3 ms·

It’s not just about you getting sick. By practicing social distancing you delay the spread of the virus. Even if the same number of people end up getting sick,

by yojo 7y ago

It’s not just about you getting sick. By practicing social distancing you delay the spread of the virus. Even if the same number of people end up getting sick, distributing the sickness in time helps reduce the load on hospitals. If you instead change no behavior, it is likely that when you get COVID-19 you will transmit it to more individuals before you realize you’re sick and need to stay home. Depending on the rate of transmission, your individual actions can actually result in hundreds or thousands of people not getting sick (or getting sick later). Make your own decisions here, but don’t hide behind “it isn’t going to change things”

conductr 7y ago
While good points, I don’t think my decision changes the macro outcome. Over half the local population feels the way I do (if dining out today via Open Table in my metro is an indicator). That’s significant and if my individual actions changed, all else constant, my quote you used holds and nothing changes in the macro. Your points would inform government to issue more strict bans/regs that can actually impact the macro situation. Of course, I would comply if instructed.
- petersellers 7y ago
  > I don’t think my decision changes the macro outcome. That's quite a selfish way of thinking about this. This is equivalent to an argument I've heard about global warming which is "if China/India aren't going to curtail their C02 emissions, why should the US?" If everyone thought like you did, we'd all get infected.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    China, India and the US aren't individuals, but countries. Isn't the global warming personal equivalent "if the wealthy all keep taking lavish intercontinental vacations every other month, why do I need to switch from my car to the bus to get to work, even if it takes twice the time"? I find that a good question, and the usual answer "they're doing that to promote awareness" doesn't satisfy me, really.

by yojo 7y ago

conductr 7y ago

While good points, I don’t think my decision changes the macro outcome. Over half the local population feels the way I do (if dining out today via Open Table in my metro is an indicator). That’s significant and if my individual actions changed, all else constant, my quote you used holds and nothing changes in the macro. Your points would inform government to issue more strict bans/regs that can actually impact the macro situation. Of course, I would comply if instructed.

petersellers 7y ago
> I don’t think my decision changes the macro outcome. That's quite a selfish way of thinking about this. This is equivalent to an argument I've heard about global warming which is "if China/India aren't going to curtail their C02 emissions, why should the US?" If everyone thought like you did, we'd all get infected.
- luckylion 7y ago
  China, India and the US aren't individuals, but countries. Isn't the global warming personal equivalent "if the wealthy all keep taking lavish intercontinental vacations every other month, why do I need to switch from my car to the bus to get to work, even if it takes twice the time"? I find that a good question, and the usual answer "they're doing that to promote awareness" doesn't satisfy me, really.