5 ms·

I like tomp's comment from a few days ago, feels like the UK playing a game theory https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22555643 https://news.ycombinator.com/it

I like tomp's comment from a few days ago, feels like the UK playing a game theory https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22555643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22555643 1) no pandemic, no action -> government was "right", avoided wasting money -> reelected 2) no pandemic, action -> government was "wrong", wasted a lot of money, damaged the economy, inconvenienced the lives of the population -> voted out 3) pandemic, no action -> government was "wrong", caused loss of lives and damaged the economy -> voted out 4) pandemic, action - this is the trickiest scenario, so let's consider two options: 4a) pandemic, action, it works -> government was "right", saved lives, spared the economy -> reelected 4b) pandemic, action, doesn't work -> government was "wrong", their actions failed, they're incompetent -> voted out

mattmanser 7y ago
This clip of the political sitcom Yes Minister from the 1980s is making the rounds on our social media, as it explains that thought process succinctly, and hilariously: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qNjFIwRYEIo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qNjFIwRYEIo
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  A better analogy might be that of Kodos the Executioner from an episode of the original Star Trek series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_the_King https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_the_King. Guess right and be hailed as saving as many lives as one practically could in the face of disaster; guess wrong and be remembered as a mass murderer. Never thought I'd see it happen in real life. (For Simpsons fans, this character is the one from which Kodos of Kodos & Kang originates.)
- haunter 7y ago
  What's the title of the show? :D
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tmnvix 7y ago
    'Yes Minister'. There is also a follow up series called 'Yes Prime Minister'. Very funny stuff - especially if you have any insight into the public service bureaucracy.
  - netsharc 7y ago
    If you haven't heard of them, The Thick of It is basically a modern version of this show. By Armando Ianucci, the man who went on to make Veep (with Julia Louis Dreyfuss). Both series have been praised by insiders who say "The show is just like what happens in reality!". He's also made the movies "In The Loop", set in the run up to the Iraq War, and "The Death of Stalin".
- aemreunal 7y ago
  Zapp Brannigan said it best: "Come back when it's a catastrophe" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW6xTkivmto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW6xTkivmto
mitchdoogle 7y ago
There is already a pandemic, so it isn't a question of pandemic or no pandemic. It's a question of if the medical system gets overwhelmed. It's also hard to judge because spending lots of money and enlisting extreme measures may slow the virus so much it looks as if it wasn't that dangerous to begin with. In which case both sides would be using it as a talking point.
gregmac 7y ago
Since there's already a pandemic, I'll assume when you're saying "pandemic" you mean more specifically "epidemic in the UK". Even then, there's some fallacy in your list. In the best case -- if action is taken and it contains the spread -- then there is no epidemic and it looks like overreaction. Even if it slows the spread allowing the health care system to keep up and keeps the fatality rate fairly low you'll get people claiming it wasn't as big a deal and that whatever action was taken was an overreaction. This happened with Y2K [1], it happens with hurricane warnings when the storms fizzle out, and despite the glaring evidence of what happens with inaction (China, Italy) there should be little doubt people will be talking about 'overreactions' in any countries that do take action that turns out to be effective. It's the same problem that nobody goes to a show and says "Wow, the sound technician did a great job, because nobody backstage had a hot mic while they were in the bathroom!" [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22556156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22556156
- tomp 7y ago
  I don't think anyone will accuse any government of overreaction, given the state we're in - there's many countries, acting independently, with different outcomes / progressions of the pandemic ... it will be very easy to look back in a year or so (hopefully) and say precisely which governments did well and which did not, possibly even precisely which actions led to the outcomes
tomp 7y ago
Nah, that was the thinking before the pandemic, when "action" was either close the borders and crash the economy, or not and hope that nothing happens. Now, I think the following consequences need to be taken into account: (1) politicians have very little skin in the game (given they have priority access to hospitals, security, flights, ...) (2) the only skin in the game is next election, which in the UK won't happen for another 5 years, so literally who cares (a.k.a. this won't affect Johnson's decision-making) (3) capacity - NHS in the case of the UK - of which we (the public) have very little information, and the government (Johnson) has a lot - he might think that if there's even less capacity than in Italy, it makes no sense to even try their strategy (4) what other countries do - a disaster isn't really a disaster if it's no worse than other countries... and Italy is pretty bad already, so it makes some sense to do something else (can hardly be worse than Italy)... this is also why I think Trump won't fare that bad, as long as the US outcome is better than EU (which is might still be, it's a bigger country with literally more space for people to self-isolate, and banned flights with China a while ago - not sure if that'll have an effect at all but it might) he should be fine
- haunter 7y ago
  (hope not a problem that I brought up your comment but I liked it much)
calpaterson 7y ago
This doesn't make sense as the next general election here is in 2024 and however coronavirus is handled will be in the distance by then. Consider that the Labour government started a very unpopular war in 2003 and then won a landslide two years later in 2005 - and they were in the middle of fighting it.

mattmanser 7y ago

This clip of the political sitcom Yes Minister from the 1980s is making the rounds on our social media, as it explains that thought process succinctly, and hilariously: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qNjFIwRYEIo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qNjFIwRYEIo

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
A better analogy might be that of Kodos the Executioner from an episode of the original Star Trek series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_the_King https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_the_King. Guess right and be hailed as saving as many lives as one practically could in the face of disaster; guess wrong and be remembered as a mass murderer. Never thought I'd see it happen in real life. (For Simpsons fans, this character is the one from which Kodos of Kodos & Kang originates.)
haunter 7y ago
What's the title of the show? :D
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tmnvix 7y ago
  'Yes Minister'. There is also a follow up series called 'Yes Prime Minister'. Very funny stuff - especially if you have any insight into the public service bureaucracy.
- netsharc 7y ago
  If you haven't heard of them, The Thick of It is basically a modern version of this show. By Armando Ianucci, the man who went on to make Veep (with Julia Louis Dreyfuss). Both series have been praised by insiders who say "The show is just like what happens in reality!". He's also made the movies "In The Loop", set in the run up to the Iraq War, and "The Death of Stalin".
aemreunal 7y ago
Zapp Brannigan said it best: "Come back when it's a catastrophe" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW6xTkivmto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW6xTkivmto

mitchdoogle 7y ago

There is already a pandemic, so it isn't a question of pandemic or no pandemic. It's a question of if the medical system gets overwhelmed. It's also hard to judge because spending lots of money and enlisting extreme measures may slow the virus so much it looks as if it wasn't that dangerous to begin with. In which case both sides would be using it as a talking point.

gregmac 7y ago

Since there's already a pandemic, I'll assume when you're saying "pandemic" you mean more specifically "epidemic in the UK". Even then, there's some fallacy in your list. In the best case -- if action is taken and it contains the spread -- then there is no epidemic and it looks like overreaction. Even if it slows the spread allowing the health care system to keep up and keeps the fatality rate fairly low you'll get people claiming it wasn't as big a deal and that whatever action was taken was an overreaction. This happened with Y2K [1], it happens with hurricane warnings when the storms fizzle out, and despite the glaring evidence of what happens with inaction (China, Italy) there should be little doubt people will be talking about 'overreactions' in any countries that do take action that turns out to be effective. It's the same problem that nobody goes to a show and says "Wow, the sound technician did a great job, because nobody backstage had a hot mic while they were in the bathroom!" [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22556156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22556156

tomp 7y ago
I don't think anyone will accuse any government of overreaction, given the state we're in - there's many countries, acting independently, with different outcomes / progressions of the pandemic ... it will be very easy to look back in a year or so (hopefully) and say precisely which governments did well and which did not, possibly even precisely which actions led to the outcomes

tomp 7y ago

Nah, that was the thinking before the pandemic, when "action" was either close the borders and crash the economy, or not and hope that nothing happens. Now, I think the following consequences need to be taken into account: (1) politicians have very little skin in the game (given they have priority access to hospitals, security, flights, ...) (2) the only skin in the game is next election, which in the UK won't happen for another 5 years, so literally who cares (a.k.a. this won't affect Johnson's decision-making) (3) capacity - NHS in the case of the UK - of which we (the public) have very little information, and the government (Johnson) has a lot - he might think that if there's even less capacity than in Italy, it makes no sense to even try their strategy (4) what other countries do - a disaster isn't really a disaster if it's no worse than other countries... and Italy is pretty bad already, so it makes some sense to do something else (can hardly be worse than Italy)... this is also why I think Trump won't fare that bad, as long as the US outcome is better than EU (which is might still be, it's a bigger country with literally more space for people to self-isolate, and banned flights with China a while ago - not sure if that'll have an effect at all but it might) he should be fine

haunter 7y ago
(hope not a problem that I brought up your comment but I liked it much)

calpaterson 7y ago

This doesn't make sense as the next general election here is in 2024 and however coronavirus is handled will be in the distance by then. Consider that the Labour government started a very unpopular war in 2003 and then won a landslide two years later in 2005 - and they were in the middle of fighting it.