Vaccine

Kicker 2.0 said:
Your recommendation was to rip them out and build housing on them.

just like your recommendation to do away with HS sports because not everyone can make the team.
Click to expand...
I am fully capable of expressing my own opinion, thanks.

Housing:
My first preference is to rezone existing areas for higher density. I point out golf courses when people make BS arguments like “there is no land”.

High School Sports:
Cancel varsity because some kids can’t make the team? Not what I said either. I said create IM programs with equal field access. Skilled athletes are no more and no less important than any other student, and resource allocation should reflect that.
 
espola said:
Pantophobia? I had to look that one up.

I myself have a fear of misplaced apostrophes.

Don't fear the apostrophe

grammarguide.copydesk.org grammarguide.copydesk.org

Actually, it's more like a distaste than a fear.
Click to expand...
I'll lead with this to reduce your fear/distaste level - "Charlie Brown's" should have been Charlie Browns. I appreciate the correction.

espola said:
Pantophobia? I had to look that one up.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I can associate with someone old enough to have watched Peanuts growing up who didn't know this was Lucy's diagnosis for Charlie Brown.

espola said:
And what is missing from the transparency about gain of function research?
Click to expand...
www.newsweek.com

The Time for Transparency About COVID-19 Origins is Now

This has been a good week for transparency—and a bad week for Dr. Anthony Fauci.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
dad4 said:
I am fully capable of expressing my own opinion, thanks.

Housing:
My first preference is to rezone existing areas for higher density. I point out golf courses when people make BS arguments like “there is no land”.

High School Sports:
Cancel varsity because some kids can’t make the team? Not what I said either. I said create IM programs with equal field access. Skilled athletes are no more and no less important than any other student, and resource allocation should reflect that.
Click to expand...
Always nice to change your stance or slightly alter what you said so it doesn’t sound so contrary.

maybe stick to how we are going to mandate our way out of the Covid pandemic…..
 
dad4 said:
I am fully capable of expressing my own opinion, thanks.

Housing:
My first preference is to rezone existing areas for higher density. I point out golf courses when people make BS arguments like “there is no land”.

High School Sports:
Cancel varsity because some kids can’t make the team? Not what I said either. I said create IM programs with equal field access. Skilled athletes are no more and no less important than any other student, and resource allocation should reflect that.
Click to expand...
Wait weren't you just blaming the Los Angeles poor performance despite its mandates on the "Los Angeles variant" and high density housing?

I'll take this as an optimistic ray of sunshine that you actually believe the pandemic is ending and therefore we should no longer (cold/flu/rsv/noro notwithstanding) be concerned about silly things like high density housing and masking?

Did it take a climate change conversation to actually turn a corner (I'll take it!)?
 
Grace T. said:
Wait weren't you just blaming the Los Angeles poor performance despite its mandates on the "Los Angeles variant" and high density housing?

I'll take this as an optimistic ray of sunshine that you actually believe the pandemic is ending and therefore we should no longer (cold/flu/rsv/noro notwithstanding) be concerned about silly things like high density housing and masking?

Did it take a climate change conversation to actually turn a corner (I'll take it!)?
Click to expand...

p.s. in the end it appears that there is something just different in the areas that line the pacific from Vancouver to Monterrey. I'm open to the idea that it's behavioral or density but then it doesn't explain some areas like what Marin just did, why Oakland isn't exempt, and Los Angeles (which mandated harder than anyone on the west coast..."Los Angeles variant" notwithstanding).

I'm beginning to settle on the weather patterns along the pacific northwest. The weather in the Bay Area is generally nice all year. Martha's Vineyard and Vermont are both highly vaxxed and got a substantial bump despite their generally more cautious behavior and lower density. Los Angeles, by contrast, has a summer where the heat drives people indoors and aircon is running, and a winter which is generally limited to a month from late December to late January, and not surprisingly gets these summer surges that look like the south but aren't as bad and a winter surge that breaks when the days start to turn longer and warmer and its sixty outside in winter again.

polimath.substack.com

Every State's COVID Numbers in Context, Jan 2022

The positives are sky high but we can find encouragement that the severity of COVID is decreasing
polimath.substack.com polimath.substack.com
 
The case against masks in schools....the entire mask debate would have gone better for the promaskers if they hadn't been out of step with Europe and insisted that even 2 year olds had to be masked.

www.theatlantic.com

The Case Against Masks at School

Districts should rethink imposing on millions of children an intervention that provides little discernible benefit.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
 
Grace T. said:
Wait weren't you just blaming the Los Angeles poor performance despite its mandates on the "Los Angeles variant" and high density housing?

I'll take this as an optimistic ray of sunshine that you actually believe the pandemic is ending and therefore we should no longer (cold/flu/rsv/noro notwithstanding) be concerned about silly things like high density housing and masking?

Did it take a climate change conversation to actually turn a corner (I'll take it!)?
Click to expand...
You don’t think there was a link between LA’s substandard housing and their covid problems? Given your views on in-home transmission, it seems an obvious conclusion.

Agree the pandemic phase is ending, or at least it looks like it.

That doesn’t mean I think we can ignore housing. I still think it is pretty crappy to expect others to live with 3 families in one apartment so they can mow our lawns and make our lattes.
 
dad4 said:
You don’t think there was a link between LA’s substandard housing and their covid problems? Given your views on in-home transmission, it seems an obvious conclusion.

Agree the pandemic phase is ending, or at least it looks like it.

That doesn’t mean I think we can ignore housing. I still think it is pretty crappy to expect others to live with 3 families in one apartment so they can mow our lawns and make our lattes.
Click to expand...

Yet you support high density housing to end climate change? How do you reconcile?

p.s. yes I think there's a link but the outbreaks in LA occurred in zips as well which weren't just substandard housing including in areas into the OC and San Bernardino and Riverside counties so it doesn't explain all of the story. Neither does it explain why Oakland despite having similar problems wasn't as complete of a meltdown as Los Angeles.
 
Grace T. said:
Yet you support high density housing to end climate change? How do you reconcile?

p.s. yes I think there's a link but the outbreaks in LA occurred in zips as well which weren't just substandard housing including in areas into the OC and San Bernardino and Riverside counties so it doesn't explain all of the story. Neither does it explain why Oakland despite having similar problems wasn't as complete of a meltdown as Los Angeles.
Click to expand...
Nothing to reconcile, really. It only sounds like a conflict because you’re using one word, density, for two completely different concepts.

Does density mean homes per square mile? Or does density mean people per home? They are not the same thing at all.

The climate problem is too few homes per square mile, causing longer commutes as people drive further to find housing.

The covid problem is too many people per home, causing more in home transmission.

Both are consequences of too few homes. One problem is too few homes per square mile, and the other problem is too few homes per million people.
 
dad4 said:
Nothing to reconcile, really. It only sounds like a conflict because you’re using one word, density, for two completely different concepts.

Does density mean homes per square mile? Or does density mean people per home? They are not the same thing at all.

The climate problem is too few homes per square mile, causing longer commutes as people drive further to find housing.

The covid problem is too many people per home, causing more in home transmission.

Both are consequences of too few homes. One problem is too few homes per square mile, and the other problem is too few homes per million people.
Click to expand...

Ah I see. That's where the disconnect is. First when activists talk about housing density it's not just the commute they are talking about. They want the homes to be smaller because of the heating/aircon issues and no lawns (because of the fertilizer/maintenance issues).

As to the COVID problem, you still have an issue. It's not just the apartment rooms but also the shared plumbling, vents, sewage, elevators, common spaces, laundry rooms and garages of shared higher density living situations...the data on that early on out of China was quite clear, where because of the one child policy and the older people live out in rural villages you didn't have people crammed into the apartments (but apartments crammed into buildings). Further, you have a building issue as concrete and other building materials also contribute to global warming....you are now building more housing for the poor to break them up in different apartments instead of cramming them into one apartment which is the opposite direction you want to go.

The two problems you articulate (few homes per square mile, and two few homes per million people) are actually more linked than you want to think (probably because you don't want to see the implication). A review of Soviet housing (and their resulting horrible prescription) is illustrative. And if you think Americans are going to give up their single family homes for the Kruskayas, you're crazy....not going to happen in the absence of the Bolivaran revolution.
 
Grace T. said:
Ah I see. That's where the disconnect is. First when activists talk about housing density it's not just the commute they are talking about. They want the homes to be smaller because of the heating/aircon issues and no lawns (because of the fertilizer/maintenance issues).

As to the COVID problem, you still have an issue. It's not just the apartment rooms but also the shared plumbling, vents, sewage, elevators, common spaces, laundry rooms and garages of shared higher density living situations...the data on that early on out of China was quite clear, where because of the one child policy and the older people live out in rural villages you didn't have people crammed into the apartments (but apartments crammed into buildings). Further, you have a building issue as concrete and other building materials also contribute to global warming....you are now building more housing for the poor to break them up in different apartments instead of cramming them into one apartment which is the opposite direction you want to go.

The two problems you articulate (few homes per square mile, and two few homes per million people) are actually more linked than you want to think (probably because you don't want to see the implication). A review of Soviet housing (and their resulting horrible prescription) is illustrative. And if you think Americans are going to give up their single family homes for the Kruskayas, you're crazy....not going to happen in the absence of the Bolivaran revolution.
Click to expand...
p.s. I'd venture to say that people will be more reluctant in the future (except for maybe SINKs and people who otherwise can't afford it) to use dense housing because of what's happened in the pandemic. We CERTAINLY have seen that effect in Europe...and here my kid for a while trained with another kid who rode out the pandemic in a beach house (what's not to like...zoom work in pajamas, ocean views, big house with fast wifi and each of the kids has a room, one of the few people that was actually allowed to use the beach, they even did a BBQ beachside....heck if I had that layout I doubt we would have had to do the stint in Utah)....the issue being if evil goalie is right and coronavirus resurges sometime in the future into a monster variant, or if we get another bad flu epidemic for which we are overdo anyways, or we get some new "Contagion" type style bug, people are going to be reluctant to risk lockdown with children or a spouse in high density housing. The only way you accomplish that is by force or subtle coercion (by making nondense housing more expensive), but in the later case you are essentially making people poorer which isn't exactly going to win you over friends and influence people (as November 2022 is beginning to shape up); hence we are back again to the Bolivarian revolution.

p.s. our initial plan for the pandemic by coinkidink had been to shelter at my folks beach house. However, a. it wasn't right on the water but across the street from the water, b. didn't have a big back yard which would have made the situation actually a bit worse for us, and c. got caught up in the eviction moratorium which created another mess because my parents relied on that rental income and couldn't even forgo it to give the kids a pleasant lockdown.
 
Grace T. said:
Ah I see. That's where the disconnect is. First when activists talk about housing density it's not just the commute they are talking about. They want the homes to be smaller because of the heating/aircon issues and no lawns (because of the fertilizer/maintenance issues).

As to the COVID problem, you still have an issue. It's not just the apartment rooms but also the shared plumbling, vents, sewage, elevators, common spaces, laundry rooms and garages of shared higher density living situations...the data on that early on out of China was quite clear, where because of the one child policy and the older people live out in rural villages you didn't have people crammed into the apartments (but apartments crammed into buildings). Further, you have a building issue as concrete and other building materials also contribute to global warming....you are now building more housing for the poor to break them up in different apartments instead of cramming them into one apartment which is the opposite direction you want to go.

The two problems you articulate (few homes per square mile, and two few homes per million people) are actually more linked than you want to think (probably because you don't want to see the implication). A review of Soviet housing (and their resulting horrible prescription) is illustrative. And if you think Americans are going to give up their single family homes for the Kruskayas, you're crazy....not going to happen in the absence of the Bolivaran revolution.
Click to expand...
Not all housing activists agree that homes should be smaller, or rely on shared indoor space. I am in favor of more square feet, not less.

I don’t see the argument that elevators are a major respiratory disease factor. The 12 hours in the house with 9 other people are more important than the 15 seconds in the elevator with 3 people.

Yes, there is a climate cost to construction. But it is considerably smaller than the climate cost from transportation when you prohibit construction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top