#worse part about getting covid is that i dont even have any control over it

[rouge-the-bat]

🥺 <- sick little lad that just wants a cheese

[petruchio]

i’m back on this bs again but like.. tv shows and sports things are happening because everyone involved gets quarantined and then covid tested and then quarantined and then they stay in their bubble and it’s fine. no masks, no covid, no issues. and it blows my mind how people seem to understand that, but not why it would work on a national or even state wide level. aaaahhhhhhhhhhh

omg im sorry it took me so long to reply to this but i wanted to get on my laptop so i could type because i have THOUGHTS and basically YEAH DUDE EXACTLY like that’s why its so frustrating like “oh its ok to do this tv show/play this sport because everyone quarantined for two weeks and they get tested regularly and we isolate anyone who has it” like oh my GOD if we did that on a national scale we could fucking solve this thing that’s what we’re supposed to be trying to do

and ok, sure, doing a bubble on a national scale is a logistical nightmare! but isn’t that kind of? the job? of the government????? to figure out logistical nightmares of a huge scale and then roll them out??? and like it’s just insane that we live in this weird mitch mcconell alternate reality where instead the government’s job is APPARENTLY to just be like “no thanks, figure it out yourselves <3″ and like how tf are regular people supposed to do that. it has to come top down, like oh my god it’s been almost an entire year how do we not have a better test and trace system in place!!!!!!!!

i get so torn because like i think individual people have undoubtedly been extremely irresponsible during this pandemic and have surely made it much worse than it could be, but given the absence of ANY unified messaging and a complete lack of infrastructure that could potentially support them and support controlling this pandemic it doesn’t really surprise me? like what are people supposed to do? how is your average joe going to manage, even if you wear a mask and go to the grocery store and don’t like go around coughing on strangers, there’s literally still nothing in place to support you and help you! so it’s hardly surprising that people are feeling weary and let down, because like what have they come to expect now--more lockdowns, more time spent away from family, friends, etc, and all for nothing because all this time we’ve been doing the hard part to try and contain this thing and the government just sat there and said “idk about this whole public health crisis thing but we’ll vote on SCOTUS because we gotta fuck over obamacare somehow!” it’s no surprise that your average citizen is starting to get tired of it! we’ve bought them all this time to do something and they’ve done jack shit with it. 

obviously i’m not advocating that we should just like go out and spread the virus because the GOP doesn’t care about us, but i just think it makes sense that people are feeling more and more hopeless about the future of this thing because the government doesn’t even seem to care enough to TRY and set something up to help us. it just makes my blood BOIL SKFJHSDKJHSLDKJFH i dont know what we are going to do anymore god 

[shamaste]

Trauma: how to deal with that.

Such as PTSD. Yes, it feels like shit. At least for me as a man.

It makes you feel insecure, - as if you can't trust anyone no more, - it seems like everyone is waltzing over, steps on your feelings, hurting you, - it seems like you're on your own, which isn't really the case. - You like to do things but you don't dare to do it anymore. - You see problems everywhere and everything seems to only evoke more fears. And you would like it to be different, turned around ....! Do you recognize this?

Youre in a need for an desperate change? Then it is time for your next step in your life! I've been in situations myself, more then once, either through: discrimination, bullying, allmost fatal accidents, suicide of a loved one and fighting for my own life and more. And look! No matter how dark or heavy it was, I made it. Like a real survivor. I've conquered it!

My self-destructed self-confidence has largely recovered from those dark heavy periods. But sometimes, you fall back

That's necessary. It is called: Reorientation time. You can also see how it realigns your energy. Also to remind yourself what you are now and where you've been. To be able, allowing, willing to see your blessings in the 'now'. No longer assuming the role of being a victim, but as a survivor of harddhip and dark, difficult times. This way you can enjoy those little things more and more, that from your heart, which others may have trouble with or can't see. Like me and with my Orchids. For me, every flower that opens is a victory. So, is every flower that now opeens stands for: Victory!

This is partly due to the love I put in it. The attention of my positive, loving energy. And of course: the healing symbol that i possess.

So!

That's how you deal with your traumas: by emphasizing that, despite of all the pain, that you can grow / bloom, now. The fungus he feeds and live on, is like your past, and now is that the power. Your power as a vertalizer which the orchid lives on and blooms l. Just like the Lotus: it also grows from the mud. It is always, the choise, how you want to see it and what you want to hold on to.

How I did it ...? With sports and music. Those were my friends in dark, unhappy times. Now that I can exercise again, - because of the covid crisis for 8 months not been able to go to the gym-, I notice this, that despite of all the pain, especially afterwards, those exercise is linked to my self-esteem and that it will makes you feel good about yourself. If you feel good about yourself, you automatically become more positive about yourself. If you have a blockade in your body, sports helps to break these blockages, and then.... let them go.

I said today..: I thought something positive about myself, it felt like catching myself grabbing a piece of chocolate from the plate. And chocolate stands for own-love itself. That's why I only like pure dark chocolate! No dicrimination in these. The purer, the better i like it.

I looked in the mirror in the gym today and I thought, "Man o Man, you're almost 56 years old, in a month. Look at your flat stomach and look around you. "Then the next thought .. "Ow, yes, it is so ..!" I had that reference-frame for 8 months not around me! So I started to see myself in another not so 'positive way'. Not in a positive sense i should normaly do.

Partly because I could not exercise, and that is what belongs to me and suits me. So those old traumas that I had well under control resurfaced because of this loss of control and that manifested itself as depleting energy, in all areas. Oops ...!

You feel somehow drifting somewhere you dont want to go, but it cant be stopped, or could you? Yes! And you can't stop it unless ...? GladIy, happy i am, that the gym reopened. But also with considerable resistance, I still went. The trauma and fear was my guide in this. Lots of people together in one space and I know how it goes. Bears on the road, Dutch saying: If you only see troubles on your way? Or the real things? Which also turned out to be the case. - the thought of: you could be infected, only from that one person? And then? Then I am nicely between 6 boards. A coffin. Whats the Advantage of that? And gone, are mine problems, gone those traumas. LOL. I don't have to worry about that anymore. Free at last, haha.

Anyway; For me it was negative resistance to ... (I keep to myself)! No kidding. People, more and more they trigger me in a negative way. Even disliking them more... Because of the way they act, do! Not because of...! You know what i mean.

You have little or no control over that. It grows the longer it takes. We have all been able to see how it works. Egocentrical way of living, its me, me, me. And the rest? They dont seems to care any longer.

In other, my words: A trauma, it always remains part, whether or not latent, so it is always part of someone's life. Only how and in what way ... we determine that for ourselves. Not other people. We all decide for ourselves.

Often is this the case: they hide it, or by suppressing because of fear and the anger, what is dangerous for your own well-being, because if it does break out, which will eventually happen, it is often with a lot of violence. That is very harmful to you and the rest, your environment. See for yourself in this moment, around the world.

Thats why this is an important fact: To coop and handle it correctly. Whether it is something, from your childhood, as a young adult, or later in life, it does not matter. It will and must be channeled in the right way, from a renewed, especially with a positive point of view in which old feelings have not a important place anymore in youre life. As an expert by experience, I am 100% sure.

I have learned: stop fighting it, or it will get worse. Learn to handle it in a healthy way.

Make it your strength. Think of it as something that motivates you, as renewed energy that has a constructive effect. And do it for yourself and with that also for others. Be the example yourself how it can be done. People who dare not to change or let go, for whatever reason there may be, often create an unlivable destructive world for themselves and others. Addictions lurk. People live in a self-created bubble of misery. They become exactly what they hated most. A living trauma for others. There are many examples of how you should't do it.

On the bike, on my way home from the gym, I got this insight to share.

My vision about what you can do, to start your own life from a passive negative to an active positive point of view about your trauma and life. That's a choice you can make every day. Step-by-step. Take your first step and an achievable goal. Do it ... now!

Towards a better, healthier positive future.

That is everyone's right. Yours too.

Good day.

[coridallasmultipass]

Vent / personal / tmi / menstruation / endometriosis / long post ... Im so fucking sick of healthcare professionals telling me to just wait it out and pushing my problems onto other doctors I just got my 5th shot of lupron and have 1 more next month. On my appointment last week i told the gyn how ive been having much more cramping and tissue but not blood coming out regularly and he said its possible the combined lupron and norethindrone are making my uterine lining too thin, and to stop the norethindrone (it was being prescribed to help any menopause-like side effects the lupron can have) And less than 24 hours after my first missed dose i get a full blown period complete with extreme mood swings and depression Im not bleeding this week but im still cramping and the mood swings are so fucking bad, being chronically ill and not getting enough relief from any of my medications is making all of this worse but im literally breaking down over any little thing The lupron and norethindrone combined i guess have been suppressing all my emotions bc this is what it was like on the daily before i started it (just not as bad) which is telling me that none of my psych meds are working but whatever I just now got off the phone with my psych and he said he doesnt want to do anything with my meds or dosing bc he says its related to hormones and thats what my gyn needs to address and i Need To Wait im fucking sick of waiting i cant do this ive been waiting since last august!!!!!!! I now have to wait 2 more whole months of mood swings until i can have another appointment with him hes refused to actually screen me for adhd too and says its bc im An Artist type that im not able to sit down and draw anything since last fall like i fucking hate him and he never gets my name or pronouns right and i cant go see a new psych bc of all the closures and i dont wanna call my gyn bc he said if things get worse i need to have a pelvic ultrasound done again and i cant do it!!! I fucking cant do it it hurts too much im too traumatized from depoprovera and mirena that i cant even touch myself without extreme dysphoria and fear that im going to cramp Its killing me that as someone who was so personally sexual to completely be traumatized from the road to an endometriosis diagnosis that i can no longer masturbate or even talk about sex without anxiety and being trans on top of it hurts even more Next gyn appt is my last injection of lupron and im really gonna push to plan for a partial hysterectomy (i only had endo cysts on the back of my uterus but it was 100% confirmed with surgery and biopsy) so i hope it will help so i can stop taking all these fucking hormonal medications like Before being diagnosed i was really planning on going on testosterone but now im too scared because i feel like it would really fuck up my health problems more - mentally and physically Ive given up on passing and am trying to focus on body acceptance especially now that ove had rapid weight gain that isnt being addressed by any of ky doctors i bring it up to God im just trying to vent here but seriously Do not take the diagnosis of endometriosis lightly its super serious to go forth with any treatments and you really have to commit to long term treatments and its a gamble either way For me not starting any treatments was unacceptable i needed help with extreme monthly periods and all forms of birth control ive tried exacerbated symptoms and never stopped bleeding - i literally cannot personally recommend any form of medical birth control bc every one has fucked me over, many different pills at different points in my life, shot (depoprovera gave me debilitating cramps and i bled non stop all 3 months which started this whole journey to diagnosis), iud (iud was the worst i had to go to the er bc the gyn refused to give me pain meds and i was screaming in pain a few hours later unBle to move or think - i really cannot stress enough how painful and long insertion is like it was the longest 5-10 minutes of my life crying while it felt like a knife going through me) I really dont want that ultrasound tho ffs i had to get the first one done while i was in full force cramps during my depoprovera shot and the pelvic ultrasound rod is humongous and they dig it around inside you (i already had a painful and hard time trying to have pleasurable penetration even by myself or with partners) and it takes like 40 minutes of jumbling around your insides for them to document every thing like at least at that time i was only like 2 months from my last time jerking off but now its been almost 6 months of me not even thinking about putting more than one finger in to clean myself in the shower like to go right into an huge ultrasound is going to be so painful and anxiety inducing and i cant do it id rather go straight into surgery My biggest phobias have to do with pain around this part of my anatomy i cannot stress enough how long ive wanted a hysterectomy just so i dont have to fear accidentally getting p r e g... like i would literally kms... i would probably be able to handle the pain of cutting off my arm with a rusty knife better than extreme cramping pain like i had with the iud or ultrasound its such a phobia and now its source of trauma for me from everything ive gone through the last 6 months Having to readjust my life goals from doing p o r n as a hobby and wanting to transition and be who i am, to becoming a vegetable and trying to cope with the fact that i cant ever transition how i hoped Everything just really sucks for me right now and i have literally no social life any more, not even online bc im so stressed about my health and my attention is so bad i cant focus on a convo online, my laptop is about at its grave so all i have is a phone and xbox with bare minimum internet speed.. i live in the middle of nowhere and cant get my license bc the person who was guiding me to drive is an essential worker in a hospital so i cant go in their car any more... im just so fucking alone i cant do anything except break my back gardening and then cry about it later bc my fucking meds dont fucking work!!!!!!!!! Oh thats another thing im also dealing with fucking gerd on top of all this and i cant get the proceedure i need done to confirm if i need surgery or not bc the fucking lockdown!!!! So im stuck taking pantoprazole (been trying similar meds since march 2019 and its currently june 2020!!!!!!) I just want to eat tomatoes and chocolate again it fucking kills me if i dont take pantoprazole i will lose my voice and have such a sore throat and ears from the stomach acid and i know im gonna have to stop it for 2 weeks for one of the tests i need done and its going to be literal hell like it feels worse than strep throat ill probably do the thing where i start choking and coughing at night bc it gets so bad Im a fucking mess like why couldnt all of this happen one at a time I really want to get my belly pierced again bc i feel so naked without it but i cant bc i probably will be having 2 surgeries once covid blows over (if it ever does) Sorry for taking up so much dash space im just really hurting and need some outlet bc therapy isnt helping rn

[arcticdementor]

So the NYT newsletter lineup has been unveiled. I suppose the expectation is that I would make fun of this but I’m not moved to do so. Whatever else its problems, and I’m about to lay them out here, the Times does not suffer from a talent deficit. I don’t know what this is all going to look like in practice, or what the financial inducements are for the writers. But I’ll read several of these with interest and I’m excited to see what comes from the experiment. Let writers write. I imagine the Times has some extremely complicated and arbitrary rules about original reporting appearing in these newsletters; I’m told there are a lot of turf issues over there on 8th Avenue. But that’s not my concern. I’m in favor of giving people freer rein to explore their interests in writing, and from my vantage it seems like this setup could result in a lot of cool stuff. I for sure will read Jane Coaston and Jay Kang. I for sure will not read Frank Bruni. For the rest, we shall see.

Of course, what none of these people will do is what no one at the Times can do: publish things that upset the subscriber base. And it’s precisely the willingness to do so that has powered the financial success of newsletters like this one.

If you’re new around here, the basic scenario is that we’ve had a years-long moral panic in which elite white tastemakers adopted the political posture of radical Black academics out of purely competitive social impulses, trying on a ready-made political eschatology that blames the worlds ills on whiteness and men and yet somehow leaves space for an army of good white people and good men to cluck their tongue about it all. Concurrently, the most influential paper in the world emerged from decades of fiscal instability by going hard on digital subscriptions, paywalling more and more of its content and rattling its tin cup more loudly than ever before. The result has been boom times, attenuated only by the end of the immensely lucrative Trump years. (I believe Chris Hayes is covering Trump’s latest spray tan tonight.) The trouble is that this model leaves them even more dependent on a particular social and political caste, namely the educated white professional class that graduates from top 25 universities, moves to Echo Park or Andersonville or Austin, then sends Zane and Daschel to pre-K that costs more than their Audi. Oh and they, like, care about justice and stuff. Conservatives hate read the NYT and thus have traditionally brought in advertising revenue, but they don’t hate subscribe, and the end result is that a paper that was about a 6.5 on a ten-point Liberal Elite Scale when I was a kid has moved to a 9.5. And there’s nothing internal to the publication that can stop this leftward march.

This will invite reprisals for speaking out of turn, but all of the following comes from public knowledge, other people’s reporting, what former and current employees have said, and a little bit of gossip. The social and professional culture within The New York Times is notoriously toxic, the confluence of people with immense career ambitions and total shamelessness about using social justice rhetoric to attack their enemies; watercooler shit-talking and mean-girling has moved to Slack, where it’s somehow even worse than it was before; all of the younger staffers see their jobs as straightforwardly activist positions, and the role of the paper to advance a pro-Democrat social justice ideology rather than to report objectively or to present a range of viewpoints; executive editor Dean Baquet is afraid of his own employees; the Sulzbergers don’t want to have uncomfortable conversations with their fellow white liberal elites at the food co-op or whatever; and in general absolutely every internal incentive within the paper points towards uncritically advancing a Robin Diangelo-approved race and gender ideology, a class-never, deferential-to-woke-norms soggy social justice politics that says nothing remotely challenging to said staffer cliques or the Hermosa Beach soccer moms who now fund the paper. When Bari Weiss resigned the media Borg represented it as all about Weiss, but her story was really about the kind of perspective that can’t exist anymore at The New York Times. I’m sure the blob would deny this stuff, but again none of these are well-kept secrets. If Ben Smith was not paid by the New York Times he would have reported this out long ago.

…

You can talk about Bari Weiss, you can talk about the Cotton brouhaha, you can discuss the inherent and ugly incentives of the subscription model for the paper. But the Donald McNeil firing is truly the bellwether. A reporter with 45 years of NYT experience on an absolutely essential beat said something clueless but utterly anodyne to some spoiled adolescents on a trip that 99% of people their age can’t access. Despite the fact that what he said would have been totally unremarkable even in liberal circles five years ago, the situation caught the staff’s attention and its ire and they vented that ire with the typical absurdist claim that McNeil had put them “in danger” in some incredibly vague way. (On Twitter, of course). So McNeil was duly dispatched, and the basic power dynamic of the modern day New York Times was laid bare: a handful of the paper’s untouchable celebrities can kick up the junior staff into a frenzy, and once that catches fire on Twitter, there is no one in the paper’s leadership who has the honesty and integrity to tell them no. No one. (The NYT’s self-exonerating reaction to McNeil’s defense is quietly hilarious.) The simple fact of the matter is that Baquet has not demonstrated anything like the public courage it would take to face down a Twitter storm prompted by Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., and there’s no reason to think that that’s going to change anytime soon. The media types would reject all of this, if anyone at a big-shot publication had the integrity to write a story about these open secrets. But I’m not lying.

What annoys me about resistance to this narrative, from within the NYT or the media writ large, is that sometimes they admit that the point now is to advance social justice, which is to say to support a specific ideological project associated with one party. Wesley Lowery’s “moral clarity” piece remains a remarkably frank confession on the part of the Times that they have accepted what’s been obvious for a long time, that even they don’t believe in their own vestigial gestures towards evenhandedness anymore, that it’s all a naked pretense to please the last lingering greyhairs involved with the organization and that in due time they’ll be no less explicitly Democrat-aligned than DailyKos. (I think of David Brooks and Tom Friedman at the Times like children whose parents have handed them Xbox controllers that aren’t plugged in.) Watching the establishment media accept the fundamental claim of Lowery’s piece, that elite journalists possess such enormous moral wisdom that they have transcended the notions of subjectivity and embedded perspective, has been pretty wild, for the inconsistency if nothing else. They step from “of course the MSM hasn’t adopted full-throated social liberalism en masse, that’s absurd” to “yes we’re telling the truth now and that’s good and righteous” as rhetorically convenient.

…

In the broader perspective, what incentives are left for careers in media? The fast-then-slow-then-fast internet-enabled collapse of the industry’s financial foundations appears to be experiencing another fast phase. Everybody in the industry is aware that there’s some 22-year-old in the wings who will do what they’re doing for half price. (Those 22-year-olds are rich enough or stupid enough not to care that they will in short order be the one getting undercut themselves.) Covid killed whatever lingering cool NYC media social scene remained. Perceptions of prestige are subjective, but by my lights the indignities of the click-chasing era and pathetic Trump-humping of the past five years have erased whatever lingering prestige was left in writing for, say, The Washington Post. Along with The New Yorker, writing for the Times is one of the last privileges in the business that really walks the dog in the impress-your-normie-uncle sense - and, more importantly, provides clear benefits in the ancillary fields where affluent writers actually make their money. To get to that stage, you have to be liked by the right people. Every industry is influenced by petty popularity, but it’s particularly acute in the news business, and now bullshit me-first social justice complaints have been weaponized to enforce that popularity hierarchy.

This all leaves us in a place that’s utterly inhospitable to the noblest urge in any profession, which is to tell the profession and its gurus to go fuck themselves.

…

The only thing I can do, at this point, is appeal to the integrity of the individuals within that world. They aren’t bad people, most of them, they’re just afraid, financially precarious and terrified of being called racist in an industry which has busily drained professional success of any prerequisite other than popularity with one’s peers. You can understand a lot about media culture by understanding that most of the people within it feel like they’re barely hanging on. Well, let me put it to you all privately, here in this space away from Twitter and away from Slack, where it’s just you and me: was this really what you wanted to do, when you set out to make this your profession? To tell Bradley Whitford’s character from Get Out that he’s right about everything? To nod along with a conventional wisdom that you’re too scared to step outside of? I doubt that’s what you once dreamed of doing. The most valuable thing you can do with a prominent place in media, right now, is to point out how sick the whole business is. It’s only integrity when it hurts, guys. Something you write is only brave when it pisses off all your friends and colleagues. Why on earth did you get into journalism, instead of becoming an actuary, if not because you wanted to say the things your profession and your peers and your culture absolutely do not want you to say?

[elliot-orion]

Writeblr Re-Intro

I’ve seen quite a few people do this in the past couple weeks so i figure i probably should too considering how stinking long its been. so. hi there! I’m Elliot, and I use they/them pronouns! I’m a college kid majoring in creative writing and anthropology and regret doing both. I have a 9 year old emotional support cat, Van Gogh, who enjoys snoring, getting fur in my mouth, and chewing on my headphones. In addition to writing, I crochet amigurumis, play flight rising, bake like mad, obsess over dragons and stuffed animals, and spend way too much time thinking about superheroes. 

I mostly write LGBT+ Young Adult/New Adult fiction, and recently published my first novel, “Sparks Fly.” You can see a tumblr summary of it here. “Sparks Fly” and the majority of my stories take place in the expansive Dark Heart Universe full of not so heroic Super Heroes and Super Villains with questionable but not necessarily bad morals. But I like to dabble all over and have WIPs including a horror duology, a scifi roadtrip story, and about 800 other WIPs that are going nowhere because I’m a pantser and that’s how i roll. Expect to see me name drop some characters or a story, tag it in one ask game, and then never mention it again rather frequently. I apologize in advance. The main stories you will actually see me mentioning a bunch are below the cut. 

I technically have a website, and I technically have a twitter, but the former is a mess because I can’t program or remember to regularly blog and the latter i never use because social media scares me. Think there’s like 10 tweets on it and all of them are niche shitposts about my stories so... yea. I do have a Pinterest though, where you can find boards for most of my stories as well as a few of the name dropped once stories. so that’s fun. This intro is a mess.... Anyways, below the cut are some quick summaries of my main WIPs. If you want to learn more about the world that half of these are a part of (the DHU), look through this tag because my only summary series of it is way out of date. 

Woodsmoke

A DHU novel. Woodsmoke is a Hero who 100% should not be going to the worst Villain in town, Stardust, for help, but fuck it he doesnt have any other option. In return for helping Woodsmoke save a whole bunch of school kids, Stardust demands Woodsmoke owes him a favor - he has to help Stardust and his gang get rid of the Director of the city’s Supers Association branch. The only probably is, the Director control everything, and Woodsmoke is utterly terrified of him. But, he owes a favor, and he’s even more afraid of what Stardust could do to civilians than he is of what the Director could do to him. When it all goes wrong, maybe its time for him to give up being a Hero and stop being Woodsmoke. Maybe it’s time to just be Vincent again, and finally heal from the damage the SA has done. This is on its fourth draft and still needs about 2 or so more (guessing here), but will hopefully be the next DHU book released (dont quote me on that im winging this)

Nightmare at the Lily Pad Inn 

A DHU novel. Ben, who’s technically a Villain but really just can’t control their powers for shit and their powers are like, really scary so its bad, is on the run from their sociopathic asshole brother. They wind up at the Lily Pad Inn, a safe haven for Villains no matter what they’ve done, run by the cinnamon roll sweetheart Matty and their husband, Blue. While there, Ben meets Oliver, another not-technically-bad Super who can’t control his powers, and meets up with Morty, their best friend. Shit happens i guess idk i’ve not written a real summary for this one yet leave me alone. It’s on the first draft and its not even finished and i have no idea what the ending is because im a pantser go away.

Novella Collection

A DHU collection i guess. I’m not quite sure what else to call this because it’s made of three or so different novellas that I intend to fit together into a collection of novellas. The three novellas includes: the Empath, about Charlie who may just be the worlds most powerful empath and his partners who are very not happy with their area’s Director wanting Charlie to do something that could 100% kill him; Hell in High Heels, a historical DHU story about the Terra (Kitty), the Earth Elemental of the time, and Fer-De-Lance (Hattie), the Poison Elemental, and how they get married sorta unwillingly (thanks SA), break a shit ton of stereotypes, and help win World War 2.; and finally Wildfire, about the current day Fire Elemental and the Villain he really shouldn’t be so attracted to but 100% is and them chilling and being gay and idk this one needs a lot of work. All of these novellas have only had 1 draft and are still needing a lot of work. 

And now for some not dhu stories... 

The Other Beings / The Doll Maker

This is that horror duology I mentioned earlier. The Other Beings follow Nathan. He got sucked into the terrifying world of the Other Beings (well, 5 worlds actually),  when he was 7 years old because of a brother he’s never quite forgiven for making him and his pseudo-sister Hazel hunt minor Beings for his whole childhood and fucking Nate up massively. He managed to leave the horror of the Other Beings for all of seven years before he was sucked back in by the Doll Maker, an Other Being with a penchant for turning pretty children and people into ball-jointed dolls. Turns out a horde of Other Beings is coming after him because of his dad which is a Bad and now he’s having to run as a human macguffin and trust me - he’s not happy about it. Only the Other Beings draft 1 has been written because it’s a dark story and with covid i have not have the mental energy to work on it more, but it’s super fun and i adore it. The Doll Maker, the second book, is solely about Doll Maker and his shit. 

Paper Stars 

Paper Stars is the scifi I mentioned, and just might be one of my favorite things I’ve ever written, even though its only had one draft because it’s hella depressing (literally, the mc River is seriously suicidal) and with all the shit in my life rn i haven’t had the strength to work on it more. but i adore the story. Basically, River’s life has gone to hell since his Grandpa died and the only thing making him hold on is really his alien best friend, Keio. When his depression gets even worse, he finally asks Keio to take him away from Earth and to space to escape his problems. This works, kinda, i mean he falls in love and shit (yes River falls in love with a seal furry alien, please go through the tag its great), but eventually he knows he has to face his problems and get help because this is a realistic story about depression and love doesnt cure all and you cant run from mental illness. It’s great. 

That’s kinda all the main stories i mention a lot, all the others are little things i start and stop or that i write a self indulgent first draft but never intend to take it any further. all of these i fully intend to publish one day tho. So... yea. Welcome to my blog, its chaos but we have a good time. 

[khalilhumam]

When Numbers Don’t Speak for Themselves: COVID-19 and Thoughts on How to Measure a Country’s Performance

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/when-numbers-dont-speak-for-themselves-covid-19-and-thoughts-on-how-to-measure-a-countrys-performance/

When Numbers Don’t Speak for Themselves: COVID-19 and Thoughts on How to Measure a Country’s Performance

table border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; margin-bottom: 20px; th background-color: #00677F; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 15px 10px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; font-weight: bold; tr:nth-child(even) background-color: #ede7de; td text-align: center; padding: 10px; td:first-child, th:first-child text-align: left; ​ Please note this blog is part of a short series on COVID-19 and mortality. Please see here and here for our previous blogs, and here for a link to a recent event. There are multiple data and metrics used to assess a country’s performance in responding to the threat of COVID-19. As seen in a recent interview with President Trump of the United States, the choice of metric can influence whether a country’s response is considered a relative success or failure. In this case the metrics leading to different narratives were per capita death rate–the US looks relatively bad–and case fatality ratio–the US looks much better. In this blog we share our thoughts on how to measure a country’s performance in confronting the pandemic.

Measures of mortality relevant to assessing performance

Table 1 shows the five key mortality estimates required to understand the impact of COVID-19. Our central question is this: Can existing sources of data, when combined with judicious use of modeling, tell us how well a country’s COVID-19 control measures have performed? Can existing sources of data, when combined with judicious use of modeling, tell us how well a country’s COVID-19 control measures have performed?

Table 1. Five mortality estimates, before, during, and after COVID-19

Pre-COVID-19     COVID-19 and post COVID-19, with policies (to address both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) COVID-19 in the absence of policy or intervention Deaths COVID-19 deaths Non-COVID-19 deaths COVID-19 deaths Non-COVID-19 deaths A B C D E

Pre-COVID-19 Mortality – A

We label deaths that occurred before the outbreak of COVID-19 “A.” Data on these deaths are produced by national governments as part of civil registration systems. However, in most low- and many middle-income countries (LMICs), the data are limited by low completeness and lack of timely reporting and data processing. If countries invest today in the use of the World Health Organization (WHO) international standard death certificate, (ICD-11), and in boosting the civil registration of deaths, they will quickly cease to need to rely on modeled estimates of these deaths. However, for many years the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation has modeled the number, and cause, of deaths (by age and sex) in 195 countries to fill this chronic data gap.

Excess Mortality during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic – B and C

The next broad category of deaths (both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) to examine are those that are occurring now and in the future. These signify how policies have affected the level of infection and mortality. These latter deaths may be measured in the future but by necessity will be modeled today before they have occurred. The deaths in cell B (COVID-19 deaths to date) are reported by national governments and summarized by groups such as the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (the source used by Our World in Data) or the WHO. We also have predictions of future COVID-19 deaths for a range of policies available to governments to help slow the spread of the virus. Options here include the estimates published by Imperial College London, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and (ideally) “local” models where available. Note that some of the early predictions of overall mortality burden of the pandemic have not been updated to include the actual policies adopted, which have evolved over time as countries course-correct their responses. Therefore, the original predictions are of limited utility today. In cell C we have the non-COVID mortality occurring during and after the pandemic, which is challenging to measure where routine systems have not historically provided timely cause-specific or total mortality data, i.e., in most LMICs. We increasingly have modeled program/cause-specific estimates of the potential non-COVID-19 deaths caused by actions taken by governments (that will produce intended but also unintended consequences) and changes in the behavior of individuals (due both to policies but also the fear of the virus). However, unless countries specifically track the total mortality occurring and distinguish it from confirmed and suspected COVID-19 mortality, they will lack comprehensive estimates of these non-COVID-19 deaths. At present there are at least 13 countries, primarily supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies, seeking to address this question through the application of a technical package for rapid mortality surveillance. When listening to policymakers and reading their reports, our major recommendation is caveat lector–reader beware! Each and every metric has its own limitation, and selective use of one over others can present a distorted—or at best incomplete—picture of performance. Of course, part of the problem is that there will be a lag in the reporting of many of these deaths as routine health services disrupted by COVID-19 often prevent future mortality; hence our reliance on models. Similarly, the health consequences of the economic impact of COVID-19 will occur in the future. Nevertheless, we encourage more efforts to attempt to model (and then start and keep tracking) these deaths in order to provide a more complete picture of performance.  Without considering the indirect health effects, we do not see how the performance of a country’s response can be fairly assessed (even though most debates on this topic still tend to exclusively focus on the COVID cases and deaths count). It is possible to associate the trajectory of total and cause-specific excess mortality with the introduction of public health and social measures. For some this may be taken as “plausible” evidence of the impact (or lack) of policies. What may never be well understood, however, is whether the virus or the control measures caused excess deaths.

COVID-19 and non-COVID 19 mortality absent control measures – D and E

Attributing excess deaths to either the virus or the unintended consequences of policy requires modeling the counterfactual of what would have happened in the absence of control measures. Let’s call the counterfactual of how many COVID-19 deaths would have happened in the absence of any control measures “D.” Note that the Imperial and London School models failed to consider any spontaneous social distancing in their unmitigated scenarios, and are therefore overestimates of COVID-19 mortality. And finally, how many additional non-COVID-19 cases and deaths would there have been due to behavior changes, and the overcrowding of health systems, and the ensuing disruption to routine health services? Let’s call these deaths “E.” We are not aware of any published estimates of E. Note that these should not be assumed to be A (i.e. zero excess non-COVID-19 deaths).

Uses and limitations of mortality measures

These different estimates can be analyzed in the following ways:

COVID-19 deaths (B) or (D)

Measures: Self-explanatory Limitations/Comments:

Should the total number of deaths be reported, or should they be presented on a per capita basis?

What about the shape of the curve, i.e. is the outbreak (and response) getting better or worse?

Some policymakers cite the unmitigated scenario estimates (D) and compare them to the cumulative number of COVID deaths to date (B) – this provides a false sense of accomplishment as the typical counterfactual of no mitigation is not realistic.

Does not address COVID-19 mortality in relation to any other factors including, e.g., age of death/year of life lost, morbidity (short- and long-term), cost of control measures.

COVID-19 deaths averted (D – B)

Measures: How many COVID-19 deaths would have occurred in the absence of policy measures? Limitations/Comments:

Initial focus of modelers.

Focus on COVID-19 mortality fails to consider indirect mortality effects of the virus, and the response to the virus, has had and is having.

Again, provides an artificially high number as the typical counterfactual of no mitigation is not realistic.

COVID-19 deaths vs. excess non-COVID-19 deaths (B compared to C)

Measures: Mortality due to COVID-19 versus all other causes of death Limitations/Comments:

No reference to average, historic mortality is given.

Will not tell us how well the country and its range of policy responses performed. Although comparing across countries can highlight relative success, i.e. no or low mortality compared to high mortality.

Low COVID-19 deaths could be because: i) the policies effectively controlled the virus, or ii) perhaps, for a variety of reasons, the numbers were never going to be high (e.g. Africa).

Similarly, low non-COVID-19 estimates could be due to, for example, time lags, or successful efforts to mitigate the effects on routine services.

Excess mortality (B + C) compared to A (typically, the average number of deaths in the previous 5 years, i.e. 2015-2019)

Measures: Excess deaths occurring during the pandemic Limitations/Comments:

Relatively few countries have the civil registration systems in place to confidently track excess mortality.

While there are efforts under-way to strengthen rapid mortality surveillance to provide these data, there has been an over-reliance on modeling.

Fails to capture COVID-19 mortality averted.

Non-COVID-19 “excess mortality”: C compared to A

Measures: Deaths due to causes other than COVID-19 occurring during the pandemic Limitations/Comments:

Often the breakdown between COVID and other is not provided (although where total excess mortality is reported, it can be inferred by subtracting the reported COVID-19 deaths to obtain an estimate of the indirect deaths).

Fails to disentangle the effects of the virus, policies to address the virus, and policies to mitigate the effects of the virus.

Perhaps disentangling the cause of this excess mortality should not be a concern of policymakers; the damage needs to be mitigated no matter how it is caused.

As countries improve the timeliness of cause of death data, it may be increasingly possible to peer into the specific component causes of non-COVID-19 excess deaths and so formulate ameliorative action.

Net health impact: (D - B) compared to (C - E)

Limitations/Comments:

If (D -B) is greater than (C - E), the policies did more good than harm. Conversely, the policies did more harm than good. This is what we have proposed in earlier blogs. But how do we estimate E? And are D and E useful, the right comparators?

In conclusion

At the beginning of this blog, we asked “Can existing sources of data, when combined with judicious use of modeling, provide summary measures capable of quantifying how well a country’s COVID-19 control measures have performed?” The short answer is yes, but we should proceed with caution in doing so. As the COVID-19 pandemic passes its eight-month mark, it’s clear that there has been mixed success with controlling its spread. Countries such as Fiji, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Germany, and New Zealand, in addition to most of the African continent, have been comparatively successful in controlling the outbreaks within their borders. Countries such as the United States, Brazil, and South Africa have yet to “bend the curve;” new confirmed cases are still increasing day after day. Most countries sit somewhere between these two groups of countries. Of course, without the benefit of hindsight, we cannot definitively declare successes and failures. However, it matters how we define success (and failure). Has a country succeeded if it has stopped the spread of the virus leading to very few deaths? What if this “success” has been achieved at the expense of other non-COVID-19 deaths? What, in addition to excess mortality, must we measure or model? Of course, without the benefit of hindsight, we cannot definitively declare successes and failures. However, it matters how we define success (and failure). Has a country succeeded if it has stopped the spread of the virus leading to very few deaths? What if this “success” has been achieved at the expense of other non-COVID-19 deaths? What, in addition to excess mortality, must we measure or model? As some countries begin to relax measures adopted at the peak of the pandemic several months ago, while yet others consider reintroducing lockdowns to whole or subpopulations, we believe that a better understanding of what drives COVID-19 mortality rates across time and space, as well as considering metrics beyond excess mortality, can help decision-makers who are planning the ongoing COVID-19 response. Mortality measurement is part of the picture. It is necessary but not sufficient for answering relevant policy questions pertaining to the health impact of the virus and the response to it. A true focus on the “excess burden” would necessitate the use of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) or some other summary measure of population health capable of accounting for all the non-fatal disability caused by the virus. Likewise, for policymakers, health impact data in the absence of information about the cost of policy choices and other core indicators, only tells part of the story. Finally, when listening to policymakers and reading their reports, our major recommendation is caveat lector–reader beware! Each and every metric has its own limitation, and selective use of one over others can present a distorted—or at best incomplete—picture of performance.

[useyourwordspodcast]

Intolerant Karens are ruining the internet

The year 2020 is going to be remembered for a few things - one of those is the spread of a new coronavirus around the world, the other is the proliferation of the Karen meme, cancel culture being everywhere, and life just being a little crazier then any of us expected.

I need to preface this episode with something - in order to do this episode I had to run a little experiment on twitter - and I had to intentionally troll online. It doesn't make me feel the greatest to have to do that - but it is what it is. If I would have prefaced my tweet with the words: this is an intentional troll for a podcast - I would not have gotten the responses that I did. And boy did I get responses.

Before we get into what I did let's define a few things. In current culture, Karen is almost a universal meme. It stands for a person who wants to call the manager for any slight inconvenience. Did their drink come too hot? They want to talk to the manager. Too cold. Manager. Person used the wrong tone. Manager. Person did....you get the idea. And of course - the male version of Karen is Ken - and honestly I feel sorry for people named karen/ken as they have to live with the knowledge of the meme that their name has become.

Tolerance. I'm going to read this right from Merriam-Webster. sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own or the act of allowing something. The oxford dictionary further defines the word as: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

America is a melting pot - we allow people to come from all over the world here. And we welcome people here - there is some shared values as Americans that we share - but for the most part we are tolerant of other's cultures/opinions/views - well at least not online - and America has been made better for it as we get to learn from others we may never have interacted with otherwise.

But tolerance is required in order for that to work - and online it seems more and more if you don't espouse the views of the vocal minority then you are threatened, shouted down (virtually), berated, insulted, and a whole host of other things.

When I say vocal minority - I am not kidding. Only 7% of the United States population uses twitter. 87% of people have heard of twitter - but only 7% use it. On the flipside - 88% of people have heard of Facebook and 41% have a profile on Facebook. This would be crazy enough - but it gets worse actually. Of all the content created on twitter, 80% of the content is generated by the top 10% of twitter users - and the top 10% of twitter users tend to focus on politics - specifically left leaning politics. Breaking this down further - 77% of twitter users are wealthier then the general public, and 41% are making 75k or more per year. Something important to know about all of these statistics - business accounts were taken out of the data and are not considered when averages are generated.

Now I bring up all these stats to give you an idea of what the average twitter person is. They are a very vocal minority (minority because they are typically less then 10% of the general twitter population) but they are the squeaky wheel that gets the oil. It is because of this low engagement and usage that I personally have not really engaged with twitter too much - both personally and with the podcast.

Now with all of that - what did I do last week?

Last week Kroeger (the parent company for a chain of grocery stores, jewelry stores, medical clinics, etc) posted on twitter that they were going to mandate face masks be worn by all people entering their stores starting on 7/20/2020 - and let me make this very clear - this is a privately owned company on private property - they have every right to mandate conditions of entry into their stores and if they want to require masks they are well within their rights to do so and if people do not want to wear a mask - they can be turned away at the company's discretion - and no I don't believe a store requiring a mask is an attack on anyone's rights. Now if you want to have a conversation on the effectiveness of wearing a mask and want to come at this with scientific (peer reviewed) papers - then lets have that discussion - but entry into a business is an open and shut case - as they can control entry into their business in areas where there is no local mask mandate.

So back to that tweet. I had the idea for this episode swirling around in my mind for a little bit - but had never setup a second social media account - so I decided to just go ahead and do the deed from my main social media account. So I went onto twitter and responded to the Kroeger tweet (sorry Kroeger for trolling) with the tweet of "Thanks for letting me know to no longer patronize your stores - appreciate it" - nothing incendiary about masks, nothing calling mask wearers sheeple (I have seen that way too much on social media), nothing on this being against anyone's rights, nothing about hating on people for going there wearing masks - just a simple - I choose to take my business elsewhere since your requiring a mask - and twitter did not disappoint.

You of course had a decent number of people liking the post - which is going to happen no matter what is said - but the responses - those were the things I was looking for. There were a few "glad you won't be there" posts - but those are everyday run of the mill. Then there are the intolerant karens/kens. So since this happened (and after I thanked them for participating in this experiment) a lot of the people have since privated their twitter accounts or deleted their response - one would imagine (and hope) because they were ashamed of what they wrote and did online.

So the responses? I had one person threatening to contact my employer since I was such a threat to "myself and others" with the ending of "fking winger terrorist" - because I was taking my business elsewhere? I had a bunch of others calling me "dirty and nasty mexican", idiot, and many other hateful things (again most deleted now). I had one person - one - who engaged civilly with me - and due to his civil engagement I let him in on why I was doing what I was doing and he admitted that his initial reaction was probably over the top and not necessary.

For everyone that responded to me - I responded with "I have had this virus already and recovered - please tell me why I should have to be mandated to wear a mask". Not one person brought up that it was the store requesting that I wear it (if they had - I would’ve said your right) and instead just continued their insult. One person brought up the red herring of Chicken Pox and how adults can get it since they loose resistance over the many years and say this is the same as covid stating this as a fact - when (unfortunately for them) the CDC said they are not sure on the state of immunity. If they had brought up it could be possible since we don’t have the science - they would’ve gotten a point (and as I check my list on Sunday - looks like one person did bring that up - good for them!)

A few people brought up news websites (which were not marked as safe by newsguard) and said this was their proof on why I was an idiot. I then asked for peer reviewed scientific papers on the effectiveness of either makes, immunity, etc. Their only response - there is no time for science we have to do what they say because science takes too long to be useful.

:: head scratch ::

Not one person wanted to engage in any conversation on this and instead just used twitter as a platform of outrage - using it to shout their insults with confidence that no one should even have the right to talk counter to them. They were the law - and I had to bend to their will - and if I didn't - I was an intolerant evil biggot because I dare say that I will take my business elsewhere. It would’ve been one thing if they engaged in a conversation about why I said I was taking my business elsewhere - but nope - just a quick jaunt from taking my business elsewhere to your a dirty nasty Mexican. (BTW my twitter handle is @averagehalfmex - my old twitter handle has been archived and I have reserved it in case I want to use it again)

I got all of this and to thank those involved - I tagged all the most vile people in the threads in one tweet - and I was rewarded. I had a very nice moment of schadenfreude. These people started going after one another - accusing each other of being hateful conservatives and how they dont deserve to have opinions, and they were less then human, and many other insulting things. They didn't realize they were all on the same side - and instead just went after one another. One person responded with "Did i just get punked?" because I thanked them for sharing their opinions with another going "oh you god a podcast - that’s nice - all your X number of twitter subscribers" - again I point back to the fact that only 7% of Americans use twitter to begin with and only the very loud vocal minority tend to be there.

I started out this experiment with the thesis that social media was toxic, but one of the people (as they were trying to backpeddle and insult me at the same time after I said I was going to do a podcast on this) convinced me on something - it is not social media that is toxic - it is people that are toxic - specifically the intolerant Karens/Kens that congregate on twitter.

So what can you do to not be part of the toxic online culture? Good question.

The first thing is to assume that the intentions of the person posting something comes from a place of good. Now obviously if someone is saying to kill yourself, or other things along that line you can't assume anything about that is good - just ignore those people - they are too far gone to be able to do anything about. In fact they are just looking for other people to react to their content as they enjoy the attention - the best way to destroy a troll is to just ignore them. But for everyone else - if they post an opinion that you do not agree with - assume they are coming from a spot of good intention. They have an opinion that you do not agree with - but does that necessarily mean that they are bad? No. It doesn't - I'm sure you have opinions that you hold that they would disagree with an would want them to show you respect as well if they knew about it. Social media (especially for people we don't know personally) gives us just a small glimpse into the other person's life - we don't know the full story behind why the person may hold that opinion - we all come from a variety of backgrounds which shapes our views and opinions. Plus in order to have a tolerant society - we must allow for others to have different opinions then us - show me a family that all people in the family have the exact same opinions on everything and I'll show you a boring family that is lying to everyone else and keeping their opinions secret.

Second thing to do - ask questions. Try to get to know why the other person has the perspective they have. They may have a great reason to think like they do - and once you know why their opinion might shift to the "oh that makes sense" category instead of the initial emotional based ranking of that opinion.

Third - know that people are people - they are going to have differing opinions - and this melting pot is what makes life entertaining and interesting. Everyone having the same opinions is boring - and a big red flag - group think is a dangerous thing and that is how people abuse power by using social manipulation to make group think the norm.

But above all - be good to people - don't immediately cuss someone out or insult them just because they have a different thought then you - take the opportunity to learn why they think the way they do, because when opinions are brought into the sunlight - things that are incorrect and toxic not only are exposed but are disinfected - you are unable to change a person's mind with insults - however engaging in a relationship with a person and making connections with them on a personal level is the most effective way to change a person's opinions.

By the way - I will not be releasing the screenshots of those that tweeted at me. They didn’t know they were going to be part of this experiment - and I don’t believe anyone deserves hate/cancel no matter how off base they may be at times.

Links:

https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics/

https://www.convinceandconvert.com/social-media-strategy/7-surprising-statistics-about-twitter-in-america/

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/

Paul

[sinrau]

Europe’s in-and-out list reflects its assessment of how well other countries have managed to control their coronavirus outbreaks.

BRUSSELS — European diplomats are poised to approve an agreement on which foreign travelers they want to welcome starting on July 1, as the European Union reopens its external borders for the first time since March, but with the coronavirus still raging in the United States, the possibility of allowing American tourists hasn’t even figured into the discussion, according to six diplomats familiar with the talks.

Europe’s draft in-and-out list reflects its assessment of how well other countries have managed to control their outbreaks. E.U. countries were among the world’s hardest hit by the pandemic this spring, but most now have the virus under control and have been willing to consider opening their borders to other countries where covid-19 is similarly in check.

China is among the 15 countries set to make the cut, despite E.U. skepticism about how transparent it has been about its outbreak. Visitors from China would be allowed to enter Europe only if Beijing drops measures against E.U. travelers.

Also expected to be approved: Algeria, Australia, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Rwanda, Serbia, South Korea, Thailand, Tunisia and Uruguay.

The list is subject to final approval on Saturday, but diplomats said it was unlikely to change.

The rest of the world would continue to be kept out for nonessential travel.

The decision underscores the perception here that United States has failed in its coronavirus response. European leaders and health experts have watched with unease as many U.S. states insist on reopening, even as infections spike in many parts of the country.

In countries keeping the coronavirus at bay, experts watch U.S. case numbers with alarm

E.U. members have seen clusters of infections since they began relaxing their own restrictions. Germany, Spain and Portugal are among those that have reimposed localized lockdowns. But for the bloc as a whole, diagnoses have slowed to 16 cases per 100,000 population over the past two weeks, the main measure Europe is using to determine whether countries make the cut.

The United States, by contrast, stands at 122 cases per 100,000 population and is getting worse. Florida has set records for the past 19 days in a row.

Wary of being pulled into a diplomatic brawl with each country they continue to exclude, European leaders have strained to keep their internal discussions focused narrowly on issues of science and epidemiology.

“The European Union has an internal process to determine from which countries it would be safe to accept travelers,” Eric Mamer, a spokesman for the European Commission, told reporters on Thursday as the discussions were underway. “Our internal process is related, obviously, to considerations based on health criteria.”

But there are clear political pressures.

The continued restrictions on travel from the United States will strain Europe’s most important geopolitical relationship, even if it was President Trump who moved first to block European travelers in March. Continuing the ban on travel with Russia will exacerbate diplomatic tensions with an already-volatile neighbor.

The E.U. plans to review its list of acceptable countries every two weeks.

The list is a recommendation, not a requirement, because each E.U. nation retains sovereign control over its borders. But E.U. members have strong incentives to go along with the decision, since, if they do not, the gradual process of restoring border-free travel within Europe could be placed on hold or reversed, diplomats said.

Diplomats negotiated for hours in multiple meetings in recent days. Although there are tensions between poorer, tourist-dependent southern European nations and richer, more cautious northern ones, enough countries are in favor to assure the decision, diplomats said.

The blandly technocratic discussions — conducted in-person by the 27 E.U. ambassadors in a conference room in Brussels — masked the human drama caused by the travel disruptions. Couples have been stuck on opposite sides of the Atlantic for months. Business negotiations are on hold. Long-dreamed-of vacations have been delayed. Europe’s airports, once bustling connectors for the world, have been eerily quiet. In Brussels, the airport usually has 300 flights a day. It expects 435 for all next week, according to a spokeswoman.

And for the United States — where travel restrictions on Europe remain in place — the European decisions were a point-blank assessment that a U.S. passport, once one of the world’s most powerful, now carries a black mark of disease.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday acknowledged the desire in Washington to open up the world for travel again.

“We’re all taking seriously the need to figure out how to get this open. We need to get our global economy back going again,” he told an online discussion held by the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “We’ll work closely with our European friends, broadly, because I know there’s different views, again, inside the European Union.” He cited “a dozen or more” countries that were interested in opening up to Americans, without naming any of them.

During the E.U. discussions, there have been judgment calls. Some countries, such as China, report infection figures that some public health officials don’t fully trust. Other countries are trending worse, even though their overall infection levels remain relatively decent. And — as Trump has noted repeatedly in recent days — if a country doesn’t perform as many tests, it doesn’t find as many infections. The European Union plans to consult with its delegations on the ground to decide how much trust to put in each country’s official figures.

Europe fell into two camps during the discussions: the tourist-seeking countries and everyone else, according to the diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity to talk about the closed-door negotiations. The tourist spots — led by Greece and Portugal — favored allowing more people to come visit, hoping to salvage at least a scrap of their fast-dwindling summer season. Other countries, especially in the chillier, richer north, wanted to proceed more cautiously.

The talks were also complicated by the fact that European caseloads vary widely. Sweden, the worst-off in Europe, reported 155 cases per 100,000 residents over the last two weeks. Portugal, the second-worst, stood at 44. Britain, which is no longer a member of the E.U. but until the end of the year is subject to many E.U. decisions, was in third place at 24.

And then there were countries that are close enough in their caseload to Europe that they could have been allowed or excluded depending on where precisely the line was drawn. Turkey, Canada and Egypt all had backers and detractors, the diplomats said, since they have slightly worse infection rates than the European Union. Ukraine was on the list, then dropped off. Tiny Georgia, a country of 3.7 million people, steadfastly remained. There was extensive back and forth about China, which has been reporting lower infection rates than the European Union and which has imposed travel restrictions on some E.U. countries but not others.