Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Dr. Phil"
channel.
-
20
-
That man is a narcissist, if your father is one too "winning" is the most important thing. - Better drop a few words in advance to your superiors and your collegues (if you have a good contact to them). Nothing specific (like my father and his mistress, and we had a spat about this or that, you should not drag them into that). Along the lines of: "My father may have a personalitly disorder, we had a conflict related to the marriage of my parents - and he recently threatened to contact my employer and get me fired.
Just in case he makes good on that, so that you know to cut him short." I am disappointed that my father even says such a thing - about harming me that way - I value may job here ....
(some fluff to sugar coat it for collegues or management) ....
you would have the PR advantage - the person that gets to present their case first, is more believed. And you make sure they will remember how outrageous it is that a parent would do such a thing (or even how immature it is to even threatne that).
It is a good idea to think in advance what you will say and to rehearse it. So you come across as professional, mature and discreet (I would very much prefer to not go into details, I would not bother you except for fear it could impact my job negatively).
If YOU tell them they will think: WHICH kind of father would want to get their child fired from a job
If he calls them: companies can get annoyed (the strategy is to cut him off when he is on the phone) and to hand over messages.
That would also be important, because if he is stupid enough to produce a paper trail, you want your company to hand over evidence.
If he tries to poison your co workers relationship - if you warned them you will immunize them to a degree. (Else it can be: Wow, she/he must realy bad if even the father .... No, not even if the child misbehaves a lot would a mature parent want them to lose their job as revenge).
20
-
18
-
16
-
16
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
Rachel P most countries that were hit hard have some characeristics. very large cities, a lot of international travel (in spring), in Europe: the country is in the South, or Center (as opposed to Northern Europe that was hit later - that gave them time to learn from Italy, France, Spain, ... With Finland and Norway used well, see their very low death numbers).
The U.S. has a major challenge with the huge cities, and lots of international travel. The half baked, inconsistent, erratic, head-in-the-sand, every-state-is-on-its-own repsonse made things worse.
To a lesser degree all of that applies to the U.K.
Only that most of the U.K. is densely populated, while there ARE large rural areas in the U.S. that naturally fared better in spring, in the first phase of the pandemic.
The U.K. had also a the denial phase in spring, and it cost the U.K. dearly. (Their Boris Johnson is not quite as idiotic, maybe it helped that he was reckless in his disregard of social distancing rules, and caught the virus early on ).
Only the U.S is STILL in the first phase, the graph for the other countries for deaths per million is a (often steep sometimes very steep) increase and then the graph flattens. after 3 weeks or after 6 weeks if they were hit hard. Lucky countries had a modest increase, the unlucky ones have a steep one and it is drawn out - but by the end of June even blundering U.K. had gotten a grip on the situation.
Only the U.S. graph is VERY different. It is a 45 degree line since spring. No sign whatsover of any flattening, it continues to rise.
I always forget the high numbers of Belgium (11 million people approx.) I guess a LOT of international travel to the center of the EU was a major factor, they got it early, too.
Another factor
Belgium and also France and Luxembourg also count people that are suspected to have died from CoVid-19. They have the numbers under control, they got most of their deaths in spring when testing capacities were not sufficient.
There is a standard to find out the "additional deats" they to compare the number of people that have died in 2020 with 2019 or 2018. We will have to wait if Belgium fares better in that regard (which would indicate that the different way to count the deaths play a role, they overcounted or the other nations undercounted).
4
-
4
-
4
-
Masks do not work so well especially if laypersons wear them (they tend to wear them with a more sloppy fit even more so than medical staff). BUT even if masks "only" reduce the infection rates by maybe 10 or 20 % - that is nothing to sneer on - considering we have no other highly effective options. That would be
1) a safe well working vaccine (it gives sufficient immunity to most that get the shot, and the protetions lasts for some time) and
2) as a second best - treatment drugs that work really well. Shortening or avoiding hospital stays, much fewer cases for the ICU or deaths. Plasma therapy is a start, it helps in 30 % of the cases (or is suited fro them) and there it works really well.
That effecitvity of masks is just my estimate (reading a little into studies where they tried to simulate the protection with a good fit and a lose fit - with some test installation). I would be very surprised if it would be over 30 %, to be honest.
We do not have the good options 1) or 2), so we have to make do with imperfect measures. Like handwashing, masks, social distancing, a cooperating population, and strategic testing. Unfortunately also hindering certain businesses because they are hubs.
In Austria, Germany, France ..... it helps that people get paid sick leave (has been like that for decades, and in Austria it is pointless to fire such a person, because the employer has to pay their salary until the are declared healthy even if the contract has expired. Small business can get an insurance to cover that risk (having to pay sick leave) and they get a good deal from the single payer agency.
People do not have to fear medical bills - services free at the point of delivery. That coverage is also not lost if a person applies for unemployment benefits, and they get it then for free and it is very easy. As soon as a person signs the application, they are automatically covered. Same agency, same coverage and insurance card as before and of course still including automatically all dependent family members
Single payer coverage costs 3,8 % of wage (max USD 2,200 per year, employers must match that) - but it is free for the unemployed. Necessary testing (when a person has symptoms) is free. The testing required for travel has to be paid - maybe 160 bucks per test. It is often a negative test or mandatory quarantine for travellers.
So people are more likely to get tested if in doubt, to go to the doctor, and to stay at home, instead of taking a gamble. If THEY are young and healthy and cannot afford to miss out on their wage if they have no paid sick leave, they have an incentive to take a gamble.
Testing is available and it is free as well. Testing costs for a family could be a burden, think 4 x 160 bucks. Lower income families had good reasons to spend their holidays within the country this summer.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
All efforts to fix the community will be for naught if the local police has their own agenda to entrap low income people in fines, even jail time if they cannot pay the fines, if they do unconstitutional frisk and stop. It was utterly useless they did not find drugs or weapons in New York (hardly any). So WHY did they continue to do it when it was such a waste of money and resources ?
Police likes to do that. Easy job, it is not dangerous.
Mindset. Deeply racist but also against poor people.
Politicians in large cities collude with the real estate "developers" that means a lot of working poor, as rent shoots up when normal people are priced out of the "market".
If you have many disaffected people you need the police to "police" them and to show them their place.
Stop and frisk did not add to safety - that was never the reason it was done.
It was signalling to the wealthy people, those that vote and are doing O.K., well or very, very well. That "those other, poor people" were kept down and shown their place.
Damn relations with the community (which would be important for real crime reduction - that the population trusts the police - that could help against REAL crime, the gangs).
That was not the goal in the times of Serpico. Then politicians and police chief did some grandstanding, too.
Meanwhile the parents in the poor areas (that could not afford to move away) knew what was really going on.
Poor parents had no way to protect their teeangers from the gangs, and the police was not helping. On the contrary !
That the police colluded with the gangs, and drug dealers, that they would NEVER touch the big guys (police delivering hints to the FBI and the DEA so that the big guys could take over). That they extorted protection money from small businesses.
Police in Chicago had BLACK SITES to torture suspects.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2