10-17-2020, 05:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2020, 05:36 PM by DocSavage87.)
(10-17-2020, 01:35 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: So I would look to the cause for discrepancies elsewhere than better unemployment insurance.
There doesn't have to be just one factor you know. It could be multi-factorial but still a significant contributor.
(10-17-2020, 01:35 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:
What Swedish policy, taken at its best, did do was go straight to the dynamics of social distancing that the US reached far more belatedly.
*Cough*
![[Image: 6ed4a6a8-25d2-44a4-b975-68bf7bb5c225.jpg]](https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/digital-images/org/6ed4a6a8-25d2-44a4-b975-68bf7bb5c225.jpg)
(10-17-2020, 01:35 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:
Finally, the national obsession with race once again rears its ugly head in terms of distorting the inquiry. Class and labor categories matter a lot more here.
Don't disagree that more data is better and targeted testing by occupations and risk makes sense and is done (e.g., healthcare workers). However, you ignore there's a very strong overlap in many areas between race and class/labor categories. Example: the CZI Biohub surveys of particular areas of SF where even within the same neighborhood, infection rates of Latin-X are many multiples of white occupants of the same neighborhood. This could well be the "household spread" that Goose is hammering at. Single white techies don't have families where even if one of them is high tech, there's also another person in the household that has a riskier occupation.
