Coronavirus pandemic

[Roadgeekteen]

Wear a mask, stop the spread.

Can we all just get this shit over with. We were doing good & we all got too comfortable & ahead of ourselves.


iPhone

I wear a mask unless I'm alone outside with nobody around.

[kalvado]

Wear a mask, stop the spread.

Can we all just get this shit over with. We were doing good & we all got too comfortable & ahead of ourselves.


iPhone

I wear a mask unless I'm alone outside with nobody around.

Must be tough taking a shower in a mask...

[GaryV]

BTW, if you decide to sit in the bed of a pickup, that's your doing.  However, the penalty wouldn't be solely against you, it'll be against the driver.  You're simply contributing to the issue.  If you managed to fall out of the truck and someone else hits you, or swerves to miss you and crashes, the penalty will go against the driver.   Also, how much personal insurance do you carry?  Can that other person that crashed trying to miss you go against some personal insurance policy you have?  If you feel you can ride around in a bed of a pickup, it's doubtful you carry some sort of personal insurance policy, so that other person would need to go after the driver's insurance policy.

Yeah, I knew while I was typing it that other issues were at play when it comes to the bed of a pickup.  Unless it has a topper, that is.

If I, as a driver, want to reduce my liability for a passenger's injury while not buckled up, then I should make them buckle up before riding in my car.  Seems reasonable.

Which is exactly what stores are doing when they enforce mask requirements - mitigating their risk that someone catches it in their store.  Not saying it can't happen with a mask, just saying that it is much less likely.

Only to have a potential shopper pull a knife on someone who is trying to enforce the requirement (Meijer in Acme, near Traverse City) or kill a security guard (a dollar store in Flint).

[SEWIGuy]

Has there been any pushback outside the U.S. against the lockdown all these months?  I haven't heard or read of such.

ixnay

Not really and for two reasons.  One, is that they trust their governments a lot more when it comes to how to handle this.  Two, they have done a better job at protecting the small businesses, paychecks, etc. 

[SectorZ]

Wear a mask, stop the spread.

Can we all just get this shit over with. We were doing good & we all got too comfortable & ahead of ourselves.


iPhone

I want to agree, but then say look at California right now.

[webny99]

15 min is a lot - and is there enough of such 15 min kits? And who's paying, btw?

I mean airport security lines are already so long, so what is 15 more minutes?

A lot of people already show up to the airport with barely enough time to make it through standard TSA checkpoints as is.

I can't remember the last time I waited 15 minutes in the security line, but it was definitely before I had TSA pre-check. I get annoyed by anything more than 5 minutes, much less 15.

[hbelkins]

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

Wrong. The virus didn't order businesses to shut down or operate at reduced capacity. Each individual state's governor issued those orders. More governors could have chosen to do what South Dakota's did -- not order closures, and let people and businesses make their own decisions about whether to stay open and at what level of service, whether or not to patronize open businesses, etc. The virus didn't cause any of this. The response to the virus did.

[kalvado]

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

Wrong. The virus didn't order businesses to shut down or operate at reduced capacity. Each individual state's governor issued those orders. More governors could have chosen to do what South Dakota's did -- not order closures, and let people and businesses make their own decisions about whether to stay open and at what level of service, whether or not to patronize open businesses, etc. The virus didn't cause any of this. The response to the virus did.

Whatever responce is, it is driven by the same ultimate goal - minimizing negative effects  through various (conflicting) approaches due to differences in risk asessment. And unemployment is definitely a good figure of merit  - one of many.
And it is fair to say that risk asessment will be differen between NYC area, population 20 million -  and Middle of Nowhere ND, population 20.

Only time will tell who got it better - pretty possible that NY is overreacting, and it is equally possible that SD will regret... My crystal ball is out of comission at the moment. 

[NWI_Irish96]

Our system of government--a minimal Federal government with the bulk of the governing decentralized to the states, has had enormous advantages that have created the kind of scientific achievement and wealth that we enjoy.

However, the same system of government has enormous drawbacks when it comes to dealing with nationwide problems like poverty or health care, and we are seeing the fruits of that right now.

We have a culture that is hard-wired in absolutes, and can't deal with the reality that the most effective government needs to be more centralized and more socialist at certain times and in certain areas, and less centralized and less socialist in others. We aren't programmed to deal with the reality that accepting government orders to stay home and wear masks in 2020 doesn't mean that we are more at risk of having to accept government orders to give up the rights to free speech or bear arms in 2025. We aren't programmed to deal with the reality that the government helping out other people in times of need doesn't necessarily make out lives any worse.

[Eth]

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

Wrong. The virus didn't order businesses to shut down or operate at reduced capacity. Each individual state's governor issued those orders. More governors could have chosen to do what South Dakota's did -- not order closures, and let people and businesses make their own decisions about whether to stay open and at what level of service, whether or not to patronize open businesses, etc. The virus didn't cause any of this. The response to the virus did.

So then what about the numerous businesses that haven't returned to full operation despite being legally allowed to do so in their states? I suppose we'll never know what could be causing that.

[kphoger]

I would dispute premise #3 here. While I admit little experience with golf courses specifically, I'm fully aware that in general companies lay off workers all the time without necessarily closing outright.

I also dispute the bolded assertion, unless you're asking me to assume that golf courses can be closed only by gubernatorial edict and not for any other reason (such as, say, a demand crash on account of a pandemic making people scared to leave their homes).

Yes, I realized that Premise 3 could be easily disputed, but I didn't realize it until I was already driving home for the evening.  It would be more accurate to say "closed golf courses lay off more people than open ones".

As for the demand crash:  demand actually went up, at least before Iowa restricted access to exclude out-of-state golfers.  I didn't read any demand comparison for after that restriction, however.

So, the federal government has the authority to take a much more active role in this than they have been. A lot of that authority comes on account of interstate commerce - they could, for example, demand passengers be tested before they're allowed to board airplanes (and I'd say this would be an entirely prudent thing to do). But they haven't, and states don't have the authority to do this, which hampers their ability to fight case importation or forces them to take more draconian measures such as mandatory quarantines instead.

How would that work, absent kits that return instant results?

Well that's exactly how it would work. Quick tests already exist that can produce results in 15 minutes. Not instant, but fast enough to make it part of the process of clearing security at the airport.

15 min is a lot - and is there enough of such 15 min kits? And who's paying, btw?

I mean airport security lines are already so long, so what is 15 more minutes?

15 extra minutes per TSA clearance does not yield an extra 15 minutes for every passenger.  If there are eight people in line in front of you, and each one takes an extra 15 minutes to clear TSA, then you don't get to the front of the line for another two hours.

Which is exactly what stores are doing when they enforce mask requirements - mitigating their risk that someone catches it in their store.  Not saying it can't happen with a mask, just saying that it is much less likely.

I have yet to see a store actually enforce a mask requirement.  For example, my parents and I went to Chili's on Saturday, and a party of about six people came in and not one of them was wearing a mask.  Even though the restaurant is required by ordinance to require all guests to wear masks, restaurant staff did not bar their entry.  Rather, they promptly seated their six paying guests in a booth and took their order.  And I haven't been in a single grocery store or home improvement store in the past week where every single customer was wearing a mask, yet I also haven't seen the staff kicking anybody out.

Our system of government--a minimal Federal government with the bulk of the governing decentralized to the states, has had enormous advantages that have created the kind of scientific achievement and wealth that we enjoy.

However, the same system of government has enormous drawbacks when it comes to dealing with nationwide problems like poverty or health care, and we are seeing the fruits of that right now.

We have a culture that is hard-wired in absolutes, and can't deal with the reality that the most effective government needs to be more centralized and more socialist at certain times and in certain areas, and less centralized and less socialist in others. We aren't programmed to deal with the reality that accepting government orders to stay home and wear masks in 2020 doesn't mean that we are more at risk of having to accept government orders to give up the rights to free speech or bear arms in 2025. We aren't programmed to deal with the reality that the government helping out other people in times of need doesn't necessarily make out lives any worse.

If you see a failure in the response to COVID in the USA, then why do you not blame the individual states?  If, say, you think Wyoming's response has been inadequate, then why do you pin the blame on a weak federal government rather than blaming the existing, more able state government?  In fact, I think that a stronger federal government, composed of representatives from individual states and districts, would be even less able to actually pass stronger legislation–because attempts to do so would be blocked by representatives who oppose it.  As it is, at least some states maintain the ability to move swiftly and decisively, even if other states simultaneously maintain the ability to not do so.

I agree that our citizens deal in absolutes.  This is what has been so disheartening to me about businesses opening back up.  People seem to think that now they can throw all caution to the wind.  Proceed with caution doesn't seem to be a concept that Americans understand very well.

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

Wrong. The virus didn't order businesses to shut down or operate at reduced capacity. Each individual state's governor issued those orders. More governors could have chosen to do what South Dakota's did -- not order closures, and let people and businesses make their own decisions about whether to stay open and at what level of service, whether or not to patronize open businesses, etc. The virus didn't cause any of this. The response to the virus did.

So then what about the numerous businesses that haven't returned to full operation despite being legally allowed to do so in their states? I suppose we'll never know what could be causing that.

Some businesses would have closed regardless, and indeed some aren't opening yet even though they're allowed to.  But other businesses would have remained open if not forced to shut down, and indeed some of them are no longer financially solvent, have laid off their employees, and have even sold their property.

[hotdogPi]

State responses don't seem to have that much of a difference. AZ and CA started increasing at about the same time despite being opposite political parties. (AZ went up faster, but only because more people were inside, as Phoenix gets really hot.) TX and FL are getting big news, but the states in between are having just as much of a problem. (TN isn't, and I have no idea why.) VT, NH, and ME are doing as well as MA, RI, CT, downstate NY, and NJ currently despite never getting the first wave.

[NWI_Irish96]

Our system of government--a minimal Federal government with the bulk of the governing decentralized to the states, has had enormous advantages that have created the kind of scientific achievement and wealth that we enjoy.

However, the same system of government has enormous drawbacks when it comes to dealing with nationwide problems like poverty or health care, and we are seeing the fruits of that right now.

We have a culture that is hard-wired in absolutes, and can't deal with the reality that the most effective government needs to be more centralized and more socialist at certain times and in certain areas, and less centralized and less socialist in others. We aren't programmed to deal with the reality that accepting government orders to stay home and wear masks in 2020 doesn't mean that we are more at risk of having to accept government orders to give up the rights to free speech or bear arms in 2025. We aren't programmed to deal with the reality that the government helping out other people in times of need doesn't necessarily make out lives any worse.

If you see a failure in the response to COVID in the USA, then why do you not blame the individual states?  If, say, you think Wyoming's response has been inadequate, then why do you pin the blame on a weak federal government rather than blaming the existing, more able state government?  In fact, I think that a stronger federal government, composed of representatives from individual states and districts, would be even less able to actually pass stronger legislation–because attempts to do so would be blocked by representatives who oppose it.  As it is, at least some states maintain the ability to move swiftly and decisively, even if other states simultaneously maintain the ability to not do so.

I agree that our citizens deal in absolutes.  This is what has been so disheartening to me about businesses opening back up.  People seem to think that now they can throw all caution to the wind.  Proceed with caution doesn't seem to be a concept that Americans understand very well.

This pandemic has been the exact poster child for why 50 individual state responses don't work in a situation like this. All it takes is one state to take a different approach and that sets off all the people in the other states complaining that their state is doing it wrong and then we end up with what we had. 

We needed a single, clear, national plan to deal with this. We didn't have it, partially because of our absolutism and partially because decisions were being made for political rather than public health reasons.

[SEWIGuy]

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

Wrong. The virus didn't order businesses to shut down or operate at reduced capacity. Each individual state's governor issued those orders. More governors could have chosen to do what South Dakota's did -- not order closures, and let people and businesses make their own decisions about whether to stay open and at what level of service, whether or not to patronize open businesses, etc. The virus didn't cause any of this. The response to the virus did.

"The terrorists didn't cause the Twin Towers to collapse.  Gravity did."

Honestly anyone who advocates for letting "people and businesses make their own decisions about whether to stay open" in places where this is running amok, you need to open your eyes.  The problem will never be solved.  Too many people like you minimizing the issue.

[Roadgeekteen]

State responses don't seem to have that much of a difference. AZ and CA started increasing at about the same time despite being opposite political parties. (AZ went up faster, but only because more people were inside, as Phoenix gets really hot.) TX and FL are getting big news, but the states in between are having just as much of a problem. (TN isn't, and I have no idea why.) VT, NH, and ME are doing as well as MA, RI, CT, downstate NY, and NJ currently despite never getting the first wave.

VT, NH, and ME are isolated by NY and MA so maybe people didn't travel to them as much. Also state response could have been good.

[vdeane]

I want to agree, but then say look at California right now.

I recall reading that a lot of California cases are tied to travel from Mexico.  That border is still open for some reason.

I have yet to see a store actually enforce a mask requirement.  For example, my parents and I went to Chili's on Saturday, and a party of about six people came in and not one of them was wearing a mask.  Even though the restaurant is required by ordinance to require all guests to wear masks, restaurant staff did not bar their entry.  Rather, they promptly seated their six paying guests in a booth and took their order.  And I haven't been in a single grocery store or home improvement store in the past week where every single customer was wearing a mask, yet I also haven't seen the staff kicking anybody out.

It actually does happen in New York, to the point that seeing people in stores without masks is really weird now.

If you see a failure in the response to COVID in the USA, then why do you not blame the individual states?  If, say, you think Wyoming's response has been inadequate, then why do you pin the blame on a weak federal government rather than blaming the existing, more able state government?  In fact, I think that a stronger federal government, composed of representatives from individual states and districts, would be even less able to actually pass stronger legislation–because attempts to do so would be blocked by representatives who oppose it.  As it is, at least some states maintain the ability to move swiftly and decisively, even if other states simultaneously maintain the ability to not do so.

I don't know of anywhere that has addressed the pandemic with legislation, beyond a bill passing all control to the executive (as was done in NY and Canada).  In any case, you're going to have the "people traveling from locked-down jurisdiction with lots of community spread to places with fewer restrictions" problem anywhere that has a non-uniform response with border controls, and we've all seen how problematic that can be.  Even Italy had that problem - news of the lockdown for Lombardy leaked early before it went into effect, causing a bunch of people to flee and spread the virus to the rest of the country.

[kphoger]

Our system of government--a minimal Federal government with the bulk of the governing decentralized to the states, has had enormous advantages that have created the kind of scientific achievement and wealth that we enjoy.

However, the same system of government has enormous drawbacks when it comes to dealing with nationwide problems like poverty or health care, and we are seeing the fruits of that right now.

We have a culture that is hard-wired in absolutes, and can't deal with the reality that the most effective government needs to be more centralized and more socialist at certain times and in certain areas, and less centralized and less socialist in others. We aren't programmed to deal with the reality that accepting government orders to stay home and wear masks in 2020 doesn't mean that we are more at risk of having to accept government orders to give up the rights to free speech or bear arms in 2025. We aren't programmed to deal with the reality that the government helping out other people in times of need doesn't necessarily make out lives any worse.

If you see a failure in the response to COVID in the USA, then why do you not blame the individual states?  If, say, you think Wyoming's response has been inadequate, then why do you pin the blame on a weak federal government rather than blaming the existing, more able state government?  In fact, I think that a stronger federal government, composed of representatives from individual states and districts, would be even less able to actually pass stronger legislation–because attempts to do so would be blocked by representatives who oppose it.  As it is, at least some states maintain the ability to move swiftly and decisively, even if other states simultaneously maintain the ability to not do so.

I agree that our citizens deal in absolutes.  This is what has been so disheartening to me about businesses opening back up.  People seem to think that now they can throw all caution to the wind.  Proceed with caution doesn't seem to be a concept that Americans understand very well.

This pandemic has been the exact poster child for why 50 individual state responses don't work in a situation like this. All it takes is one state to take a different approach and that sets off all the people in the other states complaining that their state is doing it wrong and then we end up with what we had. 

We needed a single, clear, national plan to deal with this. We didn't have it, partially because of our absolutism and partially because decisions were being made for political rather than public health reasons.

I still think that any national response would end up being much weaker than what many individual states ended up doing.  What would end up passing would be the maximum that a majority of representatives could agree to.  If you think that most states didn't do enough, then why would you think those states' representatives in Congress would agree to do more nationwide?

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

Wrong. The virus didn't order businesses to shut down or operate at reduced capacity. Each individual state's governor issued those orders. More governors could have chosen to do what South Dakota's did -- not order closures, and let people and businesses make their own decisions about whether to stay open and at what level of service, whether or not to patronize open businesses, etc. The virus didn't cause any of this. The response to the virus did.

"The terrorists didn't cause the Twin Towers to collapse.  Gravity did."

The virus wasn't responsible for 100% of the closures/unemployment, and state/county/local orders weren't responsible for 100% of the closures/unemployment either.  Some people would still be laid off, and some businesses would have closed, even without government intervention.  However, some other out-of-work people would still have jobs, and some out-of-business establishments would still be open, if it weren't for government intervention.  It's not an either-or issue.  It's a both-and issue.

[webny99]

TX and FL are getting big news, but the states in between are having just as much of a problem. (TN isn't, and I have no idea why.)

Climate is more bearable for spending time outdoors, and fewer people traveling there on summer vacation?

VT, NH, and ME are doing as well as MA, RI, CT, downstate NY, and NJ currently despite never getting the first wave.

Is Upstate NY not doing as well? I thought we were, but haven't dug into the data recently.

[hotdogPi]

VT, NH, and ME are doing as well as MA, RI, CT, downstate NY, and NJ currently despite never getting the first wave.

Is Upstate NY not doing as well? I thought we were, but haven't dug into the data recently.

Upstate NY is about halfway between the states mentioned above (which are constant) and the states south and west of New York ranging from MD to MN (which are increasing significantly, but not at Deep South levels).

Looking at the numbers again, upstate NY can be included with the states mentioned above. However, unlike a few of the above states, there's no possibility that it's decreasing.

[J N Winkler]

Only time will tell who got it better - pretty possible that NY is overreacting, and it is equally possible that SD will regret... My crystal ball is out of comission at the moment.

Mine is clear on a couple of aspects.

*  The worm will turn.  Right now we are a mess because cases are on an exponential trend in moderate- to large-population states like Arizona, Florida, and Texas, but countries that have successfully implemented a containment strategy (like New Zealand, Singapore, China, etc.) have a tiger by the tail, since any momentary lapse in disease surveillance can develop very quickly into a large outbreak.

*  This pandemic represents a major blow to US soft power, since the dismantling of the overseas medical liaison system is now and will increasingly be seen as an unforced error.  The issue is not that China lied about covid-19 to save face:  the issue is rather that we knew they might do so, because we had experience with their having done it in the past (notably with SARS in 2003), yet we went ahead and stopped funding our own eyes on the situation.  This tells our allies, some of whom were relying on the umbrella provided by our medical liaisons, that the US cannot be trusted to look after their interests even when it is in the US' own selfish interest to do so.  In fact, I think the situation is likely to be even worse--there is bound to be deep and lasting resentment in allied countries at US inaction poisoning their own pandemic responses.

I have yet to see a store actually enforce a mask requirement.  For example, my parents and I went to Chili's on Saturday, and a party of about six people came in and not one of them was wearing a mask.  Even though the restaurant is required by ordinance to require all guests to wear masks, restaurant staff did not bar their entry.  Rather, they promptly seated their six paying guests in a booth and took their order.  And I haven't been in a single grocery store or home improvement store in the past week where every single customer was wearing a mask, yet I also haven't seen the staff kicking anybody out.

The justification for having a compulsory mask order, even if it is not actively enforced, is that compliance will be better at the margin simply because people will want not to be told off for failing to follow the rules.

I usually do the weekly grocery shopping on Saturday afternoon.  The week before Wichita's mask ordinance went into effect, all of the staff at the Dillons near me (13th and West) were wearing masks, but only about half the customers were.  The following week, when the ordinance had been in force for about 36 hours, I saw no-one not wearing a mask.  Last Saturday, I saw just two not wearing masks:  one was a black woman who was wearing a face shield instead, and the other was a gray-haired white man (late middle age) who was pretty obviously spoiling for a fight, with a dour and truculent expression on his face.

Mind you, Wichita does have sharp cleavages--not just the classic east-west divide, but also north-south.

If you see a failure in the response to COVID in the USA, then why do you not blame the individual states?  If, say, you think Wyoming's response has been inadequate, then why do you pin the blame on a weak federal government rather than blaming the existing, more able state government?  In fact, I think that a stronger federal government, composed of representatives from individual states and districts, would be even less able to actually pass stronger legislation–because attempts to do so would be blocked by representatives who oppose it.

There is no shortage of blame to go around.  However, timing is critical in containing a fast-spreading pandemic like covid-19, and most of the machinery for taking early and rapid action (especially for a pandemic that originates in another country) is within the hands of the federal government.  There were actually well-elaborated pandemic response plans at the federal level that took into account the different scopes of responsibility of the feds, the states, the territories, and the tribal governments, but no-one pushed the buttons to set them in train until it was too late.

I also disagree that the efficacy or otherwise of a federal response is solely a function of legislative action.  Some of the deficiencies of the federal response, not just the initial complacency but also the decision to reserve the medical-supplies stockpile for "federal purposes" rather than to use it as a load-balancing tool to relieve the stress on hard-hit states, resulted from decisions made entirely within the executive branch.

[kphoger]

I usually do the weekly grocery shopping on Saturday afternoon.  The week before Wichita's mask ordinance went into effect, all of the staff at the Dillons near me (13th and West) were wearing masks, but only about half the customers were.  The following week, when the ordinance had been in force for about 36 hours, I saw no-one not wearing a mask.  Last Saturday, I saw just two not wearing masks:  one was a black woman who was wearing a face shield instead, and the other was a gray-haired white man (late middle age) who was pretty obviously spoiling for a fight, with a dour and truculent expression on his face.

Mind you, Wichita does have sharp cleavages--not just the classic east-west divide, but also north-south.

Oh, it's more local than even that.  It's from store to store.

At the Central/Rock Dillon's, I only saw three people not wearing a mask last Saturday morning, and two of those were a man-woman couple.  That's a very small percentage, considering how many people shop there.

But, at the Harry/Edgemoor Dillon's just three days earlier, I estimate that 1 in 6 shoppers wasn't wearing one.

Yesterday afternoon, probably only 50-60% of the shoppers at Lowe's (29th/Maize) wore masks.

[webny99]

Last Saturday, I saw just two not wearing masks:  one was a black woman who was wearing a face shield instead, and the other was a gray-haired white man (late middle age) ...

Which leads to an interesting question: Is a face shield an acceptable substitute for a mask?

I'm curious for reasons I won't get into here, but I did use a face shield instead of a mask a few times earlier in the pandemic.

[kphoger]

Last Saturday, I saw just two not wearing masks:  one was a black woman who was wearing a face shield instead, and the other was a gray-haired white man (late middle age) ...

Which leads to an interesting question: Is a face shield an acceptable substitute for a mask?

I'm curious for reasons I won't get into here, but I did use a face shield instead of a mask a few times earlier in the pandemic.

I haven't done extensive reading, but the impression I get is that face shields are effective at preventing a disease you're carrying from infecting others, but only moderately effective at preventing you from catching some else's contagion.

[kalvado]

*  This pandemic represents a major blow to US soft power, since the dismantling of the overseas medical liaison system is now and will increasingly be seen as an unforced error.  The issue is not that China lied about covid-19 to save face:  the issue is rather that we knew they might do so, because we had experience with their having done it in the past (notably with SARS in 2003), yet we went ahead and stopped funding our own eyes on the situation.  This tells our allies, some of whom were relying on the umbrella provided by our medical liaisons, that the US cannot be trusted to look after their interests even when it is in the US' own selfish interest to do so.  In fact, I think the situation is likely to be even worse--there is bound to be deep and lasting resentment in allied countries at US inaction poisoning their own pandemic responses.

I hear a lot about "china lied" - nothing concrete. So far my impression is US racism extends way beyond issue of white-and-black.
Biggest blows to US soft power are self-inflicted.
1. Inability to respond to a challenge. Bad in 2008, even worse in 2020.
2. Inability to help others. Who was sending help when Italy was the first hot spot? China and Russia, of all places. What did the US do to help? A friend in need...
3. Of course, medical liason... How well surveillance systems worked within US and what makes you think it would work any better outside of the US?

[kphoger]

I hear a lot about "china lied" - nothing concrete. So far my impression is US racism extends way beyond issue of white-and-black.

The Chinese government is not a racial group.

That's like, if people say the Kremlin lied about something, claiming they're racist against ethnic Russians.