3 ms·

Nothing in your analysis makes any sense. First, there's no "no pandemic" case. Not anymore. Second, your conclusion says that "politicians choose (1)" but th

by avip 7y ago

Nothing in your analysis makes any sense. First, there's no "no pandemic" case. Not anymore. Second, your conclusion says that "politicians choose (1)" but that is not the case at all - almost every country in Europe, Asia, middle east had taken measures, with varying severity, and significant economic cost. Last but not least, the whole framing is extremely simplistic and follows the "politicians are evil" reddit-like logic.

normalnorm 7y ago
> First, there's no "no pandemic" case. Not anymore. I am not saying that the analysis is correct, but information that is disclosed now has no bearing on an explanation of the actions of actors in the past. > Last but not least, the whole framing is extremely simplistic and follows the "politicians are evil" reddit-like logic. Politicians are people who happen to really care about being reelected. If you have any contact with them, you will realize that this is the ulterior motive of all of their actions. In a sense, as it should be. Being our democratic-elected representatives, it seems reasonable to me that they behave as slaves to the preferences of those who elected them. Like everything else, this creates a bunch of perverse incentives. You would have to be very naive to overlook these things, and imagine that powerful politicians will no put reelection above all things. The ones that didn't did not get reelected, and are not powerful politicians.
toolz 7y ago
The original post probably uses pandemic in the colloquial sense, not by the WHOs definition which seems widely disagreed on. Remember the last WHO pandemic was the swine flu, which turned out to be more mild than the seasonal flu.
TravHatesMe 7y ago
I would say it follows a "politicians act in their own best interest" logic. People with jobs in other industries have similar behavior, but I suppose the politicians have greater impact on society, so most people rally around the cynical view of politicians.
empath75 7y ago
They're doing it now, but it's too late. They needed to do it a month earlier at least.

by avip 7y ago

normalnorm 7y ago

> First, there's no "no pandemic" case. Not anymore. I am not saying that the analysis is correct, but information that is disclosed now has no bearing on an explanation of the actions of actors in the past. > Last but not least, the whole framing is extremely simplistic and follows the "politicians are evil" reddit-like logic. Politicians are people who happen to really care about being reelected. If you have any contact with them, you will realize that this is the ulterior motive of all of their actions. In a sense, as it should be. Being our democratic-elected representatives, it seems reasonable to me that they behave as slaves to the preferences of those who elected them. Like everything else, this creates a bunch of perverse incentives. You would have to be very naive to overlook these things, and imagine that powerful politicians will no put reelection above all things. The ones that didn't did not get reelected, and are not powerful politicians.

toolz 7y ago

The original post probably uses pandemic in the colloquial sense, not by the WHOs definition which seems widely disagreed on. Remember the last WHO pandemic was the swine flu, which turned out to be more mild than the seasonal flu.

TravHatesMe 7y ago

I would say it follows a "politicians act in their own best interest" logic. People with jobs in other industries have similar behavior, but I suppose the politicians have greater impact on society, so most people rally around the cynical view of politicians.

empath75 7y ago

They're doing it now, but it's too late. They needed to do it a month earlier at least.