4 ms·

Judging from the comments, explaining the severity of the epidemic is now politically charged. Epidemiologists and the medical field have made it clear we are

Judging from the comments, explaining the severity of the epidemic is now politically charged. Epidemiologists and the medical field have made it clear we are _under_ reacting. But apparently some politicians want to down play the problem and their obfuscation is echoed in every corner of the web with great zeal and again drowning out reality. It's like the climate change denial phenomenon but at high speed.

faitswulff 7y ago
It's exactly like high speed climate change, from lacking the infrastructure and political will to do anything about it to missing our grace periods to act.
thomascgalvin 7y ago
The fact that we're more likely to listen to a politician (or a media figure) rather than someone who has spent the better portion of four decades studying a topic is one of the most existential threats we face. We need to figure out a way to get through the tribal mentality. Right now, a significant plurality (if not an actual majority) of people are more concerned about their side winning points than about effectively dealing with a crisis.
- seph-reed 7y ago
  Seriously, what is the analogous computer science problem to this? Why is it that a lifetime of experiences, and I still draw blanks every time I try to figure out what to do about this stuff. I mean... everything minus scenarios which include massive amounts of death. Surely there's a better way though.
  - thomascgalvin 7y ago
    I don't think there is an analogy in computer science; that deals with data, and this deals with emotion. This is driven, as far as I understand it, by evolutionary psychology. It was an advantage to be "right enough, and unified" as opposed to "completely right, but divided", and an advantage to take care of "us" before taking care of "them." As a result, we are hard-wired toward tribalism. Smart people are able to set this aside and deal with the facts as they are, but we still have to overcome the initial, emotional surge that takes offense whenever something we hold true is challenged. One of the big issues is that people don't see immediate fallout from this sort of behavior on the national level. They vote for people who cut taxes for the rich and gut worker protections, but never connect that to their own financial ruin. The effect follows too far after, and too far from, the cause. Politics, as a result, is treated like football: root for your team, because the other team sucks. We might see some of that change as the bodies start piling up from COVID-19, but I doubt that there will be a larger societal change.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - politelemon 7y ago
    There are a few analogous situations you'll find in computer science and the development world: brand worship and celebrity worship. We'll quickly adopt patterns and opinions given by well known individuals without judging the output on its own merit. We'll follow tools, frameworks and trends that emerge from organizations without assessing its suitability for ourselves. In fact we will even twist our world view in order to accommodate someone else's reality, at detriment to ourselves. I specifically don't want to give examples, but you can come up with a few of you think about it. It's a matter of course in our industry however so we don't really consider it to be analogous to the above problem, simply because we are inside the system. We see nothing wrong with what we're doing and are quick to judge outside groups on the same behaviours... Which makes it even more analogous!
- jhanschoo 7y ago
  You can't do anything about this stuff without a lot of power. It's a very deep-rooted problem in US society. One aspect of this that I was thinking about yesterday is that everyone can spout all kinds of hogwash and opinion without fear of repercussion, because this is socially tolerated in US society more than some others. But with today's amazing communication technology this means that strong opinions without evidence in support of ideological action for causes and reasons not grounded in reality gets broadcasted; low-quality opinion masquerading as facts. But I think it may be possible to "hack" this lack of repercussion by a platform/institution where reporters/publishers can artificially promise repercussions for themselves that so-and-so statement is true. e.g. betting that a claim is true, and allowing anyone to challenge your claim with contrary evidence by posting a higher stake, that if the challenge meets some platform/institution-wide threshold for rules of evidence, allows the challenger to pocket up to half of the prior claim's stake (the remaining becomes the stake for the new claim), else the challenger loses their stake and the prior claim stands. Of course, the evidence needs to meet a certain standard. The hope is that non-bogus rules of evidence end up supporting only a theory of very sane and reasonable facts, whereas bogus rules of evidence end up allowing a lot of bogus claims to stand unchallenged that are not falsifiable, or that claims are too easily contradicted, so that it becomes easy for people to tell real information from ideological polemic, and also invites challenge from fact-checkers and competing interests.
- adolph 7y ago
  It's a tricky problem. People listen to politicians and media figures (if they are different) because those entities are listenable and provide a constant standard flow of communication--that is their expert area. In contrast the veteran epidemiologist or any other expert is primarily an expert in that domain and not an expert in reaching a broad audience. If the collective "we" (if there is such a coherent thing) were to listen primarily to experts, we would need to constantly shift which expert to which we are listening, depending on the problem of the day. Additionally, each of those experts would have to take time out of their expert practice area to become a highly skilled communicator. Is the Surgeon General an expert or politician/media figure? Is the WHO reflective of experts all the time or is it an institution with political and media concerns?
dominotw 7y ago
> But apparently some politicians want to down play the problem and their obfuscation is echoed in every corner of the web with great zeal and again drowning out reality. Yes obviously they take the main blame. but also others. From Jan, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/opinion/coronavirus-panic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/opinion/coronavirus-panic... > China’s response appears to be driven by political considerations more than epidemiological ones. The government has imposed a travel lockdown on more than 35 million people, which experts say is a quarantine of unprecedented size and scale, yet it may not even turn out to be very effective. what about the nameless experts media has been quoting to float their conspiracy theories. Will these ppl take some of the blame for eroding people's trust in experts?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  "We don't know how well a large-scale quarantine of an entire heavily populated region will work" isn't a conspiracy theory. It turned out to work, but that wasn't a certainty back then. (You're also linking an op-ed piece.)
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > China’s response appears to be driven by political considerations more than epidemiological ones. I was referring to this. Author isn't interpreting it as "we don't know".
downerending 7y ago
Epidemiologists know a lot about epidemics, but they're not necessarily as good at figuring out the total effect of pandemic in the long term (for example, how economic effects could kill large numbers via suicide and general want). It's very important to have people looking at the total picture. Beyond that, even the politics is not falling in predictable lines. There was a report this morning that the mayor of New York wants to reopen the schools in a few weeks.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  But trends in suicide including economic causes are handled by epidemiology[1] It is great that attention is now being paid to this subject. Although the overall suicide rate has continued to _rise_ in spite of 11 years of a rising DOW, the suicide rate among those approaching retirement has risen significantly in the last decades. From past trends we know this is directly related to social security[2]. I sincerely hope the attention continues and solutions are pursued and deeply hope that, as some think, it is not a cynical ploy. Likewise, I hope the sudden concern for food security among the vulnerable poor continues. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_suicide [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=ESSEHA5TyoIC&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=ESSEHA5TyoIC&pg=PA360&lpg=...
  - downerending 7y ago
    No doubt, but we need more than just epidemiologists to project how complex changes in the world economy will affect suicide. For example, how can the various interventions possible by the US Fed affect the economic well-being of the poor? Etc. We need all of our experts on this, including the political ones, who have a good sense of what will fly and what won't. No doubt social security (Social Security?) does affect those of us who are older. I can personally attest, though, that there are a lot of other factors that also come into play (and in my opinion may be more important).
    - TomMckenny 7y ago
gnulinux 7y ago
Everything is political in the US. Can't you tell? A scientific fact such as global warming has been political for decades now. It's not surprising a global pandemic can be politicized as well.
throw1234651234 7y ago
An expert tends to weight their needs heavier without being aware of the other problems. Where, if we are optimistic, the politician might be balancing this against the economic, military, climate, geo-political, etc needs.

faitswulff 7y ago

It's exactly like high speed climate change, from lacking the infrastructure and political will to do anything about it to missing our grace periods to act.

thomascgalvin 7y ago

The fact that we're more likely to listen to a politician (or a media figure) rather than someone who has spent the better portion of four decades studying a topic is one of the most existential threats we face. We need to figure out a way to get through the tribal mentality. Right now, a significant plurality (if not an actual majority) of people are more concerned about their side winning points than about effectively dealing with a crisis.

seph-reed 7y ago
Seriously, what is the analogous computer science problem to this? Why is it that a lifetime of experiences, and I still draw blanks every time I try to figure out what to do about this stuff. I mean... everything minus scenarios which include massive amounts of death. Surely there's a better way though.
- thomascgalvin 7y ago
  I don't think there is an analogy in computer science; that deals with data, and this deals with emotion. This is driven, as far as I understand it, by evolutionary psychology. It was an advantage to be "right enough, and unified" as opposed to "completely right, but divided", and an advantage to take care of "us" before taking care of "them." As a result, we are hard-wired toward tribalism. Smart people are able to set this aside and deal with the facts as they are, but we still have to overcome the initial, emotional surge that takes offense whenever something we hold true is challenged. One of the big issues is that people don't see immediate fallout from this sort of behavior on the national level. They vote for people who cut taxes for the rich and gut worker protections, but never connect that to their own financial ruin. The effect follows too far after, and too far from, the cause. Politics, as a result, is treated like football: root for your team, because the other team sucks. We might see some of that change as the bodies start piling up from COVID-19, but I doubt that there will be a larger societal change.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- politelemon 7y ago
  There are a few analogous situations you'll find in computer science and the development world: brand worship and celebrity worship. We'll quickly adopt patterns and opinions given by well known individuals without judging the output on its own merit. We'll follow tools, frameworks and trends that emerge from organizations without assessing its suitability for ourselves. In fact we will even twist our world view in order to accommodate someone else's reality, at detriment to ourselves. I specifically don't want to give examples, but you can come up with a few of you think about it. It's a matter of course in our industry however so we don't really consider it to be analogous to the above problem, simply because we are inside the system. We see nothing wrong with what we're doing and are quick to judge outside groups on the same behaviours... Which makes it even more analogous!
jhanschoo 7y ago
You can't do anything about this stuff without a lot of power. It's a very deep-rooted problem in US society. One aspect of this that I was thinking about yesterday is that everyone can spout all kinds of hogwash and opinion without fear of repercussion, because this is socially tolerated in US society more than some others. But with today's amazing communication technology this means that strong opinions without evidence in support of ideological action for causes and reasons not grounded in reality gets broadcasted; low-quality opinion masquerading as facts. But I think it may be possible to "hack" this lack of repercussion by a platform/institution where reporters/publishers can artificially promise repercussions for themselves that so-and-so statement is true. e.g. betting that a claim is true, and allowing anyone to challenge your claim with contrary evidence by posting a higher stake, that if the challenge meets some platform/institution-wide threshold for rules of evidence, allows the challenger to pocket up to half of the prior claim's stake (the remaining becomes the stake for the new claim), else the challenger loses their stake and the prior claim stands. Of course, the evidence needs to meet a certain standard. The hope is that non-bogus rules of evidence end up supporting only a theory of very sane and reasonable facts, whereas bogus rules of evidence end up allowing a lot of bogus claims to stand unchallenged that are not falsifiable, or that claims are too easily contradicted, so that it becomes easy for people to tell real information from ideological polemic, and also invites challenge from fact-checkers and competing interests.
adolph 7y ago
It's a tricky problem. People listen to politicians and media figures (if they are different) because those entities are listenable and provide a constant standard flow of communication--that is their expert area. In contrast the veteran epidemiologist or any other expert is primarily an expert in that domain and not an expert in reaching a broad audience. If the collective "we" (if there is such a coherent thing) were to listen primarily to experts, we would need to constantly shift which expert to which we are listening, depending on the problem of the day. Additionally, each of those experts would have to take time out of their expert practice area to become a highly skilled communicator. Is the Surgeon General an expert or politician/media figure? Is the WHO reflective of experts all the time or is it an institution with political and media concerns?

dominotw 7y ago

> But apparently some politicians want to down play the problem and their obfuscation is echoed in every corner of the web with great zeal and again drowning out reality. Yes obviously they take the main blame. but also others. From Jan, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/opinion/coronavirus-panic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/opinion/coronavirus-panic... > China’s response appears to be driven by political considerations more than epidemiological ones. The government has imposed a travel lockdown on more than 35 million people, which experts say is a quarantine of unprecedented size and scale, yet it may not even turn out to be very effective. what about the nameless experts media has been quoting to float their conspiracy theories. Will these ppl take some of the blame for eroding people's trust in experts?

ceejayoz 7y ago
"We don't know how well a large-scale quarantine of an entire heavily populated region will work" isn't a conspiracy theory. It turned out to work, but that wasn't a certainty back then. (You're also linking an op-ed piece.)
- dominotw 7y ago
  > China’s response appears to be driven by political considerations more than epidemiological ones. I was referring to this. Author isn't interpreting it as "we don't know".

downerending 7y ago

Epidemiologists know a lot about epidemics, but they're not necessarily as good at figuring out the total effect of pandemic in the long term (for example, how economic effects could kill large numbers via suicide and general want). It's very important to have people looking at the total picture. Beyond that, even the politics is not falling in predictable lines. There was a report this morning that the mayor of New York wants to reopen the schools in a few weeks.

TomMckenny 7y ago
But trends in suicide including economic causes are handled by epidemiology[1] It is great that attention is now being paid to this subject. Although the overall suicide rate has continued to _rise_ in spite of 11 years of a rising DOW, the suicide rate among those approaching retirement has risen significantly in the last decades. From past trends we know this is directly related to social security[2]. I sincerely hope the attention continues and solutions are pursued and deeply hope that, as some think, it is not a cynical ploy. Likewise, I hope the sudden concern for food security among the vulnerable poor continues. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_suicide [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=ESSEHA5TyoIC&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=ESSEHA5TyoIC&pg=PA360&lpg=...
- downerending 7y ago
  No doubt, but we need more than just epidemiologists to project how complex changes in the world economy will affect suicide. For example, how can the various interventions possible by the US Fed affect the economic well-being of the poor? Etc. We need all of our experts on this, including the political ones, who have a good sense of what will fly and what won't. No doubt social security (Social Security?) does affect those of us who are older. I can personally attest, though, that there are a lot of other factors that also come into play (and in my opinion may be more important).
  - TomMckenny 7y ago

gnulinux 7y ago

Everything is political in the US. Can't you tell? A scientific fact such as global warming has been political for decades now. It's not surprising a global pandemic can be politicized as well.

throw1234651234 7y ago

An expert tends to weight their needs heavier without being aware of the other problems. Where, if we are optimistic, the politician might be balancing this against the economic, military, climate, geo-political, etc needs.