The Coronavirus thread

Premier Wolf has not officially lifted the vaccine mandate here but yesterday saw just a few people maskless in retail stores. Some of the "mask required" signs were gone.

So I joined in. A great feeling. The greeter at Wal-Mart said I was not wearing a.......hat. Sort of a backdoor way of shaming me I guess.

You know what you can do with your "new normal."

MIT Study Finds That Anti-Maskers Are Anything But “Unscientific”

Could say the same thing on global warming.

Quote: odiousgambit

I have been fairly neutral on Fauci Follies until now

guess how i feel now

AP headline writer: "Fauci says pandemic exposed ‘undeniable effects of racism’"

https://apnews.com/article/ga-state-wire-race-and-ethnicity-coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-health-105c4a5a0eea3550804093b137532e67

I don't understand why, "Racism," gets dropped every other word, but it seems that he presented a somewhat reasonable cause-and-effect for why predominantly African-American communities might have been more heavily impacted by Covid, if that is indeed the case.

For example, you talk about nutritional access---well, drive to any densely populated and predominantly African-American community of below median household income in or near a major city and you will see that it is true. There are, indeed, fewer places to buy fresh foods in those communities.

But, if we are going to look at cause-and-effect from one angle, then we need to look at cause-and-effect from every angle. With that, let's examine some of the causes that might lead to such an effect.

1.) (Past) Racism:

-Let's go ahead and get it out of the way---actual racism of previous generations and disparate treatment of African-Americans still has its effects somewhat felt today. That doesn't mean that we're all a bunch of racists NOW and it doesn't mean that very many people are opposed to things being equal and trying to improve black communities.

-So, when we look at income and educational disparities, and the like, yes---there is still some carryover from previous eras.

2.) Affordability:

-I grew up in one of three closely connected small towns in semi-rural Ohio; do you know what we didn't have? A Porsche dealership. Can you imagine them not putting a Porsche dealership in an area populated by some 4,000 individuals of generally below average income?

-In fairness, a Porsche dealership isn't a nutritional disparity...but we are talking about the same concept.

-The concept is affordability. You're not going to throw a Whole Foods in a supremely low-income community. You might not even do it with a grocery store proper.

-We certainly didn't have a proper grocery store. As a result, the following things were true:

A.) We had a few small convenience stores, which were very limited in terms of produce and what produce they did get in was often of questionable quality.

B.) What limited produce was available at our convenience stores of questionable quality cost more than the much better produce at the major grocery stores that were located well outside our little series of towns.

Why would this be?

The answer to that is very simple: The convenience stores don't have the most efficient distribution channels and also do not have the capacity to buy in bulk from the nation's largest producers. Even if they work as a cooperative effort, the purchases are much smaller, and therefore, come at a higher price (to the retailer) per unit. Because the retailer pays more per unit, the customer pays more per unit.

3.) More on distribution, the convenience stores also had a higher cost passed down to them because they didn't have their own warehousing, like a major grocery store would.

How does produce get to a major grocery store? For the exceptional majority of items, producers load up entire trucks of produce that has one, and at most, two destinations...but even in the event of two destinations, both are warehouses owned by the retailer. That reduces your fuel costs and your employee costs if you are the producer, not to mention that the major grocery chain is buying a metric crapton and has a huge contract probably extending several years, so you can charge them less and still make massive profits.

With the convenience stores, they either have very small distribution warehouses that will be one of a few stops for the producers, or, the producers take it to each convenience store (or contract a trucking company to do this) directly. In a few cases, they might even bring it in and stock it.

Now, the producer is not going to want to accept reduced profit margins just because the convenience store cannot buy as much at one time, so all of these costs get passed right down to the convenience store. Obviously, the convenience store is not going to deal with that----so bananas are $0.89/pound in 1995 when you can get them for something like $0.49/pound at some major grocery stores TODAY!

4.) You're not going to throw the major grocery store into my little section of small towns for a few reasons---and these despite the fact that a single town with total population of only 150% of our three little towns (combined) had THREE major grocery stores in it:

A.) Again, our towns were poor. We consisted, in the majority, of families headed by out of work former steelworkers with single-parent households as a close second and low-income retirees as a somewhat distant third.

B.) Any such store would have to compete with the fact that two out of the three towns already had their own little convenience stores. One of the three towns also had a drug store that was part of a major chain, so the new would-be store would almost certainly have to take losses and be patient in winning the war of attrition against the drug store and at least one convenience store.

Interestingly, one of each of the two major dollar store chains have also come into one town apiece, and apparently, there has been enough room for them and the convenience stores so far. My assumption is that the dollar stores are somewhat propped up by non-food retail sales.

C.) The major grocery store(s) would be COMPETING WITH THEMSELVES!!! Why? The reason is, for those of us who did have transportation (as my family did) we would leave town once a week and go do the majority of our shopping at one (or more) of the major grocery stores a few miles away.

People in the other towns nearby that did not have their own major grocery stores would do the same thing.

So, why would a major grocery store even WANT to come into one of our three little towns when, all else being equal, they're probably getting something in the neighborhood of half of the business of all of the people in our towns that have the capability to get to them?

It's true that one location being in one of those towns would siphon all of the business into itself and would hurt the opposing grocery chains in the (relatively high-income) town with three grocery stores (though they'd also be hurting their own location there), but that ONLY MATTERS is if the new location would also be profitable in its own right, which it probably wouldn't. Even if it were, once you factor in land and building costs, it would take a very long time before it made its way into the black.

THEREFORE:

5.) If you lived in one of these three little towns, and you could not afford transportation to the grocery stores, then you were pretty screwed on fresh food.

You either didn't eat much in the way of fresh food, or if you did, you paid an inflated price that you probably could barely afford judging by the fact that you were not well-to-do enough to afford transportation to one of the major grocery stores that would give you the opportunity to pay a lower price for such items.

CONCLUSION

However, these things weren't the case due to racism---The three towns, combined, were more than 98% White (Non-Hispanic) and still are.

The reason that all of this was the case is because that's how economics/business works. You go where people can afford your products and you will make a profit.

Quote: AZDuffman

Premier Wolf has not officially lifted the vaccine mandate here but yesterday saw just a few people maskless in retail stores. Some of the "mask required" signs were gone.

So I joined in. A great feeling. The greeter at Wal-Mart said I was not wearing a.......hat. Sort of a backdoor way of shaming me I guess.

You know what you can do with your "new normal."

The PA Health Department has adopted the CDC recommendations. Like I said, Fuhrer Wolf wanted it to be 70% vaccinated before no masks, but it doesn't seem he has done anything to overrule the Ministry of Health yet.

Quote: Mission146

... let's examine some of the causes that might lead to such an effect.

1.) (Past) Racism:

-Let's go ahead and get it out of the way---

Thank you. The advocates of that explanation have oversold their case to such a degree I can't hardly stand to see another word of it. Not to say they don't have a point, but none of these points are allowed to be debated unless you want to be called a racist. Be advised though that anyone who graduated from most of the colleges out there in the last few years hates your guts for minimizing this [assuming they drank the kool-aid]

still reading the rest of this, and reply coming later

The CDC's abrupt about face concerning the wearing of masks by vaccinated persons was politically motivated and a prime example of "Wag the Dog".

Quote: odiousgambit

Thank you. The advocates of that explanation have oversold their case to such a degree I can't hardly stand to see another word of it. Not to say they don't have a point, but none of these points are allowed to be debated unless you want to be called a racist. Be advised though that anyone who graduated from most of the colleges out there in the last few years hates your guts for minimizing this [assuming they drank the kool-aid]

still reading the rest of this, and reply coming later

You're welcome.

They can hate all they want to. I would simply tell them, from not only a position of non-woke business/economic formal education, but also a position of personal experience---that the life experience of a poor white kid whose family largely only knows other poor white families and lives in a relatively destitute neighborhood might be a little different than that of a similarly situated African-American kid, but not a lot.

The only real difference might be in parenting, which is obviously still going to vary from individual to individual (and certainly did in my towns). Many of our parents pushed us to take education seriously so that we might have a chance of not being trapped in that area for our entire lives, but again, I should assume that is also the case for many African-American kids who are similarly situated.

ADDED: One thing that I want to clarify is that I am not minimizing the issue, at least, not in my opinion. The issue explains why many African-Americans find themselves situated in such a way and how it came to be that way when you compare the percentages and look at wealth gaps from one race (overall) to another.

However, that has been changing. The gap is closing, but it's a very long process. It's kind of like a 26.2 mile marathon where some people got to start eight miles in, but other than directly giving people money (or taking money from those who already have it) we've put the policies in place that have the goal of more people getting to start the race from the same position.

Quote: AZDuffman

MIT Study Finds That Anti-Maskers Are Anything But “Unscientific”

Could say the same thing on global warming.

1. The paper is a political opinion piece disguised as a research paper.

2. I don't think it says what you think it does. Here is an excerpt from the Implications and Conclusions section"

Quote:

Calls for media literacy—especially as an ethics smokescreen to avoid talking about larger structural problems like white supremacy are problematic when these approaches are deficit-focused and trained primarily on individual responsibility. Powerful research and media organizations paid for by the tobacco or fossil fuel industries [79,86] have historically capitalized on the skeptical impulse that the “science simply isn’t settled,” prompting people to simply “think for themselves” to horrifying ends. The attempted coup on January 6, 2021 has similarly illustrated that well-calibrated, well-funded systems of coordinated disinformation can be particularly dangerous when they are designed to appeal to skeptical people.

Quote: Mission146

However, that has been changing. The gap is closing, but it's a very long process.

I might start a new thread to continue. The title will reflect the irony that the hateful rhetoric is increasing more as the gap is closing, if it ever closed completely I guess it will mean that race war that has been predicted by so many. Good thing it's a long process?

Quote: JimRockford

1. The paper is a political opinion piece disguised as a research paper.

2. I don't think it says what you think it does. Here is an excerpt from the Implication and Conclusions section"

So you are saying it is the same thing as every global warming paper?

What it is saying is what I have been saying. Some of us prefer to think for ourselves instead of just "listening to the scientists."

As to masks I look and ask myself if a flimsy mask that is not regularly sanitized is really any protection. I look at it all and conclude that it is not. Now, if we look at Texas, Florida, and other mask-free areas we can see that the world has not only not ended over no masks but they are doing quite well with many masker states doing worse.

After that I look at the behaviors. I see the maskers who as their biggest argument saying "for the common good" which is always something to question. I heard at least one AG or some level of government suggest that people not wearing a mask should be charged with "attempted murder." I see a level of fear I rarely see, though it is the same kind of fear that predictions of global warming whips up.

So I take the science of it and the reactions to it and use critical thinking to draw the conclusion that the claim we need to wear masks is a bunch of Barbara Streisand. Classic whipping up of fear to gain compliance. Of course there are the 20-30% of people like me who think for ourselves and see thru it. But the people in charge know that the maskers will be louder and larger in number.