NationStates

Kannap wrote:So Apparently Michael Bay decided it was a good idea to create a dystopian coronavirus movie

The first trailer for dystopian thriller "Songbird," produced by Michael Bay and directed by Adam Mason, was released Thursday to much criticism.

Bay's film "Songbird" takes place in 2024, where COVID-19 has mutated to COVID-23 and the world is in its fourth year of lockdown. The trailer shows images of notable places in the U.S., including the Santa Monica Pier nearly deserted, now mostly occupied by soldiers and armored vehicles ready to shoot civilians who violate lockdown orders. The U.S. death toll in the movie's setting has reached over 8 million for the year alone, while the worldwide coronavirus death toll is now over 110 million.

The trailer was deemed "tone deaf" by many on Twitter who thought it was bad timing to make a movie about a deadly pandemic when we're still in the middle of a current pandemic. One American dies from COVID-19 every 107 seconds, according to Johns Hopkins data.

"Making a 'dystopian horror movie' about a horror that is real and happening RIGHT NOW is so tone deaf. And so not what people need. So many people have lost jobs, livelihoods and loved ones due to COVID, and everyone’s life has been severely effected. Bad, bad, bad move," tweeted @scallywap.

Others called Bay "completely out of touch" and insensitive as not only does it play into people's fears about the pandemic, but it appears as though he's profiting off of it.

"We are still in this pandemic. That is still killing hundreds of people daily. Ppl are jobless and homeless. In real life. And ppl are being shot in the streets. Making a film to profit off something that is causing suffering all over the world right now is actually offensive," tweeted @moonchiile.

Others noted that people are still dying from the virus, adding that the novel coronavirus "isn't some sort of sci-fi illness."

"To make a movie about it, especially this year is extremely disrespectful," wrote @ambsomething.

The U.S. set a record this week for new coronavirus cases over a seven-day period with more than 500,000 infections. An American is testing positive every 1.2 seconds and daily hospitalizations have been rising steadily for more than a month, from 28,608 on Sept. 20 to more than 44,000 on Tuesday.

"There's no way to sugarcoat it: We are facing an urgent crisis, and there is an imminent risk to you, your family members, your friends, your neighbors and the people you care about," said Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, whose state is seeing one of the nation's worst outbreaks.

Remember when conservatives got that movie about rich liberals hunting Trump supporters cancelled? Can they please do that again? Just...make this movie go away. deletthis.jpg

San Lumen wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/523748-nj-governor-wont-rule-out-another-lockdown-amid-rising-covid-cases

New Jersey Governor says he won't rule out another statewide shutdown.

There has to be more coordination as to what course of action the government is gonna take. The shutdowns are not meant to be a permanent measure but damn no one ever even actually shuts down so it just keeps going.

Think about it. The government bans any gatherings to prevent covid. People gather in secret and covid keeps spreading as a result. The government extends the shutdown hoping we'll turn a corner eventually if we give it time but the corner is never turned. It's fucked up and imo we need to focus more on encouraging masking, crowd size restrictions in businesses, and ramping testing up crazy high. Instead, half the states are basically gonna put their people on house arrest till May while the other half do fuck all to stop the virus, and you get the worst of both worlds. I hate this situation so much.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

San Lumen wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/523748-nj-governor-wont-rule-out-another-lockdown-amid-rising-covid-cases

New Jersey Governor says he won't rule out another statewide shutdown.

There has to be more coordination as to what course of action the government is gonna take. The shutdowns are not meant to be a permanent measure but damn no one ever even actually shuts down so it just keeps going.

Think about it. The government bans any gatherings to prevent covid. People gather in secret and covid keeps spreading as a result. The government extends the shutdown hoping we'll turn a corner eventually if we give it time but the corner is never turned. It's fucked up and imo we need to focus more on encouraging masking, crowd size restrictions in businesses, and ramping testing up crazy high. Instead, half the states are basically gonna put their people on house arrest till May while the other half do fuck all to stop the virus, and you get the worst of both worlds. I hate this situation so much.

it seems to be the only strategy we are using and since states likely don't have the authority to close their borders I have no idea what the answer is going forward. The federal government can;'t force states to shut down either.

San Lumen wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
There has to be more coordination as to what course of action the government is gonna take. The shutdowns are not meant to be a permanent measure but damn no one ever even actually shuts down so it just keeps going.

Think about it. The government bans any gatherings to prevent covid. People gather in secret and covid keeps spreading as a result. The government extends the shutdown hoping we'll turn a corner eventually if we give it time but the corner is never turned. It's fucked up and imo we need to focus more on encouraging masking, crowd size restrictions in businesses, and ramping testing up crazy high. Instead, half the states are basically gonna put their people on house arrest till May while the other half do fuck all to stop the virus, and you get the worst of both worlds. I hate this situation so much.

it seems to be the only strategy we are using and since states likely don't have the authority to close their borders I have no idea what the answer is going forward. The federal government can;'t force states to shut down either.

I'm glad my state probably won't totally shut down again but good lord we're now the "doing nothing" state of Michigan. The governor could say "can we limit occupation in businesses to 90% capacity?" And the Republican legislature would say "no, open everything, herd immunity, sacrifice the old people."

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
it seems to be the only strategy we are using and since states likely don't have the authority to close their borders I have no idea what the answer is going forward. The federal government can;'t force states to shut down either.

I'm glad my state probably won't totally shut down again but good lord we're now the "doing nothing" state of Michigan. The governor could say "can we limit occupation in businesses to 90% capacity?" And the Republican legislature would say "no, open everything, herd immunity, sacrifice the old people."

Its sad how Republicans won't work with the governor.


I wouldnt put it past Murphy or Cuomo to do it again and Cuomo will make another out of touch comment like when he first shut down the state saying "If your so desperate for a job go work in a hospital." After he said that I was done with him and will never cast a ballot for him again and I know a lot of people who feel the same way.

San Lumen wrote:https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/523747-uks-boris-johnson-considering-new-lockdown-amid-rising-covid-19

Johnson says he’s considering another national shutdown.

Not surprised.

If I remember correctly, wasn't it found out that a huge chunk of the rise in infections is from the government's "Eat out to help out" programme (or whatever it's called)?

Unsurprisingly, encouraging people to go out in the middle of a pandemic spreads infections.

San Lumen wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/523748-nj-governor-wont-rule-out-another-lockdown-amid-rising-covid-cases

New Jersey Governor says he won't rule out another statewide shutdown.

Good, the last lockdown helped reduce cases here significantly. We were one of the hardest hit states originally, remember, and we were able to get it under control thanks to the quick response of Murphey and co.

I mean sure he was deeply hypocritical with who was and wasn't allowed to protest towards the end of it, but still.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
it seems to be the only strategy we are using and since states likely don't have the authority to close their borders I have no idea what the answer is going forward. The federal government can;'t force states to shut down either.

I'm glad my state probably won't totally shut down again but good lord we're now the "doing nothing" state of Michigan. The governor could say "can we limit occupation in businesses to 90% capacity?" And the Republican legislature would say "no, open everything, herd immunity, sacrifice the old people."

Anyone else remember when Republicans were screeching about Grandma being on 'Obamacare Death Panels' ?

Valrifell wrote:

San Lumen wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/523748-nj-governor-wont-rule-out-another-lockdown-amid-rising-covid-cases

New Jersey Governor says he won't rule out another statewide shutdown.

Good, the last lockdown helped reduce cases here significantly. We were one of the hardest hit states originally, remember, and we were able to get it under control thanks to the quick response of Murphey and co.

I mean sure he was deeply hypocritical with who was and wasn't allowed to protest towards the end of it, but still.

Well then he’d better find a way to help support people financially and the countless businesses who won’t be able to pay bills if he shuts down the state again.

Boris is set to announce a new national lockdown starting on Thursday and lasting until 2nd December.

This will be fun.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54763956

San Lumen wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Good, the last lockdown helped reduce cases here significantly. We were one of the hardest hit states originally, remember, and we were able to get it under control thanks to the quick response of Murphey and co.

I mean sure he was deeply hypocritical with who was and wasn't allowed to protest towards the end of it, but still.

Well then he’d better find a way to help support people financially and the countless businesses who won’t be able to pay bills if he shuts down the state again.

Federal aid would be nice.

Valrifell wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Well then he’d better find a way to help support people financially and the countless businesses who won’t be able to pay bills if he shuts down the state again.

Federal aid would be nice.

You mean that people have already spent their Trumpbux? That was very poor financial planning on the part of poor people. They should try being rich for a change.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Federal aid would be nice.

You mean that people have already spent their Trumpbux? That was very poor financial planning on the part of poor people. They should try being rich for a change.

Put if people stopped choosing to be poor, they would lose their government-handout ferraris, and we can't have that.

Fartsniffage wrote:Boris is set to announce a new national lockdown starting on Thursday and lasting until 2nd December.

This will be fun.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54763956

I wonder what people will be doing with the furlough ending this week.

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:Boris is set to announce a new national lockdown starting on Thursday and lasting until 2nd December.

This will be fun.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54763956

I wonder what people will be doing with the furlough ending this week.

Going hungry and losing their homes. Merry Christmas wage slaves.

Fartsniffage wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:
I wonder what people will be doing with the furlough ending this week.

Going hungry and losing their homes. Merry Christmas wage slaves.

You say that, but a lot of low paid essential workers will ride this out fine (literally, with those crystal clear commute roads) while the owner of a swanky wine bar will be feeling the pain.

OK, how exactly is Cuomo supposed to enforce this?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/31/world/covid-19-coronavirus?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR27GzWY179bDpHlGwAhnqGX3xug39FwMYFKZVHj_-1VmfBNF63o9c9yp0c&fbclid=IwAR1R5pjHu6fwmDZeZl6J3ayghkvpq2CBx-3ixvXl2inekwX1sGL9ccx7yxk&fbclid=IwAR0bE1E5whWHuLEwQBmHfCuCsE_p0yAozPAq2jwT0oyCPEGn_CFkqRn_0zs&fbclid=IwAR2LHCzD-4v6S8MBdbQEPzakp08YucsNMSTCEdmjHZFwHyC2TvBnb_2409U#in-a-first-for-the-us-cuomo-requires-visitors-to-new-york-to-undergo-testing

How does New York manage to enforce requiring every out-of-state visitor to take a test on arrival? I don't think they have that many people available to set up checkpoints at every border crossing.

Genivaria wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
I'm glad my state probably won't totally shut down again but good lord we're now the "doing nothing" state of Michigan. The governor could say "can we limit occupation in businesses to 90% capacity?" And the Republican legislature would say "no, open everything, herd immunity, sacrifice the old people."

Anyone else remember when Republicans were screeching about Grandma being on 'Obamacare Death Panels' ?

I'm convinced that everything the GOP accuses the democrats of doing is what they're doing right now.

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Going hungry and losing their homes. Merry Christmas wage slaves.

You say that, but a lot of low paid essential workers will ride this out fine (literally, with those crystal clear commute roads) while the owner of a swanky wine bar will be feeling the pain.

Low paid essential workers are one part of the economy. Not everyone who works at Applebees can just go work at Meijer.

Shrillland wrote:OK, how exactly is Cuomo supposed to enforce this?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/31/world/covid-19-coronavirus?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR27GzWY179bDpHlGwAhnqGX3xug39FwMYFKZVHj_-1VmfBNF63o9c9yp0c&fbclid=IwAR1R5pjHu6fwmDZeZl6J3ayghkvpq2CBx-3ixvXl2inekwX1sGL9ccx7yxk&fbclid=IwAR0bE1E5whWHuLEwQBmHfCuCsE_p0yAozPAq2jwT0oyCPEGn_CFkqRn_0zs&fbclid=IwAR2LHCzD-4v6S8MBdbQEPzakp08YucsNMSTCEdmjHZFwHyC2TvBnb_2409U#in-a-first-for-the-us-cuomo-requires-visitors-to-new-york-to-undergo-testing

How does New York manage to enforce requiring every out-of-state visitor to take a test on arrival? I don't think they have that many people available to set up checkpoints at every border crossing.

I have absolutely no idea.

So, Pfizer's vaccine trial hasn't hit its 32-event analysis point, contrary to their predictions.

I've been thinking about this, and I think that, despite appearances, this is good news. You see, their prediction was based on their vaccine having 50% efficacy - that is, they were expecting to have had ~21 events in the placebo group and ~11 in the vaccine group, adding up to 32 infections. Now, I can think of exactly two reasonable explanations for why they haven't gotten there yet:

1. The area they're running the trial in is doing a better job than expected of keeping case numbers down (they're running their trial in the US, so... no, I don't think that's plausible).
2. The vaccine is significantly better than 50% effective. That is: they've had the expected 21 placebo group events, but they haven't had the 11 trial group infections.

In particular, it very likely means that their vaccine isn't less then 50% effective, otherwise they'd have had more events than expected.

Obviously, this is all pretty wild speculation until they do hit 32 events and unblind the data, but I really can't see a better explanation for the numbers we're seeing, and from a pure bayesian perspective, this very definitely is evidence of efficacy, albeit not especially strong evidence.

Salandriagado wrote:So, Pfizer's vaccine trial hasn't hit its 32-event analysis point, contrary to their predictions.

I've been thinking about this, and I think that, despite appearances, this is good news. You see, their prediction was based on their vaccine having 50% efficacy - that is, they were expecting to have had ~21 events in the placebo group and ~11 in the vaccine group, adding up to 32 infections. Now, I can think of exactly two reasonable explanations for why they haven't gotten there yet:

1. The area they're running the trial in is doing a better job than expected of keeping case numbers down (they're running their trial in the US, so... no, I don't think that's plausible).
2. The vaccine is significantly better than 50% effective. That is: they've had the expected 21 placebo group events, but they haven't had the 11 trial group infections.

In particular, it very likely means that their vaccine isn't less then 50% effective, otherwise they'd have had more events than expected.

Obviously, this is all pretty wild speculation until they do hit 32 events and unblind the data, but I really can't see a better explanation for the numbers we're seeing, and from a pure bayesian perspective, this very definitely is evidence of efficacy, albeit not especially strong evidence.

So this a good thing and it’s a very effective vaccine possibly?

San Lumen wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:So, Pfizer's vaccine trial hasn't hit its 32-event analysis point, contrary to their predictions.

I've been thinking about this, and I think that, despite appearances, this is good news. You see, their prediction was based on their vaccine having 50% efficacy - that is, they were expecting to have had ~21 events in the placebo group and ~11 in the vaccine group, adding up to 32 infections. Now, I can think of exactly two reasonable explanations for why they haven't gotten there yet:

1. The area they're running the trial in is doing a better job than expected of keeping case numbers down (they're running their trial in the US, so... no, I don't think that's plausible).
2. The vaccine is significantly better than 50% effective. That is: they've had the expected 21 placebo group events, but they haven't had the 11 trial group infections.

In particular, it very likely means that their vaccine isn't less then 50% effective, otherwise they'd have had more events than expected.

Obviously, this is all pretty wild speculation until they do hit 32 events and unblind the data, but I really can't see a better explanation for the numbers we're seeing, and from a pure bayesian perspective, this very definitely is evidence of efficacy, albeit not especially strong evidence.

So this a good thing and it’s a very effective vaccine possibly?

With all of the usual provisos about this being me doing some educated speculation off very limited data: yes.

Shrillland wrote:OK, how exactly is Cuomo supposed to enforce this?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/31/world/covid-19-coronavirus?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR27GzWY179bDpHlGwAhnqGX3xug39FwMYFKZVHj_-1VmfBNF63o9c9yp0c&fbclid=IwAR1R5pjHu6fwmDZeZl6J3ayghkvpq2CBx-3ixvXl2inekwX1sGL9ccx7yxk&fbclid=IwAR0bE1E5whWHuLEwQBmHfCuCsE_p0yAozPAq2jwT0oyCPEGn_CFkqRn_0zs&fbclid=IwAR2LHCzD-4v6S8MBdbQEPzakp08YucsNMSTCEdmjHZFwHyC2TvBnb_2409U#in-a-first-for-the-us-cuomo-requires-visitors-to-new-york-to-undergo-testing

How does New York manage to enforce requiring every out-of-state visitor to take a test on arrival? I don't think they have that many people available to set up checkpoints at every border crossing.

I think that it might be "security theatre" to an extent.

That being said NY State Police could probably man checkpoints on the main highways, either on the border or at strategic chokepoints. It would be interesting to see how much traffic flows on the main Interstate highways vis a vis the smaller roads.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

San Lumen wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/523748-nj-governor-wont-rule-out-another-lockdown-amid-rising-covid-cases

New Jersey Governor says he won't rule out another statewide shutdown.

There has to be more coordination as to what course of action the government is gonna take. The shutdowns are not meant to be a permanent measure but damn no one ever even actually shuts down so it just keeps going.

Think about it. The government bans any gatherings to prevent covid. People gather in secret and covid keeps spreading as a result. The government extends the shutdown hoping we'll turn a corner eventually if we give it time but the corner is never turned. It's fucked up and imo we need to focus more on encouraging masking, crowd size restrictions in businesses, and ramping testing up crazy high. Instead, half the states are basically gonna put their people on house arrest till May while the other half do fuck all to stop the virus, and you get the worst of both worlds. I hate this situation so much.

can't have "more coordination" when the desire to downplay leaks from the tippy fucking top