☾▓▓▓▒▒▒▒░░░░░▒▒▒▒▓▓▓☽ @meattothewolves - Tumblr Blog

There’s a Better One in the Shed by Life of a Craphead

“We created two purple things with the restriction that when the bumpy one is shown the smooth one is kept in a shed nearby.”

unflinches

Julia de Ruvo

shewhoworshipscarlin

Date shaped vessel, 1st century-2nd century .

claypigeonpottery

mysharona1987

homeintexas

As a nurse, I encourage you to read and repost, and quote at length.

stitch-n-time

Image ID for reading software:

How can a disease with 1% mortality rate shut down the United States?

Franklin Veaux - updated 6 hours ago, professional writer

There are two problems with this question.

1. It neglects the law of large numbers; and

2. It assumes that one of two things happen: you die or are 100% fine.

The US has a population of 328,200,000. If one percent of the population dies, that’s 3,282,000 people dead.

Three million people dead would monkey wrench the economy no matter what. That more than doubles the number of annual deaths all at once.

The second bit is people keep talking about deaths. Deaths, deaths, deaths. Only one percent die! Just one percent! One is a small number! No big deal, right?

What about the people who survive?

For every one person who dies:

19 more require hospitalization.

18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives.

10 will have permanent lung damage.

3 will have strokes.

2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination.

2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function.

So now all of a sudden, that “but it’s only 1% fatal!” becomes:

3,282,000 people dead.

62,385,000 hospitalized.

59,076,000 people with permanent heart damage.

32,820,000 people with permanent lung damage.

9,846,000 people with strokes.

6,564,000 people with muscle weakness.

6,564,000 people with loss of cognitive function.

That’s the thing that folks who keep going on about “only 1% dead, what’s the big deal?” don’t get.

The choice is not “ruin the economy to save 1%.” If we reopen the economy, it will be destroyed anyway. The US economy cannot survive everyone getting COVID-19.

artist-chagall

Adam and Eve expelled from Paradise, 1961, Marc Chagall

trytogethappy

the humanity of the AIDS crisis: the ward by gideon mendel

colorized by me

tigerleggies-deactivated2019121

Never forget 🏳️‍🌈😔

toddreu-deactivated20191220

OP you did a beautiful job colourising these shots

prismatic-bell

Notice how OP says “colorized?”

I want to remind you this was the eighties. THE EIGHTIES. Color cameras existed. Color VIDEO CAMERAS existed.

Someone put these in black and white to make them seem long ago and far away.

OP is returning them to their proper place in history: ONLY TWO GENERATIONS AGO.

zeldahime

that’s not fair to gideon mendel, the photographer who took those photos in 1993. he took them in black-and-white even though color cameras were available, yes, but not to “make them seem long ago and far away”. he was photographing in black-and-white so they would be taken seriously.

mendel is still documenting and lifting up the voices of people who live with hiv/aids in the project “through positive eyes”.

if mendel hadn’t taken these photographs, we wouldn’t have a record of these patients and the ends of their lives at all. it was extremely unusual for aids wards to let photographers in, and the patients took a risk in letting mendel photograph them and their loved ones.

rest in peace, andré, steven, and john.

frozenartscapes

Ok yeah colour photography might have been a thing but the choice not to use it here was definitely a tonal reason. Mendel was not thinking “oh yeah people are going to think these photos are OLD and from a time very long ago” when he took these shots. At the time, black and white photography was used to show the seriousness of a situation (and it still often is). The discourse between b&w vs colour in the photography world was still very fresh, and the general thinking many photographers shared was of you want someone to take your work seriously, especially if it’s a serious subject, shoot in b&w. Colour photography was often regarded as gimmicky and distracting. It worked for movies because it was entertaining and fun, and worked better for special effects. But for the longest time colour photography was reserved largely for advertising, travel, and other less “artistic” forms of photography. Colour photography has been around for ages, but it wasn’t until recently that it became widely accepted for serious and artistic uses. Take a look a Pulitzer Prize winning photos and it’s not until the 90s that coloured photos start becoming the more popular trend as people’s perception of it changed (and took the sticks out of their asses)

Whether or not these images were taken in colour shouldn’t matter: the subject material is a deeply impactful and incredibly important thing to document. However, at the time, when the AIDS crisis was very much dismissed by most people and levels of government, any method of getting people to notice must have been taken. And if that means the relatively simple choice of shooting in b&w, then that’s what it takes. Not a single photographer at the time took b&w photos because they wanted people forty years later to think the things they documented were ancient history

Now that that rant’s out of the way, I will say good colourizing job, op!