying to find information about the virus- people who do not have your experience. The vast majority of posters here do not have the capacity to parse studies in detail, and are trying to understand how they are affected by new evidence. It's why several people wound up basically asking for permission to stop reading it, because the uncertainty and stress and contradictory information was hurting them. In addition, preprints that people are getting and sharing in this thread are much more likely to be here because they are bad. People are getting, and spreading, preprints that are getting pushed through conventional and social media as either advertising, to chase reactions, or as a panic response. That's why I described the rule of thumb for the thread.

# ¿ May 18, 2020 00:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Stickman posted:

I still think this is fine place to discuss preprints. They're being discussed by the media and any preprint that's big enough to hit the news will have multiple statements about it's potential pitfalls from qualified scientists (and there's plenty of decently qualified goons in this very thread).

Media narratives and policies are currently being driven by non-peer-reviewed research and it's ridiculous to avoid discussing that just because you don't think people are qualified to understand the discussion.

It was a rule of thumb about credibility. It is very frustrating how many different ways people can reinterpret what I write to find objections to it.

# ¿ May 18, 2020 02:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The Lone Badger posted:

What worries me about OWS is that if the tests come back 'yeah this vaccine kinda works but isn't ideal' are they really going to throw all 300m units in the bin? Or will Capitalism happen and they get sold through a shell company to develiping nations?

This is extremely unlikely. The process is too visible and the stocks proposal didn't come from within the administration.

# ¿ May 18, 2020 02:30

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Fallom posted:

Do you have a specific reason why you think the preprint talking about actual cases of people recovering from COVID pneumonia is awful for us to read

It seems like the post that spurred a ton of lectures so I'm curious why people picked that one instead of the ones talking about how people probably shouldn't quit smoking because nicotine might make people invulnerable to COVID, which invited little pushback

I was writing in response to a general pattern after taking a mental health break from some of the horrendous posting in the thread earlier. It's worth reiterating again that I provided multiple separate rules of thumb for evaluating sources.

# ¿ May 18, 2020 07:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The initial Remdesivir study is out. Bear in mind this is the Gilead-affiliated study that changed endpoints and did an early data release; the study is still not using all data. Several parts of the circumstances stink, but it's going to at least take time to evaluate- the methods involved are complicated and not immediately obviously wrong.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

# ¿ May 23, 2020 00:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

HCQ's claimed positive effects come with severe side effects.

Discendo Vox posted:

The initial Remdesivir study is out. Bear in mind this is the Gilead-affiliated study that changed endpoints and did an early data release; the study is still not using all data. Several parts of the circumstances stink, but it's going to at least take time to evaluate- the methods involved are complicated and not immediately obviously wrong.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

Commentators are zeroing in on a problem with subgroup power in this; it looks like it may have indirectly rendered some groups more sensitive or less sensitive to claimed outcomes, and it's also not clear whether they've controlled for multi-test effects.

# ¿ May 23, 2020 01:03

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

pls no nutrition science derail

# ¿ May 25, 2020 01:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

nngh, y'all triggering me with this "processed" poo poo. Find more specific words; "processed" is empirically useless pseudoscience that's spread as a marketing term.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 14:32 on May 27, 2020

# ¿ May 27, 2020 14:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Stickman posted:

Feel free to suggest an alternative term that will easily identify the cured and preserved meats selection in a casual conversation about food selection based on taste.

Stickman posted:

cured and preserved meats

But if you're going to make health claims about it (which several people have done), you're still gonna have to be more specific- let alone the claims about "processing" in meat substitutes.

# ¿ May 27, 2020 15:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

This isn't Creative Convention, and I think they have rules against snuff writing these days. If you can't resist the urge to do this (in the coronavirus thread), go away.

# ¿ May 28, 2020 13:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The problem is that the measures are used as justification for reopening, and are leveraged to normalize reopening- and their inadequacy is known when they are used for this purpose.

# ¿ May 28, 2020 14:59

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Coronavirus: Updated OP; New OP coming soon

«‹›8 »