Covid-19 and politics

[Trebuchet]

I generally support the ban on religion and politics in this forum; if I want politics I can just hop over to ISF. However:
The politicization, and specifically the denial, of the Covid-19 epidemic in the USA is literally killing people. In April, it killed my cousin, who lived in a state whose legislators were pushing for churches to be packed on Easter, the day she died. People are refusing to wear masks because of their choice of political party. It's an extremely serious situation. It's not "just a flu" and we are not "turning the corner".
Just yesterday I learned that two of my nieces, also living in one of "those" states, now have Covid. My state is much better and has reimposed restrictions -- causing the opposition to label the governor a "dictator".
I would appreciate some discussion among the mods and ownership of the forum to see if we couldn't relax the restrictions a little. Specifics would have to be worked out; perhaps limit to a single thread, no naming of individuals or parties (though we all know who they are) or something.
Remember: The USA death toll will probably pass 275,000 today. This could have been prevented, at least partially.

[Roger E. Moore]

I support a ban on politics and religion in this forum. There's nothing to be gained and everything to be lost.

One of Fraser's "Universe Today" posts recently tread very close to the religious aspect and made me uncomfortable (the discussion of how a map of the known universe resembles a map of brain neurons, which began to float away toward secular religious feeling). https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...-Tell-Which-is

People's personal politics here are of no concern to me, and we risk opening a can of carnivorous rot grubs if we even try to move in that direction.

[Swift]

I've raised the topic among the Moderation team; we'll see what the discussion brings. Though I doubt we'll get any, I would love some guidance from ownership (it has been years since we've had any on such topics).

<snip>
One of Fraser's "Universe Today" posts recently tread very close to the religious aspect and made me uncomfortable (the discussion of how a map of the known universe resembles a map of brain neurons, which began to float away toward secular religious feeling). https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...-Tell-Which-is

Fraser's UT post links (and the posts themselves on the UT website) are independent of our non-politics rule. The link is generated automatically, and we have no say on what Fraser posts about on his blog. However, comments from anyone else posted on CQ in response to those automatic posts are governed by our rules.

If you want to response to Fraser with political or religious opinions, please do so on the UT site itself, not on CQ.

[Roger E. Moore]

If you want to response to Fraser with political or religious opinions, please do so on the UT site itself, not on CQ.

Thank you, but I will pass. I don't want to turn CQ or UT into Facebook with posts IN ALL CAPS and so forth.

[Trebuchet]

I've raised the topic among the Moderation team; we'll see what the discussion brings. Though I doubt we'll get any, I would love some guidance from ownership (it has been years since we've had any on such topics).

Thank you. The policy, if I remember correctly, came from Phil Plait, who's had nothing to do with the forum in years.

If you need to close this thread during the discussion, that's fine with me. I will endeavor to abide by whatever is decided.

[The Backroad Astronomer]

When the pandemic started New Brunswick had a minority government. Each riding gets to elect for who they want to represent them and the party with the most seats if the have the majority gets to be the government at the time but sometimes they don't get enough seats and have to work another party, and they can be voted out in special votes. There are five parties in the province and they actually worked together for a while to keep the pandemic at bay. But one party wanted a shot to become the party and we had an election and went smoothly. We are getting a bit of up swing at a total of 501 for the entire 9 months. The thing our bubble only has two land borders on to the North with Quebec and the other with Maine. There was an opening in the Quebec border because some services were only available one either side, this led to some more cases plus some travel to outside the bubble and Halifax in Nova Scotia has gotten a lot more cases lately.

[PetersCreek]

When the pandemic started New Brunswick had a minority government.

Let's stay on topic folks. This is a feedback thread and isn't for general discussion of COVID, local politics, etc. Thanks!

[The Backroad Astronomer]

Sorry misunderstood.

[grant hutchison]

May I ask what sort of positive contribution a relaxation of the "no politics" rule might be expected to make? Surely if a relaxation of the rule is proposed, a case needs to be made for why that relaxation would be of benefit.

(To be clear: I'm not against the idea, and I'm not for the idea. I just can't think of any potential benefit, and so would be interested to hear the argument for benefit.)

Grant Hutchison

[PetersCreek]

Grant beat me to the point. I also wonder what might the net benefit be of relaxing rule 12 in this way? What distinguishes this situation from others of grave importance and impact that we neverthless disallow?

[Trebuchet]

May I ask what sort of positive contribution a relaxation of the "no politics" rule might be expected to make? Surely if a relaxation of the rule is proposed, a case needs to be made for why that relaxation would be of benefit.

(To be clear: I'm not against the idea, and I'm not for the idea. I just can't think of any potential benefit, and so would be interested to hear the argument for benefit.)

Grant Hutchison

Grant beat me to the point. I also wonder what might the net benefit be of relaxing rule 12 in this way? What distinguishes this situation from others of grave importance and impact that we neverthless disallow?

I can't say specifically. I just know that I have one relative dead and two just diagnosed in states which have been denying reality for political reasons. I am extremely frustrated.

[PetersCreek]

I can't say specifically. I just know that I have one relative dead and two just diagnosed in states which have been denying reality for political reasons. I am extremely frustrated.

From a non-purple, personal standpoint: foremost, I'm sorry for your family's loss, Treb. I'm at greater risk due to an autoimmune disorder and my parents are well, well into the danger zone based solely on age. So, I can certainly relate to and share your concerns, fears, and frustrations whether our political stripes are parallel or not. While I share them, those emotions are what concern me about your proposal. There are so many venues in which one can vent their spleen, it seems difficult to find a place to get a break from it. I'm tired of the rancor, be it red, blue, or whatever. I'm exhausted, really. Bone-stinkin'-weary. Personally, I don't want it here. Ever.

My personal concerns aside, at this point in the discussion I still don't really know what kind of 'relaxation' we're talking about and what the benefit would be. We already have narrowly defined exemptions to rule 12 and I think this proposal would have to follow suite if it has any hope of being implemented.

[Van Rijn]

I would appreciate some discussion among the mods and ownership of the forum to see if we couldn't relax the restrictions a little. Specifics would have to be worked out; perhaps limit to a single thread, no naming of individuals or parties (though we all know who they are) or something.
Remember: The USA death toll will probably pass 275,000 today. This could have been prevented, at least partially.

If there is no naming of individuals, then what would there be? When I think of a partial lifting of the politics rule, I think of how it is handled in relation to space issues: Specific policies and officials are discussed by name, occasionally the interests of certain senators are mentioned. Opinions on named policies are mentioned. Mostly, though, opinions discussed are based on technical and monetary grounds. Like concerns about the desirability of the SLS program based on development and cost issues.

I could see more flexibility on discussion of named government disease control policies and officials implementing them on technical grounds as perhaps useful. However, there is an issue that major politicians are more often directly and visibly involved with pandemic issues than space issues and for now at least, the stakes and emotions are higher.

Opinions on politicians/more explicit politics though I think would need to be heavily restricted.

[Chuck]

Haven't people been reporting and commenting on quarantining rules for months already with no problems?

[Swift]

Haven't people been reporting and commenting on quarantining rules for months already with no problems?

Reporting what rules exist where you live, discussing the science behind such rules, and commenting on how those rules have personally affected you and your family are all OK. Discussing the opinions, positions, statements, or policies of certain political figures or organizations on such things is not (unless the Moderation Team decides to change the rules).

[Solfe]

Just my two cents, as a social studies and religion teacher, I personally enjoy the forum as it is. Relaxing on both religion and politics at the same time looks like a problem waiting to happen. Rule 12 has a lot of wiggle room that I don't often see people using.

[Jens]

My two yen also: I'm sure that the politicization is frustrating, and I sympathize, but echoing others, I'm not sure what we would really be able to discuss here. I think it's probably better to keep the thread focused on (as much as possible) scientific discussions of the pandemic and ways to address it.

[The Backroad Astronomer]

I think there is some blame by government officials on the local and national level, but this varies from region to region. Some blame i on individuals who didn't take it seriously enough and some on businesses again who didn't take serious enough.

[Gillianren]

Ludicrous or not, the disease has been politicized in the US. Not being able to discuss that politicization means not being able to discuss important policy aspects at all in any substantive way. There are major aspects of how things have progressed in the US that have a lot to do with certain figures. As it happens, I don't tend to think the people most responsible are acting for political reasons, but the fact remains that the party divide in the US is shaping public policy in a way that's literally killing people.

[grant hutchison]

Ludicrous or not, the disease has been politicized in the US. Not being able to discuss that politicization means not being able to discuss important policy aspects at all in any substantive way.

I see people posting questions on the "diseases and pandemics" thread that are clearly about important policy aspects with political overtones. They're of the form, "What's the evidence for [some newly introduced public health guidance]?" (Or, if they're feeling exercised about it, "Is there any evidence at all to support ...?") It's certainly possible to give a non-political response to such questions, by citing evidence and discussing the grey areas and unknowns. Which is what I do when I think I have something useful to contribute. But what amuses me is that when I do my "here's the science" routine, someone immediately explains to me that there are political dimensions to the problem (it has happened four times in the last few months!). I do actually recognize the political origin of such questions (I've followed the situation in the USA quite closely)--I just think the only way to have any rigorous discussion of them is to "follow the science".
So far, that sequence of "politically motivated question about policy" / "scientific response" / "explanation that there's a political dimension" seems not to have set off sirens in the Mod Cave--at least not to the extent that coloured writing has appeared in the thread.

Would there be something else, not involving the science, that you feel could be productively discussed?

Grant Hutchison

[geonuc]

I advocate not relaxing the rule to allow discussion of COVID-related politics. There are plenty of other forums (reddit, for example) where you can do that and one of the virtues that makes BAUT/CQ different is the no politics or religion rule.

[Trebuchet]

At least let us call out lies as lies? Like the "fake hospital" in Reno?

[grant hutchison]

At least let us call out lies as lies? Like the "fake hospital" in Reno?

Surely the issue of whether the empty hospital facility was subsequently used or not is matter of fact, rather than politics? Likewise, scientific information can be spun politically, but that doesn't undermine the evidence itself. The CDC has been unable to say anything much recently without having political interpretations and conspiracy theories foisted upon it, but that hasn't stopped us discussing the scientific underpinnings of the CDC's pronouncements.

Grant Hutchison

[Van Rijn]

The CDC has been unable to say anything much recently without having political interpretations and conspiracy theories foisted upon it, but that hasn't stopped us discussing the scientific underpinnings of the CDC's pronouncements.

I think that brings up one of my primary concerns on this subject where politics is involved on or off this board: The extent to which agencies (ones I generally have found trustworthy in the past) and officials can be counted on in the current climate to be providing good information. I’m sure I’m not the only one here that has been frustrated and more seeing what appear to be good subject matter experts sidelined or fired because they said something a superior didn’t like to hear. Or other experts walking a tightrope to try to get some useful information out but not saying everything they should be able to say and maybe some things they shouldn’t just to appease a superior. Or other people that are clearly not subject matter experts, but still put in a position of authority and referred to as experts.

On one hand, I don’t want to see a bunch of politician blaming here - there are plenty of places to see that if you want to - but it is hard to discuss some of my real concerns without going too far into current political rules here.

[grant hutchison]

I think that brings up one of my primary concerns on this subject where politics is involved on or off this board: The extent to which agencies (ones I generally have found trustworthy in the past) and officials can be counted on in the current climate to be providing good information. I’m sure I’m not the only one here that has been frustrated and more seeing what appear to be good subject matter experts sidelined or fired because they said something a superior didn’t like to hear. Or other experts walking a tightrope to try to get some useful information out but not saying everything they should be able to say and maybe some things they shouldn’t just to appease a superior. Or other people that are clearly not subject matter experts, but still put in a position of authority and referred to as experts.

There is a danger, of course, that once people start believing that an organization is bowing to political pressure, then every action or pronouncement by that organization is viewed as being politically driven. I think the only solution to that is to look at the science, every time, always.

Grant Hutchison

[Noclevername]

I can understand the temptation to name names regarding the idiocy that's currently gripped the US. It is hard to keep the frustration out of our conversations.

Nevertheless I think opening up that floodgate would do more harm here than good. The exemption would require drafting its own set of special rules; rules that would, due to the contentious and highly emotional nature of the topic, need to be strictly enforced.

This would place unfair burdens not only on the Mods, but on the participants as well. I think we'd still need to throttle our frustrations and anger to avoid turning that sub-forum into an "anything goes" Wild West of political opinions. It almost certainly would not provide a relief from the constraints it was presumably intended to address. It would simply move the goalposts to an unfamiliar, harder to enforce set of constraints.

It might also set the precedent for loosening the political rules anytime something really bad happens. Do we want that mess?

[ToSeek]

The moderators have discussed this and no one who commented was in favor of relaxing our Rule 12 restrictions (discussion of politics and religion) with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, as has been noted in this thread, our rules still allow for discussion of the facts about COVID-19 as well as debunking misinformation so long as you avoid associating these with any political figures, parties, or factions. Please feel free to continue to do so.

[Trebuchet]

Thank you for considering this issue. I'll try to abide by the ruling.

[Copernicus]

Is there any possibility for letting KenG back. I think he was banned while arguing for wearing masks.

[Swift]

Is there any possibility for letting KenG back. I think he was banned while arguing for wearing masks.

KenG's last infraction was for arguing moderation in thread and for ignoring moderator instructions; it just happened to be in the pandemic thread. He was banned for an accumulation of infraction points (4 infractions and 13 points in the last six weeks of his time on CQ; and 16 infractions over the years).

Generally the first step in reversing a banning is for the banned to communicate that they wish to come back and that they have "seen the error of their ways" and will behave in the future. KenG has done none of that.

Other members have asked about KenG being allowed back; the Moderation Team has discussed it, and there is no interest in doing so.