Private Party App Pulled From App Store by Apple (arstechnica.com) 193
Eric Bangeman, writing for ArsTechnica: Despite over 82 million cases and over 1.75 million deaths due to COVID-19, many people are bound and determined to carry on with normal life. For some, that includes attending Saturday night ragers, just like they did in the Before Times. Reports of yet another secret party being broken up by law enforcement have become distressingly common. Getting guests for these secret parties is at least slightly more difficult now that Apple has pulled Vybe Together -- an app with a tagline that invited users to "get their party on" -- from the App Store. The Verge pointed out that the app had largely been flying under the radar until a tweet from Taylor Lorenz of the New York Times brought some unwelcome, but much-needed scrutiny to the app. One of Lorenz's tweets highlighted Vybe Together's TikTok account, which had posted videos of unmasked people partying indoors while advertising New Years Eve parties. According to Business Insider, TikTok has since removed Vybe Together's account for violating community guidelines.
The stupidity of some people is astounding (Score:2, Insightful)
If Covid were a lot mode deadly, it would probably wipe out the human race, because of too many hardcore stupid people that are incapable of actually understanding anything.
Re:The stupidity of some people is astounding (Score:4, Insightful)
If COVID were more deadly, it would limit its own spread. This is a well-known property of viral epidemics.
Re:The stupidity of some people is astounding (Score:5, Informative)
This is a common, and dangerous error. A disease that kills *quickly* tends to limit its spread. It's got nothing to do with raw lethality. Untreated HIV infection is nearly 100% lethal, yet it's one of the top three plagues in history and would probably have moved up a couple of slots if we hadn't developed effective treatments.
COVID-19's survival chances are unchanged if your immune system kills it after two weeks or if you drop dead after two weeks. It spreads because it's contagious before either of those things happen. It's particularly dangerous because it's contagious before you look sick so all the smart monkeys can avoid you.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a common, and dangerous error. A disease that kills *quickly* tends to limit its spread
And that is a very common mistake you made there: Not reading what was actually written. Where did I say anything about "quickly"? Oh, right, I did not. I said "deadly". Obviously it killing quicker would limit its spreading speed. That is pandemology 101. But if it still kills at the same speed, but many more of those infected? Then that nice imaginary mental safety net you built there for yourself stops working entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is a very common mistake you made there: Not reading what was actually written. Where did I say anything about "quickly"? Oh, right, I did not. I said "deadly".
You didn't say that. But that post wasn't replying to you. Here was the context:
You said:
If Covid were a lot mode (sic) deadly, it would probably wipe out the human race, because of too many hardcore stupid people that are incapable of actually understanding anything.
lessSockMorePuppet said:
If COVID were more deadly, it would limit its own spread. This is a well-known property of viral epidemics.
ceoyoyo said:
This is a common, and dangerous error. A disease that kills *quickly* tends to limit its spread.
Re: (Score:2)
My mistake. Sometimes it is hard to determine who actually responded to whom. My apologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I noticed just yesterday that Slashdot got the hierarchy wrong on one of my posts, showing it as a reply to the parent of the post I replied to, so it might not have been you. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I noticed just yesterday that Slashdot got the hierarchy wrong on one of my posts, showing it as a reply to the parent of the post I replied to, so it might not have been you. :-)
Possibly. I would not rule out that I messed this up though.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you reply to the wrong person?
You said if COVID was more deadly it might wipe out the human race. LessSockMorePuppet replied to you insisting that more deadly diseases limit their own spread. I replied to *him* that killing quickly is self limiting, not killing itself.
Unless it's your sock puppet and you spend your days arguing with yourself on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you reply to the wrong person?
Yes, I did. Apology already issued.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be immediately deadly. You could have something where you are asymptomatic but contagious for a few weeks, then you need to be on a ventilator for a month or you immediately die. Worse would be if something were as contagious but consistently causes problems a generation later like the Zika virus or a life-long disability like Polio can.
A species threatening virus would be few if any symptoms, highly contagious, and results in a high likelihood of sterility. I wonder if teens and twenties
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Nice to see that at least somebody understands what I wrote. The "hardcore stupid" faction can apparently not even see the distinction between "probability of death" and "average time until death", which is the critical point here. Obviously "more deadly" refers to the former, not the latter.
Also like your non-deadly variant (or rather deadly once-removed). It has the additional problem that it would take quite a while to get noticed if its symptoms are only in the level of a common cold.
Re: (Score:2)
If COVID were more deadly, it would limit its own spread. This is a well-known property of viral epidemics.
Today, that depends entirely on the incubation period and whether people are infectious before showing symptoms. Classically (where travel takes weeks or months), yes. Modern world? Nope. We have been incredibly lucky so far.
Re: (Score:2)
If COVID were more deadly, it would limit its own spread. This is a well-known property of viral epidemics.
But since it isn't, people mostly just getting moderately sick and then becoming immune.
It's a good thing we didn't overreact or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
As of a few weeks ago, I personally know somebody that had it twice. So much for immunity. Fortunately she did not require hospitalization in either case, but she was still struggling with significantly decreased fitness (she is a hobby athlete) from the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the Black Death (actually a bacteria) stopped and mostly vanished after it killed half the population and Smallpox, a virus, well it went right away on its own due to how deadly it was with about a 30% mortality rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Small box went away because of a nearly 100 year long world wide campaign of vaccination. Before that it had outbreaks over over a span of minimum 4000 years, here and there. Especially in the orient, or what americans call "middle east".
Re: (Score:2)
Guess I should have added a sarcasm tag as I was answering someone who claimed that the deadly a virus is, the quicker it dies out.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I clicked answer on the wrong one, seems to happen a lot today :D
Re: (Score:2)
Easy enough to do. Have a good new year
Re: (Score:2)
There is a huge margin upward in the "deadlyness" - probably a factor of 10 - 20.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it depends on how long those infected get to spread the infection before succumbing to it.
Re: (Score:2)
If COVID were more deadly, it would limit its own spread. This is a well-known property of viral epidemics.
Yes and no. If COVID-19 were more deadly it would wipe out the human race. If COVID-19 were deadlier still then it would wipe itself out. This isn't a binary measure, it's two curves which interact with each other and form a nice range of frigging scary conditions. We are well and truly below the point on those curves. The virus would be far more devastating if it were more deadly.
Re:The stupidity of some people is astounding (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you don't believe in the scientific method. I didn't say you should go out and infect people...
Just the well known fact that the higher the mortality rate of a virus, the less effectively it spreads.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it depends on the time that you're infectious but not showing symptoms--you're still able to move around and infect others. You're right that viruses that kill you right off tend not to spread effectively because, hey, you're dead and, for the most part, people don't like to hang around with dead bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The stupidity of some people is astounding (Score:5, Informative)
Just the well known fact that the higher the mortality rate of a virus, the less effectively it spreads.
That is a gross simplification. It stops being the main factor when
- You have asymptomatic people spreading it
- You have presymptomatic people spreading it
- You have a longer incubation time
- People die late from it and remain functional while having it
and
- You have fast global travel.
How do you think we got into the current mess? We are very lucky this is only something like 5x as deadly as a flu (with a non-overwhelmed medical system). People are dying late, long after they have infected others.
Re: (Score:2)
Just the well known fact that the higher the mortality rate of a virus, the less effectively it spreads.
That is a layman misconception and bottom line simply wrong.
If it can infect you e.g. after 4 days (Corona is supposed to can that already after two), then the only question is, how many have contact to each other and infect each other during that timespan.
It is completely irrelevant, if you die after 5 days, 7 days, 9 days or even 30 days. And it is completely irrelevant if the mortality rate is 10%, 20%
Re: (Score:2)
Just the well known fact that the higher the mortality rate of a virus, the less effectively it spreads.
No. Only above a certain point. The mortality of a virus and its ability to spread have a LOT of variables in it, including the duration at which a host is infectious before they die, and the viruses own transmissibility. You could have a virus with a 100% mortality. If it takes 6 months to kill people it will spread easily. If someone sneezes on you and you keel over and die, not so much.
You say you believe in the scientific method so I suggest you actually examine some research on this topic.
Re:The stupidity of some people is astounding (Score:4, Informative)
Whatever you're smoking, pass it already.
That was a complete jumble of nonsense. Come again?
Re: (Score:2)
HIV. 100% mortality rate. Here's your scientific method.
Fortunately not very infectious. But yes, nice example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Smallpox is a better example, though at 30% mortality, maybe not deadly enough.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course the distinctive physical symptoms, giving the rest of them the most basic tool to avoid infection - identification of the infected, and most likely these would not be met at the door of your party with a big hug.
Re: (Score:2)
@gweihir, you have your confirmation.
Well, I did not expect the extreme stupidity of getting modded "Troll" immediately, but I did expect a lot of really demented comments on this and the hardcore stupid faction here did not disappoint. Fortunately, I have a lot of Karma to burn.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, 5x deadliness of the flu (unvaccinated, vaccinated with an assumed 80% effectiveness of the flu vaccine that becomes 25x as deadly as the flu) _with_ intensive care available (50x or so without) is not "not very deadly".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yes. The "non-deadly" side effects the covidiots so conveniently like to ignore. That will be something that may drag us down for decades. All the people treating "recovered" patients report they have never seen so many cases as bad as this. And even mostly "asymptomatic" people often stay tired and weak for a long, long time. I know several now (all tested, so it is _not_ something else).
As to the vaccine, I will get vaccinated as soon as possible. And I will very hard try to get a high-effective vacci
Seems like ... (Score:2)
I'm not a fan of parties during a pendemic, but.. (Score:2)
I'm very concerned about closed device ecosystems where access to software is controlled by a gatekeeper. The old school PC succeeded because anyone could write anything they wanted. The app store model sucks balls and needs to die
Orly? (Score:2)
That's because many people are below 70 and not a half dead diabetic chain smoker. But people needlessly throwing parties are idiots.
WTF (Score:2)
Throwing a New Years party anyways (Score:2)
Re:Orwell would be sickened (Score:5, Funny)
Letting private companies have practical control over you is no way to go through life.
I, for one, would like to be the first to welcome our new overlords...to fuck right off.
These are Apple users though. They probably enjoy the oversight and will gladly pay for more of it.
Re: Orwell would be sickened (Score:2)
Re: It's a trade-off (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are worried, worry about yourself, and isolate yourself. Do not say you can not. That isnâ(TM)t my problem. Find a way for yourself, and leave the rest of us alone. More die from heart disease,
I know, right!? It is like so-called "drunk driving". More die from heart disease, but we make a fuss. If you want to be safe, stay off the fuckin' road, and leave me alone to drive hammered. It is a free country.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only can't you drive hammered, there are speed limits too!
It's like a frickin police state!
Re: (Score:2)
Not only can't you drive hammered, there are speed limits too!
And they won't let you drive on the sidewalk. I thought we're meant to have freedom of movement. The communists have been in charge too long.
Re: It's a trade-off (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, go to your superspreader party and get infected, then drop by the grocery store and share the wealth. Here's a clue: it's not about you; it's about everyone around you. Only a completely self-centered person would expect the rest of the world to go into isolation so they and their likeminded friends can pretend that there's no pandemic. And finally, heart disease is not communicable, genius. Stop being lazy and find an analogy that makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
But I wear a mask at the grocery, and if I become symptomatic, I stay home instead.
And heart disease is largely, not always, preventable. But we don't. Either because we prefer a riskier but more enjoyable life, or because we just don't make good decisions, the latter being an issue that leads to the death of millions in the womb, and we mostly ignore that particular toll. Humans are not so rational. There is risk always. We ought to be free to choose for ourselves, and wear a mask to avoid choosing for oth
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem: people only use rational thought to rationalize.
Democracy wins (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are not happy about it, then convince The People why your private parties are more important than the risks to their health because a large majority has decided that protecting their own health in this instance is more important.
Funny enough, democracies vote to ban things all the time in the name of health, at the cost of personal freedom. Legislation providing restrictions on tobacco products, alcohol and the majority of medicines come to mind too.
Re: (Score:2)
More die from heart disease
We spend $200bn a year on trying to fix this. If we could do it with brief lockdown and calling people like you idiots while hoping the government fines you repeatedly for your stupidity, believe us, we would.
Comparing heart disease to a transmissible virus is the kind of stupid that should get you booted off Slashdot for failing to meet the minimum IQ requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Selfish? More like in-tune with how politicians who make the rules act in reality, not listening to their own restrictions. This is the game being played - why can't regular folk follow the examples of the overseers? Is that actually selfish, or just common sense to want to be treated equally?
Note: I don't know what the leaders in other countries are like, but in Canada they're a bunch of lying scumbags who have no accountability for breaking the rules.
Re: (Score:3)
No shirt, no shoes, no service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh really? That’s news to me. I once nabbed an app from the App Store that was pulled within a few hours (it enabled device tethering for cellular hotspots at a time when that wasn’t a feature available from carriers). It not only stayed on that device and continued to work fine for years, I was then able to transfer it to my next device and would have done so with the device after that too, but it was too old to run on that third device.
Apple does have a kill switch to nuke installed apps, but
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the kill switch is only in apps that use Location Services in case someone manages to abuse it. It doesn't exist in other frameworks.
Apple hasn't actually deactivated any app because they haven't needed to.
At best, they've deactivated enterprise certificates, which result in enterprise-signed apps failing to work (these apps don
The difference between Apps and Software (Score:2)
Software is property you purchase. Apps are a service with a conditional use of indeterminate duration. With Apps you agree to the terms of a contract, one of those terms is that Apple can change the terms whenever it wants. It's a sad joke played on consumers, but people love the convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
Software is property you purchase. Apps are a service with a conditional use of indeterminate duration. With Apps you agree to the terms of a contract, one of those terms is that Apple can change the terms whenever it wants. It's a sad joke played on consumers, but people love the convenience.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Which of these private companies is forcing you to use any of their products?
Re: (Score:2)
The correct question is, Which of these private companies is forcibly removing my ability to continue using a product?
Preventing me from taking my own actions is just as bad as being forced to use something. For instance, try stepping in front of a police officer and blocking their path. You will be arrested for assault if you keep it up.
Point is, you can do offensive things by denying the ability to take an action, not just by coercing an action.
Re: (Score:2)
You never owned a product. You bought a license to use something.
Ownership is meaningless (Score:2)
At the end of the day, Apple has only pulled the download and not disabled the app outright. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Thus, they have not denied people the ability to use previously authorised copies of the app. So no harm done.
Last I check Smartphones wear out - they are hardware that will require replacement eventually... sometimes suddenly and unexpectedly, such as dropped a phone.. need to restore it to a new device.
There is harm done in that Apple's actions will prevent people who already have gotten/purchased the app from moving it to their replacement phone - As soon as the app needs to be transferred, or an u
Re: (Score:2)
Every bottled water company in 3rd world countries (even second world countries) that is lobbying against public cheap clean tab water.
And I guess, people way smarter than me, find more examples ... electricity, gasoline, even bread comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is stopping you from calling/texting/emailing/Parler messaging your buddies so you can be idiots together. Apple and others are under no obligation to permit anything and everything on their platforms, and they even market that curation as a selling point for their platforms.
If you don’t like the “overlords” you’ve accepted into your life, alternatives are a click or purchase away.
You know he was a socialist right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What does Orwell being a socialist (more accurately, a democratic socialist) have to do with anything OP said?
Nothing, right-wingers just think slinging the words 'Socialis't and 'Communists' at their adversary in a debate is like casting debate winning magic spell (+100 Mana).
Re: (Score:2)
I want a secure and locked down phone. It's not my primary way of interacting with the world - it's a device I don't want to have to worry about. And certainly when I use it I prefer websites to apps.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
"much-needed scrutiny to the app"
Yes. They think denying us our freedom of association is a public health issue. Nope, it is not. We are still, as a nation, endowed with certain inalienable rights. Among which are some that we further define as the right to assemble as we wish, with whoever we wish.
And, yes, we know assemblies in this time bring the risk of infection and spread. The caveat? Can the powers that be assure me I will not become infected if I play by, their rules, staying home, masking when I mu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
COVID has killed 1.8 million worldwide [worldometers.info] in less than a year, so your citation of a lesser number really doesn't serve to prove your point.
Also, what part of firmly tackling the problem did you miss?
1. Licensing
2. Speed and impaired driving enforecement
3. Seatbelts
4. Airbags
5. Unibodies and crumple zones
6. antilock brakes and automatic braking
7.
Re:Death rate (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, no. Just no. Justify your starting point for both activities. And then stop me from switching to deaths per month to defeat whatever lame justification you come up with.
So you approve of even more stringent measures to reduce both. I accept your concession.
Re: (Score:2)
Still 1.35 million deaths a year: With: 1. Licensing 2. Speed and impaired driving enforecement 3. Seatbelts 4. Airbags 5. Unibodies and crumple zones 6. antilock brakes and automatic braking 7. pretty much every driver assist feature rolled out in the last decade Covid: 1.8 million deaths in 2 years.
Umm... SARS-Cov-2 was first identified only 12 months ago. I mean I know 2020 felt like two years, but.... :-D
And even if you had said 1.8 million deaths in one year, your comparison would still be misleading because it ignores the huge differences in how well or poorly coronavirus has been handled from one region to another.
Worldwide, yes, the numbers are comparable. But in the U.S., there are only about 36k traffic deaths per year. Coronavirus is killing at 10x that rate.
Put another way, the U.S. mak
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that the true death rates in countries like Iran, Turkey, North Korea and even China are not really known. Not even Thailands numbers are remotely correct.
South America is also probably not much better, in some countries they do not even track total infected and total recovered anymore, e.g. Italy.
Re: (Score:2)
Or as we have recently been told, other countries flat out lie about their numbers. You can go lookup Russia and China in recent articles as pointed examples of lying about death rates.
I don't know why you'd think all these third world countries would tell the truth but I guess it fits your narrative.
Oh, I have little doubt that certain countries are lying about their numbers, but even if you take those countries out of the mix, we're still doing pretty badly by comparison with most of the rest of the world. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Here are the raw death counts in the US - I really doubt these are made up numbers (but you might really distrust the US government that much to disbelieve even something easy to count like deaths). (Note: data is incomplete for less than 10 weeks or so - the numbers for recent weeks will go up).
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
From this graph, it is quite clear that more people are dying this year - during the worst periods the death rate was up more than 20% (and we are entering
Re: Death rate (Score:2)
US numbers are almost certainly low as well given the states known to be underreporting.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? How would you know? Why do you trust any government to tell you the truth about how well they're doing?
My friends in Italy were first and hardest hit outside China. Super lock downs, masks, and the whole bit from very early. No real impact.
Why do you think there was no real impact? Italy's lockdown started on March 10. The peak was 11 days later, on March 21st, which is within the margin of error of the one-to-two-week incubation period of the virus, and then the daily case count started dropping. So it certainly looks like it had a pretty clear impact.
The real question is what the heck happened in October.
Re: (Score:2)
And statistics from CDC: Each year, 1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world. If they would as firmly tackle this problem!
"If" ??!! How you miss so much education and safety programs? Are you a complete moron?
The US road fatality rate (for example) per distance driven has dropped by 90% since WW2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:If you close down safe, people will be unsafe (Score:5, Informative)
Florida is lying about their covid numbers, both cases and deaths. This site [floridacovidaction.com] gives an overview of available beds in all of Florida. You will note there are a ton of hospitals who have zero ICU beds available.
No, California does not have 0% hospital capacity. Only in certain locations are hospitals overwhelmed.
California has twice the population of Florida yet Florida was the third state to reach 1 million cases, only three weeks after California did.
You will note Florida has 21,546 covid deaths [covidusa.net] whereas California has 25,006 deaths [covidusa.net]. For a state which tried to remain open, it sure looks like they're doing worse than a state which followed medical guidelines and tried to control the spread and eventual deaths.
It is way better to let people do what they are going to do anyway, then you can help them be more safe while doing so - this app was yet another example of that
Or maybe, if people would be responsible adults, we wouldn't need to "help" them be more safe. But I guess personal responsibility doesn't enter into it. We have to waste our time telling grown ass adults to wear a mask for a few minutes while they go shopping and not have large gatherings which are shown to always lead to infections [cnn.com] and deaths [go.com].
If you think we should have sympathy for people who can't follow simple rules for a few minutes, don't expect us to "help" any of these people.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about American Governors, but you guys do have a President who is above the law and can ignore public health orders in such a way that would result in fines for most anyone else, citizen or not. I also don't know why you actually said citizen instead of person as rights are not limited by citizenship with a few exceptions such as the right to vote here.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that the governor of California is obviously one of those people who thinks rules are for the little people (this is very common in politicians - they tend to be the gregarious type who has always [so far] been lucky in life), it doesn't take away from the fact that those restrictions have reduced the per-capita cases and deaths.
Re:And people say Trump is responsible.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Had he followed and repeatedly told his supporters to follow the CDC's and Fauci's guidelines (especially in Trumpian style: "Don't be a loser! Wear a mask! Covid-19 is really huge! Believe me!" -- not to mention NOT holding massive ego-stroking rallies, aka, super-spreader events) there would be a lot fewer deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot, yes. 300,000 fewer? I doubt it. Maybe 70,000 or so might be directly attributable to Trump and his policies.
Stupid people are everywhere. Who the country's leader happens to be has perhaps only marginal impact on this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And people say Trump is responsible.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And people say Trump is responsible.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that there are going to be hundreds of thousands more deaths due to covid19 in the USA before the end of 2021.
It doesn't matter a whole lot how seriously a country leader takes the pandemic when the people in that country are not taking it seriously.
I honestly don't get the mindset of blaming Trump for a majority of the deaths when there are other countries that have done almost as bad and have had entirely different policies.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I heard a lot of Republican leaders (governors, sheriffs, etc.) saying "I will lock down when Trump tells me to, and not before. The President could have not allowed interstate travel to South Dakota and killed Sturges. He could show leadership and have been wearing a mask since April. He could tell his supports that wearing a mask was patriotic and they'd have been the one in people's faces telling them to mask up or GTFO.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just saying, when you have a neighboring country that has taken a completely different approach by its administration and is doing almost as badly per capita after you factor in causes that would have otherwise legitimately made the disease spread faster all other things being equal, how much of it can you really pin on Trump, specifically?
Yes, he's responsible for a lot of it, but maybe, just maybe, stupid is more ubiquitous than anyone wants to admit.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada has more than twice the deaths per capita and is on a better trajectory.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant the USA has more than twice the deaths per capita as Canada.
However, the USA's most populated cities have roughly twice the population density as Canada's most populated cities, and how densely populated an area is directly corresponds to how fast a given number of people in that area will get infected. Even taking identically sized populations, a thousand people that are spaced far apart will spread a contagious disease at a slower rate among the group than a thousand people that are
Re: (Score:2)
However, the USA's most populated cities have roughly twice the population density as Canada's most populated cities, and how densely populated an area is directly corresponds to how fast a given number of people in that area will get infected
Then why do North Dakota and South Dakota have some of the highest per-capita case counts in the US? These are not very populated states - and indeed demographically might be similar to many Canadian provinces. "Factoring in" population density would be a statistically difficult problem, to say the least - how did you conclude that when you do so it is only 20-30% worse? What assumptions did you have to make?
Re: (Score:2)
And in terms of leadership, we've been doing everything right... admnistration taking it seriously, advising people to stay at home and avoid gatherings, etc....
Varies highly from province to province. Here in MB we had hardly any cases in the spring. Government rushed to open everything, and did not shut down again till we hit 10% positivity rate. We are down to 12% now, from a high of 15%, but it is kind of stuck there and the lockdown is going to take far longer to get it back down to a manageable number than if they had locked down much earlier. A few weeks of lockdown at 5% would probably have worked. At 15% we are now looking at months.
It's like our mor
Re: (Score:2)
I just cannot be convinced that Trump might be somehow responsible for any more than perhaps 20 to 30% of the deaths in the USA, which is a lot to be sure, but it's not hundreds of thousands.
I mean 30% is already 105,000 deaths. Maybe if you want to draw an arbitrary morality line you should draw it higher next time to defend your moron in chief.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always been temporary limits on freedoms during crisis's. You would have had a shit during either world war with all the limits put on people.