Greetings,
The expression "It's just the flu." is of concern. In our current situation it is being used to refer to what novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is not. This is not just a case of the flu as the mortality rates show. The flu is not "just" the flu either.
Most people associate the flu with a little discomfort, a cough, a fever, runny nose, a couple of days of work and you're back to normal again. No problems at all, right? This is the impression people have of the the flu or influenza. The facts about the flu are quite a bit more different and needs attention paid to them.
"a 2019 study estimated 99,000 - 200,000 deaths from lower respiratory tract infections directly caused by influenza." Paget, John et al. "Global mortality associated with seasonal influenza epidemics: New burden estimates and predictors for the GLaMOR Project." Journal of global health vol. 9,2 (2019): 020421. doi:10.7189/jogh.09.020421 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815659/).
Of course, this is "just" the flu. Those numbers are worldwide and they really do not compare to the COVID-19 numbers, but flu season is upon us. Do we really need something on top of the concerns about COVID-19? Do we really need people sick from both of these things increasing the potential for increased mortality rates?
The other thing is that there is a vaccine for the yearly flu strain every year. It protects against most of the strains of the flu. Yes, it does not protect against them all, but protection from some is better than no protection at all. This is something that people can do and they don't. Why? It's because it's "just" the flu.
People don't bother with the flu vaccine so they may get sick. Then when they get sick they don't stay home until they are better again, spreading the flu to others. Flu season is the worst time for productivity for all sectors. It costs Australia $34 billion dollars in productivity each year when workers being present and $7 billion while workers are absent (https://thesector.com.au/2019/02/27/flu-costs-australian-employers-7-billion-in-lost-productivity/).
There is the historical example of the Spanish Flu from 1918 - 1920 which cost 50,000,000 deaths, small in comparison to the current crisis, but it was "just the flu". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu) It was also a pandemic, just like the COVID pandemic which we are experiencing now, and there are always new strains that are waiting in the wings.
The flu needs to be taken as seriously as any contagious disease that has the potential to cause deaths in the population. Hopefully people will learn lessons from the COVID pandemic and apply these to the flu and realise that it is not "just" the flu. This concept is one that needs to be erased.
Cheers,
Henry.
Showing posts with label consideration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consideration. Show all posts
Wednesday, 1 July 2020
Monday, 9 September 2019
On the Same Day...
Greetings,
I am writing this particular article because it is my way of airing my feelings about my current government and their attitudes toward the lower classes, nay the underclass which they have caused to be created as a result of filling the pockets of their fat cat friends. Here I will present two news articles which will present our Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison not in a particularly good light, as it will show the hypocrisy that the Australian public has had to endure under his leadership and indeed under the leadership of every Liberal Prime Minister to date.
The first article points toward his idea of rolling out deductions from welfare payments, forcibly taking rental payments and other payments from welfare recipients (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/rent-to-be-automatically-taken-from-welfare-payments-in-shakeup/ar-AAH1T12?li=AAgfYrC ). This is not long after he was discussing a "cashless card" in which 80% of the recipient's payment was held that "cannot be used to withdraw cash, buy alcohol or gamble" (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-10/scott-morrison-defends-expansion-of-cashless-welfare-card/11493626). This card was is supposed to be rolled out and imposed on recipients of welfare payments, by the looks, regardless of whether they have a history of drug or alcohol abuse, or regardless of of whether they have a history of being homeless or defaulting on their rental payments. He is thus again placing all of those people who are on welfare payments in the same group.
The claim is because the states lose $30 million a year through unpaid rent for social housing. So there is some sort of financial reason for this then along with the "its better for the community" thing? Then he should really explain the tax-payer funded $250 million upgrade that he just got to his official plane (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/inside-shark-one-scott-morrisons-new-dollar250million-plane-is-revealed-after-a-commercial-jetstar-airbus-a330-is-transformed-into-a-100-seater-tanker-for-the-prime-minister/ar-AAH1PYT?li=AAgfYrC). So, we all have to tighten our belts and watch what we spend but he is allowed to go and spend money which is not his on his comfort. Of course the claim will be that future Prime Ministers will benefit from this, but why was it needed? I am sure that $250 million would go a long way or at least some way to creating jobs for those people he so desperately wants to "have a go".
The arrogance of this individual and his government is insulting. They give donations and tax breaks to the corporations and "big money" and then complain that the most vulnerable of society are a drain on society. Even though if the tax breaks and perks were cut off the welfare system would easily be funded. They take money away from education and wonder why the country is not keeping up with other countries in the quest for technology and new ideas. They take away from health and complain that people are being a drain on the public health system and also allow private companies to hike up private insurance. Is it any wonder the nation is having troubles?
Write to the Prime Minister and your local Member of Parliament, I already have. Tell them that what you think they are doing is wrong and tell them the reasons why. Explain to them that they are hurting the nation that they are supposedly trying to help. Hopefully, eventually, they will listen to us and we won't have to wait until election time to get scared into voting for them again.
Cheers,
Henry.
I am writing this particular article because it is my way of airing my feelings about my current government and their attitudes toward the lower classes, nay the underclass which they have caused to be created as a result of filling the pockets of their fat cat friends. Here I will present two news articles which will present our Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison not in a particularly good light, as it will show the hypocrisy that the Australian public has had to endure under his leadership and indeed under the leadership of every Liberal Prime Minister to date.
The first article points toward his idea of rolling out deductions from welfare payments, forcibly taking rental payments and other payments from welfare recipients (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/rent-to-be-automatically-taken-from-welfare-payments-in-shakeup/ar-AAH1T12?li=AAgfYrC ). This is not long after he was discussing a "cashless card" in which 80% of the recipient's payment was held that "cannot be used to withdraw cash, buy alcohol or gamble" (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-10/scott-morrison-defends-expansion-of-cashless-welfare-card/11493626). This card was is supposed to be rolled out and imposed on recipients of welfare payments, by the looks, regardless of whether they have a history of drug or alcohol abuse, or regardless of of whether they have a history of being homeless or defaulting on their rental payments. He is thus again placing all of those people who are on welfare payments in the same group.
The claim is because the states lose $30 million a year through unpaid rent for social housing. So there is some sort of financial reason for this then along with the "its better for the community" thing? Then he should really explain the tax-payer funded $250 million upgrade that he just got to his official plane (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/inside-shark-one-scott-morrisons-new-dollar250million-plane-is-revealed-after-a-commercial-jetstar-airbus-a330-is-transformed-into-a-100-seater-tanker-for-the-prime-minister/ar-AAH1PYT?li=AAgfYrC). So, we all have to tighten our belts and watch what we spend but he is allowed to go and spend money which is not his on his comfort. Of course the claim will be that future Prime Ministers will benefit from this, but why was it needed? I am sure that $250 million would go a long way or at least some way to creating jobs for those people he so desperately wants to "have a go".
The arrogance of this individual and his government is insulting. They give donations and tax breaks to the corporations and "big money" and then complain that the most vulnerable of society are a drain on society. Even though if the tax breaks and perks were cut off the welfare system would easily be funded. They take money away from education and wonder why the country is not keeping up with other countries in the quest for technology and new ideas. They take away from health and complain that people are being a drain on the public health system and also allow private companies to hike up private insurance. Is it any wonder the nation is having troubles?
Write to the Prime Minister and your local Member of Parliament, I already have. Tell them that what you think they are doing is wrong and tell them the reasons why. Explain to them that they are hurting the nation that they are supposedly trying to help. Hopefully, eventually, they will listen to us and we won't have to wait until election time to get scared into voting for them again.
Cheers,
Henry.
Sunday, 2 June 2019
The "Public" Face
Greetings,
The discussion that follows is one which I have briefly touched on previously. In that post it was about how the Internet made us anonymous, or at least had the potential for doing this for us (https://historicalsocialpolitical.blogspot.com/2018/08/internet-connection-cloak-of-anonymity.html). This article is, in a way, an examination of the opposite, the "public" face which is presented, and how this can affect our interactions with other people.
There are two faces which we have, a "public" face which we present to the world, and a "private" face which we keep for our close friends and family. There are similarities between these two faces, but there are often differences as well. We get to choose what parts of ourselves we present to the public sphere, for the most part, and we get to choose what parts we hide, though erosions in privacy are making this more and more difficult. There are clearly places where our "public" face and our "private" face will blur, and how much these blur is most often our choice.
There are people who will automatically have a "public" face that is known by people, these people are what are known today as celebrities. However, anyone who interacts with the public also has a "public" face which will become known and attached to certain things. This may not be on the same scale as these "celebrities" but they will still become known. Hopefully they will become known for the right things.
A person who makes statements and stands with regard to certain things, will become known for these things. The more that they make statements about these things the more that people will have an expectation for them to be of a certain character. A person who makes statements about human rights, gender equality, and other political matters is going to be expected to also be acting according to those same statements, even in their personal life. As soon as they are seen to be "soft" on one area, which relates to another where they have made some grand statement in any way, their credibility will be damaged. Care needs to be taken with what we are seen to be standing for as it can come back to us, the Internet has a long memory.
Some will claim that they have a different personality or face for different interactions due to the nature of those interactions. A person thus may act brashly, arrogantly, with interactions on-line, but then may be friendly and considerate in-person. The problem is that if all people have seen is the former interaction, because they have never met the person in-person this is all that they are going to be known as. You may claim that, "But that was on-line." It was you, it was your interactions. You cannot separate your "face" on-line from your "face" in-person. Things to distance you from your on-line "face" will only work for so long, people will eventually find out, it is better that you treat people on-line how you would in-person.
The "public" face which you present should be one that you would want to meet and interact with. Have consideration for what you are going to put out there, because it is almost guaranteed that if you write something that you are going to regret, it will haunt you for ages afterward. This "public" face should be even a deeper consideration for those who would want to spread information, or attempt to sell their wares of any kind. Good-will can be upset quite severely through the ill-considered interactions of your "public" face with people.
How often have we seen the popularity of politicians and celebrities damaged by ill-considered statements on their parts? The same can happen to us if we are not careful. Consider carefully whether you really want to post that statement before you press the "post" or "send" button. Once it is out there you can't have it back.
Cheers,
Henry.
The discussion that follows is one which I have briefly touched on previously. In that post it was about how the Internet made us anonymous, or at least had the potential for doing this for us (https://historicalsocialpolitical.blogspot.com/2018/08/internet-connection-cloak-of-anonymity.html). This article is, in a way, an examination of the opposite, the "public" face which is presented, and how this can affect our interactions with other people.
There are two faces which we have, a "public" face which we present to the world, and a "private" face which we keep for our close friends and family. There are similarities between these two faces, but there are often differences as well. We get to choose what parts of ourselves we present to the public sphere, for the most part, and we get to choose what parts we hide, though erosions in privacy are making this more and more difficult. There are clearly places where our "public" face and our "private" face will blur, and how much these blur is most often our choice.
There are people who will automatically have a "public" face that is known by people, these people are what are known today as celebrities. However, anyone who interacts with the public also has a "public" face which will become known and attached to certain things. This may not be on the same scale as these "celebrities" but they will still become known. Hopefully they will become known for the right things.
A person who makes statements and stands with regard to certain things, will become known for these things. The more that they make statements about these things the more that people will have an expectation for them to be of a certain character. A person who makes statements about human rights, gender equality, and other political matters is going to be expected to also be acting according to those same statements, even in their personal life. As soon as they are seen to be "soft" on one area, which relates to another where they have made some grand statement in any way, their credibility will be damaged. Care needs to be taken with what we are seen to be standing for as it can come back to us, the Internet has a long memory.
Some will claim that they have a different personality or face for different interactions due to the nature of those interactions. A person thus may act brashly, arrogantly, with interactions on-line, but then may be friendly and considerate in-person. The problem is that if all people have seen is the former interaction, because they have never met the person in-person this is all that they are going to be known as. You may claim that, "But that was on-line." It was you, it was your interactions. You cannot separate your "face" on-line from your "face" in-person. Things to distance you from your on-line "face" will only work for so long, people will eventually find out, it is better that you treat people on-line how you would in-person.
The "public" face which you present should be one that you would want to meet and interact with. Have consideration for what you are going to put out there, because it is almost guaranteed that if you write something that you are going to regret, it will haunt you for ages afterward. This "public" face should be even a deeper consideration for those who would want to spread information, or attempt to sell their wares of any kind. Good-will can be upset quite severely through the ill-considered interactions of your "public" face with people.
How often have we seen the popularity of politicians and celebrities damaged by ill-considered statements on their parts? The same can happen to us if we are not careful. Consider carefully whether you really want to post that statement before you press the "post" or "send" button. Once it is out there you can't have it back.
Cheers,
Henry.
Tuesday, 14 August 2018
Internet Connection: Cloak of Anonymity
Greetings,
All of us have read comments on the internet with regard to many different postings and topics which have taken us aback. The sort of comment when you read it where you wonder if the same thing would be said by the same person if the author and listener were face-to-face. I am talking about short abusive or long tirades about subjects where the thought of using courteous language has gone out the window. It is my greatest suspicion that it is due to the cloak of anonymity, or degrees of it which allow people to do this.
Online many people do not use their real names, in some way this makes them feel that they can divorce themselves from comments made and insults given. Even in some circumstances where the person is using their own name the same can be said. It is my belief that this is due to the simple fact that the two people in the conversation (author and reader) are not in direct contact so the ideas of the use of language and what should and should not be broadcast are left aside. What we say face-to-face, or even in a printed form in many cases, is quite different as compared to the high-speed, high-volume which is found on the internet.
What is most interesting is that there can be a complete change of character and personality of a person when comparing their electronic communications as to speaking to them face-to-face. For the most part the face-to-face contact with the person is quite a bit more personable than the electronic. I would state that this has something to do with consequences, a slip of a word or insult in an electronic medium has less consequence than the same if it was face-to-face. Some would claim that this is an advance in the freedom of speech, I would say that it is a reduction in courtesy and consideration for the audience who may be subject to such communications.
Many people have not met face-to-face, while they have conversed for periods of time across the electronic medium. Meeting face-to-face in many instances actually changes the relationship between the individuals quite a bit. The classic instance of this is the internet love affair where the pair in the relationship finally meet face-to-face and find out the truth. It does not always work, as we all well know. The reverse is also true having met a person in person and then contacting them across an electronic medium is different to having contact with a person whom you have never met in person. In many ways it is because the person is more "real". The voice on the end of a phone/microphone or words on a screen just do not have the same impact.
While I will admit that I have been guilty of some faceless tirades, often I will go back and read the same and wonder why I did it and where all of that came from. Remember, the written word lasts a lot longer than you might suspect, and can be used later on. Many public figures have been caught with regard to this. I would suggest that in such communications if a person sat back, examined the situation from a more neutral standpoint, there might be quite a change as to what was written and the resulting furore which may result. When posting, consider your audience, consider the impression of yourself you are creating, and consider whether you would say the same to the same person face-to-face if you were to ever meet them.
Cheers,
Henry.
All of us have read comments on the internet with regard to many different postings and topics which have taken us aback. The sort of comment when you read it where you wonder if the same thing would be said by the same person if the author and listener were face-to-face. I am talking about short abusive or long tirades about subjects where the thought of using courteous language has gone out the window. It is my greatest suspicion that it is due to the cloak of anonymity, or degrees of it which allow people to do this.
Online many people do not use their real names, in some way this makes them feel that they can divorce themselves from comments made and insults given. Even in some circumstances where the person is using their own name the same can be said. It is my belief that this is due to the simple fact that the two people in the conversation (author and reader) are not in direct contact so the ideas of the use of language and what should and should not be broadcast are left aside. What we say face-to-face, or even in a printed form in many cases, is quite different as compared to the high-speed, high-volume which is found on the internet.
What is most interesting is that there can be a complete change of character and personality of a person when comparing their electronic communications as to speaking to them face-to-face. For the most part the face-to-face contact with the person is quite a bit more personable than the electronic. I would state that this has something to do with consequences, a slip of a word or insult in an electronic medium has less consequence than the same if it was face-to-face. Some would claim that this is an advance in the freedom of speech, I would say that it is a reduction in courtesy and consideration for the audience who may be subject to such communications.
Many people have not met face-to-face, while they have conversed for periods of time across the electronic medium. Meeting face-to-face in many instances actually changes the relationship between the individuals quite a bit. The classic instance of this is the internet love affair where the pair in the relationship finally meet face-to-face and find out the truth. It does not always work, as we all well know. The reverse is also true having met a person in person and then contacting them across an electronic medium is different to having contact with a person whom you have never met in person. In many ways it is because the person is more "real". The voice on the end of a phone/microphone or words on a screen just do not have the same impact.
While I will admit that I have been guilty of some faceless tirades, often I will go back and read the same and wonder why I did it and where all of that came from. Remember, the written word lasts a lot longer than you might suspect, and can be used later on. Many public figures have been caught with regard to this. I would suggest that in such communications if a person sat back, examined the situation from a more neutral standpoint, there might be quite a change as to what was written and the resulting furore which may result. When posting, consider your audience, consider the impression of yourself you are creating, and consider whether you would say the same to the same person face-to-face if you were to ever meet them.
Cheers,
Henry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)