Who's Behind the 'Reopen' Domain Surge? (krebsonsecurity.com) 384
Inspired by a thread on Reddit, KrebsOnSecurity has been investigating possible incidences of state-led astroturfing to put pressure on U.S. states to ease, end, or reduce the extent of coronavirus lockdowns. From the article: The Reddit discussion focused on a handful of new domains -- including reopenmn.com, reopenpa.com, and reopenva.com -- that appeared to be tied to various gun rights groups in those states. Their registrations have roughly coincided with contemporaneous demonstrations in Minnesota, California and Tennessee where people showed up to protest quarantine restrictions over the past few days. Suspecting that these were but a subset of a larger corpus of similar domains registered for every state in the union, KrebsOnSecurity ran a domain search report at DomainTools [an advertiser on this site], requesting any and all domains registered in the past month that begin with "reopen" and end in ".com." That lookup returned approximately 150 domains; in addition to those named after the individual 50 states, some of the domains refer to large American cities or counties, and others to more general concepts, such as "reopeningchurch.com" or "reopenamericanbusiness.com." Many of the domains are still dormant, leading to parked pages and registration records obscured behind privacy protection services. But a review of other details about these domains suggests a majority of them are tied to various gun rights groups, state Republican Party organizations, and conservative think tanks, religious and advocacy groups. KrebsOnSecurity set up a Google spreadsheet documenting much of the domain information sourced in the story.
Someone by the name of Michael Murphy told Mother Jones in an interview that they registered thousands of dollars worth of "reopen" and "liberate" domains to keep them out of the hands of people trying to organize protests. KrebsOnSecurity has not been able to validate this report, but did note that the registrant name Michael Murphy was associated with more than 50 reopen domains that were registered within an hour of each other on April 17 -- between 3:25 p.m. ET and 4:43 ET.
Someone by the name of Michael Murphy told Mother Jones in an interview that they registered thousands of dollars worth of "reopen" and "liberate" domains to keep them out of the hands of people trying to organize protests. KrebsOnSecurity has not been able to validate this report, but did note that the registrant name Michael Murphy was associated with more than 50 reopen domains that were registered within an hour of each other on April 17 -- between 3:25 p.m. ET and 4:43 ET.
obvious answer (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
noobiedoobiedo ( 6194604 )
Registered 2020-03-08T17:40:17Z
Reopening America; CyberAxxess LLC, PhotoVision Enterprises LLC, 3515 N. Bronco St, Las Vegas
https://www.facebook.com/reope... [facebook.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to do? Won't somebody think of pornhub!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or the Russians again?
They helped to get Trump elected in 2016 [politico.com].
The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday reaffirmed its support for the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office.
The intelligence community’s initial January 2017 assessment of Moscow’s influence campaign included “specific intelligence reporting to support the assessment that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russian government demonstrated a preference for candidate Trump,” the committee’s report says. The panel also found “specific intelligence” to support the conclusion that Putin “approved and directed aspects” of the Kremlin’s interference efforts.
Maybe they're doing it again.
Re: obvious answer (Score:2)
I'll put good money on Russia, if only I had some!
Re: (Score:2)
Typical hoarding, the see the protest and buy up all associated web sites because they will be hot for a few months, loads of crap advertising, a just a rebranded existing web site, all cheap and easy. Hoarding domain names is nothing new and they hoarders will take up every variant including spelling mistakes, it's cheap, why not. I was just in my local supermarket, there was a shortage of flour as hoarders bought it all up and now there a ballets of large bags of flour in the middle of the store because n
If we are proceeding with an excess of caution (Score:5, Insightful)
So be it.
I would much rather suffer a bit more on the current timeline, perhaps another four weeks (Metric = 28 days, for our friends in virtually every other nation) to run the viruses' virulence into the summer ground, than to reopen prematurely, weather new outbreak infections aka New Amsterdam, and be forced to close again until the peak is reached, or past.
My 2 cents and ymmv.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If we are proceeding with an excess of caution (Score:4, Insightful)
Acquired herd immunity will only kick in when the number of people who've been infected is 15x what it is now -- and that's accounting for the disparity between reported cases and actual infections. As for seasonality, there's no evidence of that. We can't trust to nature because nature's path out of this for us would be catastrophic. Our fate is in our own hands.
So for the time being we need the shutdowns. The shutdowns accomplish two things: they reduce the rate of transmission, and they buy us time in which to prepare for opening up. If they reduce the transmission rate enough the size of the problem shrinks, and preparing for opening is easier.
South Korea managed to get through this without shutting down their economy, but they got a much earlier and more successful start. The problem with being late of the starting block is that our preparations are playing catch up with the epidemic. More and more ventilators, masks, gloves, and test kits are pouring into the system in increasing, but each week's increase in supplies meets and even larger increase in virus.
It is absolutely critical we halt the growth of the epidemic before we try anything else. When the cases stop growing, the supplies and equipment can catch up.
Re: (Score:2)
This will only sort the humane countries from the inhumane ones.
Canadians don't die from a lack of money, for example.
Re:If we are proceeding with an excess of caution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But reopening will still be the right call, because even more people will have their lives ruined if we don't
No it won't. We literally rebuilt an economy from 2008. Took less than a decade. Last I checked we can't rebuild dead people. But it's whatever, let people die, except in doing so, we'll take down a notch or two the US healthcare system with it. Because as much as people want to yell tough it out, just like people won't listen to "stay at home" people won't listen to "tough it out". Mildly sick people will clog the hospitals, people will tizzy themselves into a frenzy, the economy will suffer from the
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it is far right (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find interesting is that I have suggested several times that Colorado should ALLOW any business to open PROVIDED
1) the owner and/or executives must work on-site and directly with customers as well
2) All those that go to work, including the owner/executives, must agree legally, that they will NOT use any EMS, hospital resources for covid. Obviously, if they have a non-covid item, then go ahead. BUT, if they catch covid, they would be on their own.
Needless to say, both of these 2 were screaming about the idea, and were all for opening businesses (legal rights), but not wanting to take responsibility for their actions.
If they only understood the constitution and even the founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, they would realize what fools they are.
A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.
Thomas Jefferson.
Re: (Score:3)
Now you've done it - you've quoted one of the founding fathers and a signatory to the constitution.
How long before Jefferson's labelled as a socialist?
Re: (Score:2)
Now you've done it - you've quoted one of the founding fathers and a signatory to the constitution.
How long before Jefferson's labelled as a socialist?
It has happened already - apparently as a compliment, no less. [jurist.org]
The TFA linked above also applies the same label to Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. But it places some limits on the characterization:
Of course, the Founding generation did not believe that every human endeavor benefited from governmental competition. The founding generation’s socialism only went so far. The Founders believed in private enterprise.
But it was not long before the Founders’ sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, discovered the benefits of extending socialism beyond communication, transportation and national defense. Libraries, fire protection, police protection and education were all socialized to some extent in the nineteenth century. None of these developments replaced private enterprise - they merely insured that more Americans reaped the benefits.
Re:Yeah, it is far right (Score:4, Informative)
Jefferson didn't sign the US Constitution; he was serving as the American ambassador to France.
He did sign (and basically wrote) the Declaration of Independence, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was the norm for Europe in those days and that included their colonies, including America.
Re: (Score:2)
And thus we see the limitations on an Australian's knowledge of US history :-) Thanks for the info, that's one thing I've learned today.
Re: (Score:2)
All those that go to work, including the owner/executives, must agree legally, that they will NOT use any EMS, hospital resources for covid. Obviously, if they have a non-covid item, then go ahead. BUT, if they catch covid, they would be on their own
This would be impossible to enforce. Federal guidelines on receiving medical dollars prevent this from happening. You would literally have to change the US healthcare system. Even then, if you changed it, people would subvert it to no end. People suck and they'll do sucky things, especially when you tell them to not do those things. People love being lazy and staying fat bumps on a log at their house....... Until you tell them to do exactly that, then suddenly nobody in the US wants to do that. Same t
Re:Yeah, it is far right (Score:5, Interesting)
That is the definition of the nutcases. They want to do stupid acts, they growl about their right to do stupid acts, but they don't accept any responsibility for the consequences of the stupid acts they do.
Re: (Score:2)
That is just the GOP's main point of view. From their point, the GOP, like trump, never take responsibilities for their actions.
Re: (Score:3)
And just wait until you find out that Trump is considering shielding corporations from liability for workers who contract COVID-19 when they go back to work: https://www.commondreams.org/n... [commondreams.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet there's a plan to cut off your unemployment too. Basically if your state opens up, and you don't feel safe going back to work / opening your business, you can pay for it personally from then on.
It is possible for both sides to be right (Score:3)
I disagree with reopening entire states or the entire country too quickly. But b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. My rural county of 90,000 spread over 2,800 sq miles is averaging 5 new cases a day, and has been flat lined for weeks. And since agriculture is exempt, there isn't as much locked down as you think. The virus just can't seem to get running.
The hospitals are empty because of the ban on elective surgery. There are 8 virus patients. and 140-odd known cases. The two who died had the multiple co-morbidity labels.
If our dim-bulb governor would realize that people out fishing are far more than 6 f
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, even if we re-open the economy, the economy will still implode if people are afraid of the virus. Mike DeWine, in planning the reopening of Ohio, made a very good point that as long as the virus is spreading it wouldn't actually help the economy if the stay at home order was lifted. So many people would voluntarily self-quarantine that the economy wouldn't be able to restart. If people aren't going out to buy inessential things and partake in recreation, no one is going to pay workers to run
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Getting sick and sickening others is not 'saving' the country, it is the exact opposite. You are on track to 'lose .. life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them' with your inability to control yourself for a short period of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, this VERY statement has been used over and over to point out that the constitution is NOT a suicide pact.
In fact, that was brought up back in 1918, when another GOP type sued to have businesses opened based on constitution, while they had a stay-at-home. SCOTUS ruled that constitution was not a suicide pact and therefore, he had to stay at home. interestingly, a big par
Who's behind every disinformation campaign? (Score:2, Flamebait)
So so far there's plenty of money (Score:2)
Simply put there's plenty of food and shelter, and even healthcare if we don't all get sick with COVID019. And there's certainly no shortage of gasoline.
Oh, and overpopulation isn't a problem either. If anything modern countries are having huge problems with declining birth rates. Even India's is half what is was in the 70s. Moder
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, terrible things are happening and will happen because of this shutdown.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned hundreds of thousands of children will die from effects of the unwise and stupid economic shutdown. Millions have been suddenly thrust into poverty. Necessary surgeries and dental procedures have been postponed as offices forbidden to open.
We *can* open, but are too dumb to do it right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We look to places like South Korea and Taiwan who prove that you can both be open and reduce numbers of infected. Let us study, emulate and perhaps even improve upon their methods
But you're not helping your cause by subsequently saying:
Unfortunately, the lock down is neccesary because the dummies outnumber the smart. A country where self-interest outweighs the collective good will just bring more lockdowns as the best solution. Locked like animals instead of being with intelligence. Aww heck, this is even insulting to animals, who generally do behave more intelligently.
Was that really necessary? Did you really expect someone with a contrary opinion to take you seriously after that?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They should have (Score:2)
Um, and? (Score:2)
But a review of other details about these domains suggests a majority of them are tied to various gun rights groups, state Republican Party organizations, and conservative think tanks, religious and advocacy groups.
Um, and? Are we suspending even freedom of electronic assembly?
You don't say (Score:3)
Corporation backed groups trying to bullshit people into thinking it was a grassroots movement that people want to ensure the corporate overlords don't have to do without profit for a week or two and not give a damn about their health?
You don't say.
Ya know, at least in communism, people knew they were being bullshitted into propping the system up...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, at the present rate only 5% of them would die at the current rates. Unless they clog the hospitals in which case more of everybody dies. And all of them will go on to infect at least one other person.
I understand us vs. them has now become deeply ingrained, almost reflexive in the American psyche, but in an epidemic it's dysfunctional. Like it or not, everybody is connected. You can throw anyone under the bus without getting dragged under with him.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
2009 swine flu pandemic (H1N1)
Confirmed cases: 1,632,710
Deaths: 18,449
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
COVID-19
Confirmed cases: 2,560,504
Deaths: 176,926
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
USA deaths statistics:
Deaths: 2,813,503
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta... [cdc.gov]
So no, COVID-19 is NOTHING like H1N1. And while your comparison with the number of deaths in the USA for the whole of 2019 puts things in perspective, let's not forget that we're not even four months into this pandemic, so things could change a lot in the next eight months.
Nevertheless, this virus is real and this isn't about the total number of deaths, it's about the limits of the medical system in place in each country. Too many sick people at once simply overwhelms them and lowers the chance of survival of every sick person. Trying to return back to normal before we're ready is simply asking for trouble.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Well said ...
Here is more for those who care to listen, and use their brains ...
How is Covid-19 different from other diseases?
First it is very contagious. There are reports of people getting it from breath alone (i.e. airborne), not cough (air droplets). This happened in Washington state during choir practice [latimes.com], and people died. Research has yet to confirm if it is fully airborne, or just droplets.
Either way, avoiding people, and what they touched, is the only sure way to prevent its transmission, until a cure and/or vaccine are found (which will not be in a few months).
Second, it is an expensive, time consuming, and labour intensive disease. People affected stay on the ICU for many weeks, and are not guaranteed to survive. Meanwhile, the equipment (ventilators) and resources (staff, special medicines for sedation and relaxing muscles, oxygen), are unavailable for use by other patients needing it.
Here is how an ICU is operating in Toronto, Canada [ctvnews.ca]. And yet another video from another Canadian hospital treating COVID-19 patients [www.cbc.ca]. They made the video specifically to warn people about the seriousness of this disease.
So far, the number of cases requiring ICU in Ontario, Canada, is manageable and within the current capacity of hospitals.
The main problem in many parts of Canada has been in retirement homes, where both the staff and residents are infected. Half the deaths in Canada have been in this demographic.
And, if people do not listen to lockdown orders and distancing, things can turn really bad
very quickly.
For example, this is what happens when businesses remain open [www.cbc.ca], out of stupidity, greed or both. Even after someone tested positive for the disease. Instead of 35 cases, it is 484 cases, and one death!
There is also the article from today on Charter Communications [cnbc.com], and New York AG opening an inquiry why they kept people working from their headquarters.
The same applies to any other country.
Patient not proned - you're being lied to (Score:2, Informative)
Severe ARDS treatment protocol recommends that all severely ill patients be proned. That is, they should lay on their stomach. You can see this in some (though very few) videos from Italy, hairy asses and all. The patients shown in these videos are either literally mistreated, or they do not have severe ARDS.
Do not deliberately misinterpret this as me saying there's no problem. The problem is severe. It's just that the press hasn't been the most reliable source of news lately, to put it mildly.
Re: (Score:3)
MIT study shows reducing number of places and hours helps spread the disease. You end up funneling everyone into the same place at the same time. NYC reduced the number of buses/subways and there scedules, and we can all see how well that worked out. http://web.mit.edu/jeffrey/har... [mit.edu]
Reality the only thing that we should be doing is wearing masks in public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
even if COVID-19 deaths worldwide were to increase by 1000% by the end of the year, it would still would be less deaths than all combined deaths in the USA last year.
Due to poor initial response US COVID-19 deaths doubled every 3 days up until 2 weeks ago [ourworldindata.org].
If you reopen everything today and it resumes spreading at that rate you will hit 2.8 million COVID-19 deaths in the US alone in just 18 days.
And that isn't even taking into account additional deaths (both COVID-19 and other causes) due to hospital ICU capacity being overwhelmed.
Don't talk about infectious diseases if you don't understand exponential growth.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Time to reopen. 180,000 Americans die in car wrecks. 480,000 die of smoking. 850,000 die of heart disease. Get a grip people. We know the death rate is like 0.08% based on the new antibody testing results (NOT 1-20% like Slashdot dorks think). This is just like H1N1 and no one FREAKED OUT over that one.
Literally everything you have said is wrong.
First, your comparison is meaningless, because you are ignoring how much more contagious COVID-19 is than H1N1 was, and how much impact the shutdowns have had on the spread of the disease.
Second, no credible source is showing an IFR of only 0.08%. The antibody test study is massively skewed because there was no randomness in what people got the test, i.e. people who thought they were probably exposed are far more likely to have taken it. It's literally as meaningless as a self-selecting poll on a website.
Credible research suggests the IFR is on the order of .6%, which is more than an order of magnitude higher than influenza. It is also about 4x as contagious as influenza. So without people trying to remain isolated, it would be on the order of 40x as deadly as influenza when measured in terms of deaths per capita.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So without people trying to remain isolated, it would be on the order of 40x as deadly as influenza when measured in terms of deaths per capita.
The definition of an adult is that you get to choose what risks you take, and to balance that against putting food on the table for your family. As this decision affects others, remember this is a democracy. not an aristocracy of the people you think are right. If a given state wants to re-open, it should. If it doesn't, it shouldn't.
This is what's almost certain to happen anyway, and we'll learn the results soon enough. If you're worried about infected Texans visiting California, just ban travel - by t
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is your apparent assumption that the people making the decisions are the people, rather than a few elected officials reacting to screams by a very vocal minority of the population, as seems to be the case.
I would argue that if a given city wants to open, it should, and if it doesn't, the state should not be allowed to force it to open prematurely. Unfortunately, that's exactly what is being threatened right now. Elected officials in cities are saying, "We're nowhere near the point where it is safe to reopen," and governors are being bullied by a tiny-but-vocal minority, very few of which even live near those cities, who are demanding that the state reopen. And instead of leading, those governors are following.
When we see bodies lying in the streets because there's no room in the morgue, those same protesters are going to be screaming, "Why did you reopen the state?" At some point, state leaders must recognize that the people aren't medical experts and generally have no idea what's going on, and that it is the responsibility of governors to educate the public as best they can, and to make the best decisions they can, based on the best information that they can get. If, after doing so, the voters don't like the way their elected leaders are running things, they can vote for somebody else in November.
This is not to say that elected leaders should completely ignore the people, but if they are making decisions based on who is screaming the loudest, rather than based on facts and data, then they are failing in their duty to protect their constituents, and in so doing, are not actually being leaders. We deserve better than that.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is your apparent assumption that the people making the decisions are the people, rather than a few elected officials reacting to screams by a very vocal minority of the population, as seems to be the case.
I'm assuming that this is a democracy. No one claims democracy is the way to make the best decisions! Instead, democracy is the way to avoid violent overthrow of the government, and rule by those best at violence.
When we see bodies lying in the streets because there's no room in the morgue,
There's 0 evidence that this is even a threat. But whether or not it is, you don't get to make that call for me. Each of us must decide the level of threat, and by democracy pick an outcome.
Re: (Score:3)
There's 0 evidence that this is even a threat. But whether or not it is, you don't get to make that call for me. Each of us must decide the level of threat, and by democracy pick an outcome.
So if you infect someone while willfully violating the stay-at-home order then you should be prosecuted for murder, right?
Re: (Score:3)
No, but there have been appropriate punishments when people were just being dicks.
Remember, a significant percentage of people are working normally right now. Agriculture, construction, grocery stores, hardware stores, auto repair, fast food with a drive through, etc etc. The world has not ended as a result.
Ending the lockdown doesn't mean an end to social distancing, or ignoring the problem. It means most businesses are allowed to open, rather than the government picking winners and losers.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, a significant percentage of people are working normally right now. Agriculture, construction, grocery stores, hardware stores, auto repair, fast food with a drive through, etc etc. The world has not ended as a result.
Well, except some cities have ran out of morgue space. The mortality rate is also conditional - a lot of vulnerable people are not exposed to virus. Once restrictions are relaxed, the chances of exposure will go up again with concomitant death rate increase.
And why not attempted murder (or at least negligent manslaughter) charges for people who willfully ignore the SIP orders?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm assuming that this is a democracy.
As many of your fellow serfs have reminded me, you are not a democracy. Your country is a federal republic.
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of adult is that you make responsible decisions. Otherwise you're just an overgrown child.
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of adult is that you make responsible decisions.
Close, but wrong. The definition of an adult is that you're responsible for the consequences of your decisions, as that's how freedom works. The way you worded it, you might as well be saying "the definition of adult is that you make decisions that drinkypoo agrees with". After all, that's your definition of "responsible", no?
I just keep seeing this "people must do what the smart people think is right" idea, over and over on Slashdot, as if that would end any differently than any other aristocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
you're responsible for the consequences of your decisions
How do we hold someone responsible if they pass the disease on to someone else?
Re: (Score:2)
...not to mention that they could conveniently die after doing that. So what are they gonna do, exhume the guilty and send them to trial?
Re: (Score:2)
"the peasants don't know what's good for them"
True statement. As a matter of fact, Average Joe can't see beyond his immediate surroundings and tends to blissfully ignore everything happening outside of his immediate surroundings, treating all else as if it was a distant dream.
People vote based on this behavior, live by it their whole life. They don't see the bigger picture, nor do they care about it. Leaving big picture decisions in their hands is about the worst thing that could happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Who the fuck cares?
All who get severely sick and all who die from the disease, for starters. Then, all who have relatives belonging to the high risk demographic.
This is just like every pandemic.
And that statement alone should scare you shitless. All pandemics were horrible, killed between tens of thousands and many million people and society was slow to recover after each of them.
Yeah, about 60,000-120,000 people are going to die on Coronavirus in the US. Get over it.
I could do that very easily, since I'm not from the US. But even so, I realize that's 100k+ deaths that could be avoided, if only people weren't so fucking selfish.
Are we going to do this every 20 years from now on? We never did before.
We never did before because there was never a need to do this before. Long incubation period, high infection rate, lack of a vaccine and ease of travel are cumulative factors that lead to a very real danger to the world's population. One could travel from anywhere on Earth to anywhere else within 48 hours (with some irrelevant exceptions). I could travel through 10+ countries within 24 hours and infect thousands of people just by being there. This was not the case in the past, where it could take weeks to travel from one country to another, with the sick ones likely to either die of the disease or heal in the meantime, and there were still horrible pandemics back then. Just look at the flu pandemic between 1889-1890.
And there's one more aspect which is overlooked by most people. It's not about how many die in the US or in someone's home country. It's about what happens globally. If left unchecked, this pandemic may start wars (and several countries are already polishing their swords, it seems). Bush crapped out a fake reason to "liberate" Iraq back in 2002, looks like Trump's doing the same, but with China. I fear dark times are ahead of us.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the fuck cares? This is just like every pandemic.
If you're so unconcerned, why don't you go volunteer at a retirement home? Or go work for Spectrum?
Seriously, people like you really piss me off. Like many of us, you're probably working from home in your bubble, for the most part safe. If it's not that big of a deal, why don't you get out there, in a crowd of high-risk people, and do something?
Except you won't. Because you're full of shit.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the fuck cares?...Yeah, about 60,000-120,000 people are going to die on Coronavirus in the US. Get over it.
Me. I care. Sorry about your 401k, I'm more concerned about my family not dying.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
So fix that problem. The problem is not that businesses are closed. The problem is that we don't have a universal basic income to ensure that those people are able to get by. If we had elected Bernie Sanders four years ago and enacted the policies that he recommended, then none of the people protesting would be protesting. ZERO.
Mind you, I'm not saying that there was a chance in a trillion of that actually happening, but the point remains that the people complaining aren't complaining because they can't work. They're complaining because they can't make ends meet. Those are two completely different problems, and continuing to conflate those issues only serves to create a false dichotomy between saving lives and earning a living — a decision that no one should even be thinking about right now, much less acting on.
The only thing we should be talking about right now is finding ways to quickly shore up our broken safety net. Then, after the public health crisis dies down, we can start figuring out when to reopen the economy, and at what pace.
As Steve Jobs famously put it:
“Some people say, "Give the customers what they want." But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, "If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!'" People don't know what they want until you show it to them.”
The same is equally true for politics. If you give people a bunch of bad choices and ask them to pick one, they'll either make a bad choice or a worse choice. If you instead ignore the screaming and focus on creating a new framework that provides for the workers so that the economic downturn doesn't cause them to lose their houses, go hungry, or go bankrupt, you not only solve the immediate problem, but also countless other future problems that we haven't even imagined yet, all without asking the electorate to vote on who lives and who dies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's people like you that are running your so-called 'greatest country on earth' into the ground
I have no idea which group of people you are referring to - it could be any of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We know the death rate is like 0.08% based on the new antibody testing results (NOT 1-20% like Slashdot dorks think). This is just like H1N1 and no one FREAKED OUT over that one.
Have YOU contracted Covid-19 yet? Why haven't you?
Why not go and get infected immediately, while there are still hospital beds for you if you need it? You know, just go around hospitals, touch some covid patients and wipe you face with your hand.
WHAT are you waiting for? You think everybody is going to get it right? You might convince someone if you post as one of the recovered patient.
Re: (Score:2)
Have YOU contracted Covid-19 yet?
I dont know about the other guy, but I got it in late December or early January, along with thousands of my coworkers.
Stop being a rube. The actual death rate is about 0.2%
Why just your coworkers? Why didn't you also go around you family, extend family and friends to infect them too while you had it? To help them "get it over with" ASAP, right?
Re: (Score:2)
As Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said yesterday, "There are some things more important than living."
And he's not one of them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What he really meant was: "The value of my assets is more important than your life .
Let's not forget that this came from someone who claims to be "pro-life"!
70+ year old willing to take risk for younger gens (Score:5, Insightful)
What he really meant was: "The value of my assets is more important than your life .
What he actually said: "And those of us who are 70-plus, we'll take care of ourselves, but don't sacrifice the country ... there are more important things than living. And that's saving this country for my children and my grandchildren and saving this country for all of us. I don't want to die — nobody wants to die — but, man, we've got to take some risks and get back in the game and get this country back up and running"
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re:70+ year old willing to take risk for younger g (Score:4, Insightful)
Easier for someone with his wealth/position/resources to say - his actual risk is not the same as a middle class or poor 70yo. Or even a younger person living in a crowded apartment.
Pretty much all reasonable people would agree (Score:3, Interesting)
There are lots of things that nearly all reasonable people would agree are worth dying for. The only question is whether avoiding a few weeks/months of lockdown is one of those.
Give me 31 flavors (Score:2)
Re:Pretty much all reasonable people would agree (Score:5, Insightful)
The question for me is, do I want to accidentally kill high-risk people (some of whom are my friends) by getting contagious and spreading the disease around? The answer is absolutely not. So I stay home. And that's it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody from MSNBC made a good point (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, while Fox News encourages Americans to risk their lives for Wall Street and the economy they're all safe working from home. Meanwhile the President does the same while the Secret Service tests everyone he gets near. Just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ether that, or they can tell the difference between an apple and an orange when they see one.
Re: (Score:2)
As Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said yesterday, "There are some things more important than living."
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
So you'd be OK with martial law and governors ruling by executive order (literally creating civil and criminal law via edict) to prevent deaths from, say, terrorism? Violent crime? You know that those things are real and cause deaths, right?
You know perfectly well that if we substituted "terrorism" or "violent crime" or even "war" for "virus", and had this removal of civil liberties, that the protests would ring to the skies. From all sides of the aisle. And they wouldn't be peaceful.
Re: LAND FREE (Score:2, Insightful)
There are things more important than one's own life worth risking and even sacrificing one's life for. It is different for everyone but if there is NOTHING you wouldn't die for then you're not living.
Re: LAND FREE (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you sacrifice your life to save your wife's? Your child's? Your mom's? Would you fight for your country? Would you resist if attacked on the street? What would you do if your dog was locked up in your burning home?
Oh, please, how about putting things in their proper perspective?
You will most likely not risk your life for the lives of someone else's wife or child, nevermind their dog.
Making people "fighting for their country" has forever been achieved with two mechanisms, lies and brainwashing and stiff punishments for those who refuse.
Living in a society, where being attacked in the street is a real risk means your society is fucked. You being willing to risk your life in a street brawl, but not doing more to deal with the actual problem that creates it just means you're not very smart.
And in the case of this guy, it is "my sponsors' stock value is more important than your lives". Fuck that.
He said he was willing to take risk, a 70+ YO (Score:4, Informative)
As Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said yesterday, "There are some things more important than living."
What kind of fucked-up human being could say something like that.
F'd-up? The person who literally said that as a 70+ year old he would be willing to take a risk to save the future for his children and grandchildren.
... Let's get back to living, let's be smart about it. And those of us who are 70-plus, we'll take care of ourselves, but don't sacrifice the country ... In Texas, we have 29 million people and we've lost 495. Every life is valuable, but its 500 people out of 29 million, we're locked down, and we're crushing the average worker, we're crushing small business, we're crushing this country ... there are more important things than living. And that's saving this country for my children and my grandchildren and saving this country for all of us. I don't want to die — nobody wants to die — but, man, we've got to take some risks and get back in the game and get this country back up and running."
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
"... there are some things more important than living
Re: (Score:3)
F'd-up? The person who literally said that as a 70+ year old he would be willing to take a risk to save the future for his children and grandchildren.
You're trying to make him sound noble, but he's just stupid. All he needs to do is wait a month or two more for the hospital capacity to catch up and then he doesn't have to "sacrifice" himself. Next year his kids and grandkids will be able to work and recover financially just like the rest of the economy. Death is permanent. Recessions are not.
Re: (Score:3)
Is he going to go shopping? You can do that online. Want to support your local restaurant? Take out. How will this idiot plan using what he believes are expendables in any way help
Re:This is not the right question (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is why isn't the movement more popular yet?
Because too many people know better ?
Re: (Score:3)
The real question is why isn't the movement more popular yet?
Perhaps it's because people know better than to fuck with disease. I don't know, just making a random guess.
Re: (Score:3)
There has to be more than just 1 person or group trying to start a movement right now.
The real question is why aren't all those people recovered Covid-19 patients.
If someone really believes it is no big deal to "just get it over with", then it make sense to get infected ASAP to get it over with, right?
All those people claiming it is "no big deal" while avoiding the virus is very telling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'scuse me, but where do you see that connection?