Social Distancing Made Ridiculous

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24
Social Distancing Made Ridiculous

So while we are all doing what we can to flatten the curve and practise social distancing, even the staunchest social distancing advocates must admit that sometimes things are taken to a bit of an extreme. What kinds of things have you seen?

For one, I have seen urinals taped off in men's washrooms. Why? When guys use urinals they already try and space one between themselves and others naturally. And even if they are forced alongside someone else, it's not a close encounter that anyone is eager to prolong. Guys just want to do their business and go along. If a couple of guys end up beside each other inadvertently, it's not going to be long enough to pose a serious transmission risk.

Aristotleded24

Now doctors have weighed in on how to date:

Quote:

Skip kissing and consider wearing a mask when having sex with a new partner to protect yourself from catching the coronavirus, Canada's chief public health officer said on Wednesday, adding that going solo remains the lowest-risk sexual option in a pandemic.

Dr. Theresa Tam said in a statement there is little chance of catching COVID-19 from semen or vaginal fluid, but sexual activity with someone new does increase the risk of contracting the virus, particularly if there is close contact like kissing.

"Like other activities during COVID-19 that involve physical closeness, there are some things you can do to minimize the risk of getting infected and spreading the virus," she said.

Skip kissing, avoid face-to-face closeness, wear a mask that covers your mouth and nose, and monitor yourself and your partner for symptoms ahead of any sexual activity, Tam said.

"The lowest-risk sexual activity during COVID-19 involves yourself alone," she added.

Sexual health is an important part of overall health, Tam said, and by taking precautions, "Canadians can find ways to enjoy physical intimacy while safeguarding the progress we have all made containing COVID-19."

Wow. It's always been a good idea to be very careful about who you date and have close physical contact with because of STIs. Stop kissing to avoid the coronavirus? Many people who get the coronavirus will recover from it without the need for medical intervention. How many STIs can be resolved on their own without seeing a doctor? Wear a mask during sexual activity? What about condoms?

This is why public health officials have no credibilty. They are going overboard to over-police and restrict individual actions, they have clung to their models and early assumptions about an unknown virus without applying any common sense (remember the click-bait picutres of people hanging out at the beach when being outside in the sunshine is one of the least likely places where a respiratory infection will spread) and the big-picture items that drive covid spread they are silent on.

By the way, do people who are advocating that people stay inside their bubbles and not interact with anyone new realize that everyone in a bubble was new to each other at some point?

Bacchus

So if my wife and I wear masks and have sex though a glory hole we should be safe?

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Casual sex can be dangerous and certainly the practice of using condoms is critical but among some groups, it doesn't happen and STIs incidences are high. Similarly, casual sex among young people with close mouth to mouth contact will pose a danger for transmitting COVID-19. Maybe they will only suffer mild symptoms or even no symptoms but what if they work or interact with more vulnerable people? All of a sudden their night of passion may put a number of people at risk of severe illness if not death.

 

Aristotleded24

I have had enough of this culture of moralizing, shaming, and frankly, bullying of people who go on about living their normal lives in the covid era, especially since I would expect people on the left to understand larger systemic issues at play. People make all kinds of decisions they shouldn't that put other people's health at risk. IV drug users are putting paramedics and emergency room staff at risk of serious blood-borne diseases if they overdose. Yet we don't tolerate that kind of moralizing for a second, and instead we advocate for harm reduction strategies like needle exchanges and safe injection sites. Women who drink alcohol or do drugs while pregnant are setting up their children to have serious life-long difficulties, yet we have had many discussions on these forums over the years about whether the messaging directed towards women is useful. Should pregnant women who do drugs or alcohol be forced into treatment against their will? That's a huge ethical dilema right there. Why is this all of a sudden acceptable now with the coronavirus? If these young people do interact regularly with vulnerable people, then I presume they are taking precautions in all their lives to avoid covid, including in their sex lives. Which brings me to the bigger point that casual sex has never been a good idea, covid or not. But instead of using that as a jump off to say, "while we are worried about covid, remember that sexual activity carries risks of other diseases so be careful, take time getting to know your partner, use condoms, be tested for STIs, yada yada yada," they are simply saying ridiculous things about kissing and masks while missing the bigger picture. And please do not get me started on the hypocrisy of moralizing around the idea that everyone needs to stay home and not have private parties with our friends only for it to be okay to take to the streets and protest as people did over the summer.

I get that we have to make some collective sacrifices for public health. But the truth is, we are all different in our perception of and our tolerance of taking risks. How far do we go before we treat people like adults and accept that they will make decisions about the level of risk they wish to take, even if we don't agree with those decisions? The alternative is to live in a society where we rely on the government to protect us completely and our role as citizens is to obey without question. That's not the kind of world I want to live in.

Aristotleded24

Aristotleded24 wrote:
For one, I have seen urinals taped off in men's washrooms. Why? When guys use urinals they already try and space one between themselves and others naturally. And even if they are forced alongside someone else, it's not a close encounter that anyone is eager to prolong. Guys just want to do their business and go along. If a couple of guys end up beside each other inadvertently, it's not going to be long enough to pose a serious transmission risk.

I've also seen toilet stalls in washrooms closed off for the same reason.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

I believe that we as a society should make a collective decision to end the COVID pandemic as soon as possible, with the least ammount of loss of life. I believe that we should make whatever sacrifices are necessary to achieve this, after which life can go on without any COVID restrictions, without putting anyones health at risk from this virus.

If human society had taken an approach to COVID that I could uncritically support, the COVID pandemic would be OVER by now. As it is in Wuhan, where they have had no new COVID cases since May. Wuhan was able to have large music festivals last month with NO fear of COVID, because of the lockdown they endured earlier in the year.

I'm alao a aocialist who believes that the governments could have ended evictions and rent payments, both residential and commercial, until the pandemic was over; and could have provided every citizen with $2,000 a month until the pandemic was over (clawing it back later from people who have enough money that they don't need it). This way no one would have needed to oppose taking the meaures necessary to end the pandemic asap, with the least loss of life, in order to make ends meet.

Aristotleded24

Left Turn wrote:
I believe that we as a society should make a collective decision to end the COVID pandemic as soon as possible, with the least ammount of loss of life. I believe that we should make whatever sacrifices are necessary to achieve this, after which life can go on without any COVID restrictions, without putting anyones health at risk from this virus.

If human society had taken the approach and approach to COVID that I could uncritically support, the COVID pandemic would be OVER by now. As it is in Wuhan, where they have had no new COVID cases since May. Wuhan was able to have large music festivals last month with NO fear of COVID, because of the lockdown they endured earlier in the year.

Except the lockdown measures have led to increased drug overdoses, suicides, treatable cancers becoming terminal, will cause large famines in Asia and Africa, and the deaths of disabled children in China.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Except the lockdown measures have led to increased drug overdoses, suicides, treatable cancers becoming terminal, will cause large famines in Asia and Africa, and the deaths of disabled children in China.

Well obviously we should have safe supply of drugs for those who need it, governments should house the homeless in government owned housing (I believe in taking purpose built rental housing out of the private market entirely).

As for people dying from not getting necessary surgeries, might I remind you that all necessary surgeries were cancelled earlier in the year under a COVID response that failed to eliminate the virus.

Amd people who have mental health issues should have been provided with free virtual menatal health counselling during the pandemic (and after it, as I support counselling services being made available for free to everyone who needs them as part of our health care system).

Aristotleded24

Left Turn wrote:
Amd people who have mental health issues should have been provided with free virtual menatal health counselling during the pandemic (and after it, as I support counselling services being made available for free to everyone who needs them as part of our health care system).

No. Virtual mental health options are not a substitue for having healthy, in-person communities people can rely on, and the negative impact of excessive screen time on mental health has been well-documented pre-covid. This response has been so over-focused on an inflated fear that covid is the only threat to life and safety, comlpetely disregarding everything else that is vital to human vitality and flourishing.

Ken Burch

Bacchus wrote:

So if my wife and I wear masks and have sex though a glory hole we should be safe?

Well yeah...if you're sure it's your wife on the other side of the hole...

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
I have had enough of this culture of moralizing, shaming, and frankly, bullying of people who go on about living their normal lives in the covid era, especially since I would expect people on the left to understand larger systemic issues at play.  

There has been no bullying or moralizing and the only "shaming" as been the usual sort for scofflaws. Understanding larger systemic issues doesn't change the impact of Covid 19 on those who catch it and on the health care workers that risk their own lives to care for them. I think people wo deliberately make life harder for health care workers should be shamed.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
IV drug users are putting paramedics and emergency room staff at risk of serious blood-borne diseases if they overdose. Yet we don't tolerate that kind of moralizing for a second, and instead we advocate for harm reduction strategies like needle exchanges and safe injection sites.  

We don't tolerate moralizing because it is useless and doesn't reduce the number of addicts so doesn't do anything to protect anyone. Harm reduction strategies are not supported to be nice to addicts they are supported because they work to protect addicts, and society from addicts, and it's cheaper than law enforcement approach. It's simply a more effective approach.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 Women who drink alcohol or do drugs while pregnant are setting up their children to have serious life-long Should pregnant women who do drugs or alcohol be forced into treatment against their will? That's a huge ethical dilema right there.

No there isn't. Trying to force women into treatment is ineffective because it leads women to avoid having their pregnancies monitored. Furthermore pregnant women do want help both for the pregnancy and the addiction. There is a serious shortage of addiction services. There aren't enough residential addiction programs which are likely much cheaper than prisons anyway and you wouldn't have to force women into treatment.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
If these young people do interact regularly with vulnerable people, then I presume they are taking precautions in all their lives to avoid covid, including in their sex lives. 

Yes of course they are but there in insufficient N 95s to provide them to households at the rate needed to treat home environments like hospital environments. Not everyone has multiple washrooms or the ability or desire to separate members of the household. For example do you want to forbid your 6 year old from having any contact with your newborn infant without being freshly showered and fully outfitted in PPEs? Personally in such a situation I would prefer to help my child with distance learning.

I would have done much better with distance learning. I have ADD. I don't learn from lectures and taking notes is torture. Online classes I get straight As. Piece of cake if I can do all my learning through reading which allows me to take notes and allows me to go back if I lose focus. I LOVE online learning. Children that get bullied at school are probably also relieved not to be forced to go there.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 Which brings me to the bigger point that casual sex has never been a good idea, covid or not. But instead of using that as a jump off to say, "while we are worried about covid, remember that sexual activity carries risks of other diseases so be careful, take time getting to know your partner, use condoms, be tested for STIs, yada yada yada," they are simply saying ridiculous things about kissing and masks while missing the bigger picture. And please do not get me started on the hypocrisy of moralizing around the idea that everyone needs to stay home and not have private parties with our friends only for it to be okay to take to the streets and protest as people did over the summer. 

Protests weren't encouraged they were tolerated as the lessor evil but authorities should have been encouraging silent protests and sit ins with masking and distancing rather than demonstrations. Organizers themselves should have and should be more mindful.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
How far do we go before we treat people like adults and accept that they will make decisions about the level of risk they wish to take, even if we don't agree with those decisions? 

As far as we can before they start forcing risk on others who don't want to take the risk, for example, essential workers. Grocery store workers were forced to work or starve. They should not be forced to be exposed to people who don't have the common sense to protect themselves and others.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 The alternative is to live in a society where we rely on the government to protect us completely and our role as citizens is to obey without question. That's not the kind of world I want to live in.

Extreme much? I want to live in an educated society that elects a responsible government capable of managing the country in such a way that maximizes our potential to live together safely and harmoniously. We are unlikely to arrive at utopia anytime soon so we are far from reaching that goal.

Our constitution is pretty good at protecting our individual rights and it is a living document that grows along with our understanding.

Your idea of freedom infringes on the rights of people to act collectively for the well-being of the whole.

100% of taxes are an infringement on our individual freedom as are all traffic laws.

You want absolute freedom you have to live alone off the grid and not rely on other humans to do things for you like build roads and run grocery stores and clothing stores and farms. If you want to live in a community then you have to respect the will of the majority as long as it doesn't contravene constitutional rights.

Animals living in the wild have absolute freedom. Humans, as animals, have the capacity to choose that route. "Rights" are a human construct bestowed by humans on other humans. Absolute freedom means no rights. Although I guess "freedom" is a human construct as well.

What I am saying is there is no such thing as rights or freedom. We can live like animals not because we have the right to but because we are animals. We can all go run off in the forest and live alone but humans are pack animals. We survive by depending on each other to perform functions that contribute to group survival. Hunters don't share the spoils to be nice. They share the spoils because without the group they perish.

Within a democracy the government is in the service of the people and can only govern with the collective consent of the governed.

You frequently make reference to what position leftists should take but ideologies aren't straight-jackets. There is no allegiance to the ideology as though it is a religion that dictates the proper response to everything.

I agree with you that the government is not acting in our best interests across the board and is manipulative rather than informative. That does not mean that all the measures taken are unreasonable or that they are not acting with the consent of the people.

 

 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
 Women who drink alcohol or do drugs while pregnant are setting up their children to have serious life-long Should pregnant women who do drugs or alcohol be forced into treatment against their will? That's a huge ethical dilema right there.

No there isn't. Trying to force women into treatment is ineffective because it leads women to avoid having their pregnancies monitored. Furthermore pregnant women do want help both for the pregnancy and the addiction. There is a serious shortage of addiction services. There aren't enough residential addiction programs which are likely much cheaper than prisons anyway and you wouldn't have to force women into treatment.

What if there are treatment spots available and a pregnant woman still refuses treatment?

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
And please do not get me started on the hypocrisy of moralizing around the idea that everyone needs to stay home and not have private parties with our friends only for it to be okay to take to the streets and protest as people did over the summer. 

Protests weren't encouraged they were tolerated as the lessor evil but authorities should have been encouraging silent protests and sit ins with masking and distancing rather than demonstrations. Organizers themselves should have and should be more mindful.

The whole point of protesting is to challeng rules and authority, so following guidelines set down by authorities would have been counter-productive. Besides, it doesn't matter how creative the protesters are, if the protests are a threat to power, those in power will either use the existing social distancing rules or come up with new ones to target the protest group.

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
How far do we go before we treat people like adults and accept that they will make decisions about the level of risk they wish to take, even if we don't agree with those decisions? 

As far as we can before they start forcing risk on others who don't want to take the risk, for example, essential workers. Grocery store workers were forced to work or starve. They should not be forced to be exposed to people who don't have the common sense to protect themselves and others.

There is risk in everything. Where do you draw the line? Just because a person is afraid of something, that doesn't necessarily obligate everyone else to change his or her behaviour to make that person feel better. You're never going to have a situation where everyone feels good. Sometimes we just have to accept that people do things we don't like and move on rather than demanding they change everything to suit our emotions. I see people doing things all the time that make me feel bad for some reason, but I just move on.

Pondering wrote:
Our constitution is pretty good at protecting our individual rights and it is a living document that grows along with our understanding.

If my house is broken into and I don't report it to the police, even the best police agency can't help me. Sure we have the laws, but the orders have not been tested in court. We are also living in unprecedented times. A six-month state of emergency here in Manitoba? Who ever came up with that braindead idea?

Pondering wrote:
What I am saying is there is no such thing as rights or freedom.

On that we can agree