10 ms·

The social engineering aspect of pandemic control is fascinating and something I had never considered before. It's not enough to put the right policies in place

The social engineering aspect of pandemic control is fascinating and something I had never considered before. It's not enough to put the right policies in place. You have to get people to actually follow them (voluntarily). It's like writing a user story on a grand scale.

thomascgalvin 6y ago
There are basically three groups of people now: those who are taking this seriously and social distancing, those who think this is some kind of hoax and are gleefully ignoring any advice or orders from the government, and those that are "essential" and have no choice in the matter. The hoaxers are a clear and present threat to the essential workers. The number of MBTA staff infected with COVID-19 has more than doubled in the past week; they can't avoid people, and they're being infected by those who won't.
- filoleg 6y ago
  I think it is disingenuous to imply that the only people on public transit right now are those working there and those ignorant people treating it all as a hoax and taking the transit anyway. You would be surprised to find out how many of essential workers rely on public transport to get to their jobs.
  - thomascgalvin 6y ago
    I was only using the MBTA as an example of essential workers. There is a large segment of the public that is fucked right now because we need them to work, and have no way to protect them. The fact that there is a large segment of the population that is happy to spread this virus only exacerbates the issue.
    - paypalcust83 6y ago
      Yep. Thank both the greed of the ruling class and the cowardice of the serf class to assent to even more dire poverty. A few UBI crumbs "that will last 10 weeks" could be the "let them eat cake"-moment, but it is extremely unlikely because the vasty majority of people are cowards and will take any injustice over a barrel because they believe they have no power (learned helplessness).
      - downerending 6y ago
        > Thank both the greed of the ruling class He didn't say "they need to work" (although they might). He said "we need them to work". No matter how greedy the ruling class might be, we still need medical people to staff hospitals, police to police, firemen, etc. These people are not serfs or cowards because they're going to their jobs.
- pengaru 6y ago
  We're not stopping the spread of covid, with or without "hoaxers", this is going to run its course. We're just slowing it to a manageable rate with fairly extreme measures like lock-downs (which will likely be loosening soon anyways), and I don't see small pockets of uncooperative people making a sizable difference in the general outcome, not at this stage.
- lisper 6y ago
  > The hoaxers A minor but salient point: in common usage, a hoaxer would be a person perpetrating a hoax, not a person who believes (incorrectly) that someone else is perpetrating a hoax. The people who you are referring to hear are better labelled "denialists" than "hoaxers".
  - felipemnoa 6y ago
    I think he is using it in the same spirit as the word "truther".
    - mlyle 6y ago
      I think so too, but it still breaks the language by rendering the main word we have for "someone who perpetuates a hoax" ambiguous.
    - lisper 6y ago
      Yes, but the difference is that "hoaxer" is already an English word with an established meaning, namely, one who perpetrates a hoax. "Truther" did not already have an established meaning before it was coined to mean what it does.
    - lowdose 6y ago
      I think by reversing the meaning of the word hoaxer he can maintain the same rhetoric from his 2016 election to secure his next presidency while making 180 degree turn on what he is actually selling. The democrats will all fall over each other commenting how Trump bends the truth. This will waist so much attention time of the people that could have been used to actual sell on important issues. Donald steered the conversation once again captures momentum and wins.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    The irony is that misinformation campaigns are the actual hoax here... calling them "hoaxers" is more accurate than you suggest. The real lesson I got from the article is that politicians are the worst face of a pandemic response: it risks that half of the populace will do the opposite of the advice given. Once the issue is politicized, that snowballs -- propaganda has infected modern discourse to a disturbing degree, and it's hard to see well-organized denialism being amplified by far-right media as anything but a cold-hearted hoax.
- listenallyall 6y ago
  Vast simplification that undermines working-class people. Tens of millions of people have lost their job and income, while bills continue to accumulate. It's fair to acknowledge the potential risks of contracting COVID-19, and still decide, I'd prefer to work, observing sanitization & social distancing measures, than to have my entire financial life ruined. We just had the NFL draft this week. Plenty of these players will have their bodies seriously harmed in the next few years, while others will get multiple concussions and potentially set themselves up for CTE or other brain damage. Not once did anyone raise any alarms about, maybe these young people shouldn't go into this line of work...
  - pgsbathhouse2 6y ago
    >than to have my entire financial life ruined. You know we can just literally choose to not have this problem, instead of buying into other people's narratives. >Not once did anyone raise any alarms about, maybe these young people shouldn't go into this line of work Actually plenty of people do. It's just not a very thrilling subject to the U.S. populace.
    - willvarfar 6y ago
      > we can just literally choose to not have this problem how can people facing financial ruin right now choose not to have it?
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        That clearly isn't what they mean, they are talking about society taking steps to minimize the financial harm. The feasibility of succeeding at that is a different thing than your question.
        scottLobster 6y ago
        So technically correct is the best kind of correct? The feasibility of succeeding makes the point moot, and frankly makes it sound like puerile moralizing. You might as well say, in the wake of a murder, "well your society could stop murder altogether if they decided not to kill each other". Especially considering that we've already passed the largest economic bailout/safety net measures in world history in a matter of 3 weeks, and it looks like more is on the way. It would seem that "society" is doing its best over here given the realities of the situation, theoretical Kumbaya ideals aside.
- lixtra 6y ago
  > basically three groups of people now I can imagine more groups. For example people might need to get out of the city/house for psychological reasons. Taking a small chance to get/spread the virus might be better than hurting oneself/others.
- cactus2093 6y ago
  I’m seeing a lot of in between in my own friend/friend of friends networks. Particularly in SF it seems a lot of people don’t quite think this is a hoax, but just aren’t very concerned and are stretching the boundaries of the stay at home order as much as they can. Big groups are meeting up in parks where they don’t all live walking distance away, just hanging out having picnics. Lots of people are eating together in the street outside of takeout places. And lots of politicians are even encouraging this kind of thing. So aside from the shit show of the Trump administration, I’m not seeing even the areas that are being praised as being the “best” in America really take this seriously. At this point, it looks like we’re way off the trajectory of squashing the outbreak. The curve has plateaued, but we aren’t on track to get the numbers low enough to safely open businesses again and go back to containment and contact tracing. We’re failing at the “hammer” stage of the hammer and the dance, and it seems to me like the probable outcome at this point is a whack a mole of continuous, half hearted hammering for the next year or more where we won’t be able to lift this lockdown much at all.
- closeparen 6y ago
  Maybe you’ve stopped seeing friends but still have sex your non-cohabitating partner. Maybe you went for a walk with a friend and tried to keep 6 feet away but slipped up. Maybe there was an emotional moment and you touched them before you could think. Maybe you had one person over for a special occasion. Lots of people have at least some intention to take it seriously, but not the steely heart for the hardcore isolation that’s required.
paypalcust83 6y ago
The world isn't software engineering; if anything, it's philosophy. I look at it this way, and it sounds harsh but it's big-time decision-making life: 1. You could compel people to listen to something to ensure their safety by force, and then have a riot. OR 2. You could urge sensible people do something for their own safety while letting the idiots commit suicide and clean-up the gene pool in the process. I say take option #2 all-day, everyday because it's easier, cheaper, and better for others who do listen to have one less fewer, stupid liability in the world who would otherwise put others in danger.
- qqssccfftt 6y ago
  I would rather take 100 "idiots" in the gene pool for genetic diversity Of course, "idiot" is pretty relative, and not everyone going out is an idiot, but that would undermine your eugenics argument
- mlyle 6y ago
  Option 2 doesn't really work with an exponential process. There are people who have to work for society to continue functioning who have no choice but to be exposed to the "idiots", and even people able to self-isolated generally cannot completely remove encounters that could cause infection, but instead just greatly reduce them.
  - NotSammyHagar 6y ago
    Correct. Other people's idiotic choices have deadly implications for everyone else. That's why we can't just let people ignore this problem. They don't just hurt themselves.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      At the same time, we can't just let zeal/fear drive us into making the short-term safest choices that may not be safest in the long run. I do think we're overshooting the other way.
      - 6y ago
bb2018 6y ago
I agree. I think the issue with mask recommendations was ultimately that politicians/public health officials were worried people would put on a mask and then feel invincible, therefore leading to more spread. I think that is the case with lots of calls to re-open now. There are so many businesses that could return safely now if people followed safety protocol, but realistically not only will there be unintentional safety errors but loosening of some government restrictions will lead to the loosening of people's personal safetly restrictions they have been doing since the start.

thomascgalvin 6y ago

There are basically three groups of people now: those who are taking this seriously and social distancing, those who think this is some kind of hoax and are gleefully ignoring any advice or orders from the government, and those that are "essential" and have no choice in the matter. The hoaxers are a clear and present threat to the essential workers. The number of MBTA staff infected with COVID-19 has more than doubled in the past week; they can't avoid people, and they're being infected by those who won't.

filoleg 6y ago
I think it is disingenuous to imply that the only people on public transit right now are those working there and those ignorant people treating it all as a hoax and taking the transit anyway. You would be surprised to find out how many of essential workers rely on public transport to get to their jobs.
- thomascgalvin 6y ago
  I was only using the MBTA as an example of essential workers. There is a large segment of the public that is fucked right now because we need them to work, and have no way to protect them. The fact that there is a large segment of the population that is happy to spread this virus only exacerbates the issue.
  - paypalcust83 6y ago
    Yep. Thank both the greed of the ruling class and the cowardice of the serf class to assent to even more dire poverty. A few UBI crumbs "that will last 10 weeks" could be the "let them eat cake"-moment, but it is extremely unlikely because the vasty majority of people are cowards and will take any injustice over a barrel because they believe they have no power (learned helplessness).
    - downerending 6y ago
      > Thank both the greed of the ruling class He didn't say "they need to work" (although they might). He said "we need them to work". No matter how greedy the ruling class might be, we still need medical people to staff hospitals, police to police, firemen, etc. These people are not serfs or cowards because they're going to their jobs.
pengaru 6y ago
We're not stopping the spread of covid, with or without "hoaxers", this is going to run its course. We're just slowing it to a manageable rate with fairly extreme measures like lock-downs (which will likely be loosening soon anyways), and I don't see small pockets of uncooperative people making a sizable difference in the general outcome, not at this stage.
lisper 6y ago
> The hoaxers A minor but salient point: in common usage, a hoaxer would be a person perpetrating a hoax, not a person who believes (incorrectly) that someone else is perpetrating a hoax. The people who you are referring to hear are better labelled "denialists" than "hoaxers".
- felipemnoa 6y ago
  I think he is using it in the same spirit as the word "truther".
  - mlyle 6y ago
    I think so too, but it still breaks the language by rendering the main word we have for "someone who perpetuates a hoax" ambiguous.
  - lisper 6y ago
    Yes, but the difference is that "hoaxer" is already an English word with an established meaning, namely, one who perpetrates a hoax. "Truther" did not already have an established meaning before it was coined to mean what it does.
  - lowdose 6y ago
    I think by reversing the meaning of the word hoaxer he can maintain the same rhetoric from his 2016 election to secure his next presidency while making 180 degree turn on what he is actually selling. The democrats will all fall over each other commenting how Trump bends the truth. This will waist so much attention time of the people that could have been used to actual sell on important issues. Donald steered the conversation once again captures momentum and wins.
- klyrs 6y ago
  The irony is that misinformation campaigns are the actual hoax here... calling them "hoaxers" is more accurate than you suggest. The real lesson I got from the article is that politicians are the worst face of a pandemic response: it risks that half of the populace will do the opposite of the advice given. Once the issue is politicized, that snowballs -- propaganda has infected modern discourse to a disturbing degree, and it's hard to see well-organized denialism being amplified by far-right media as anything but a cold-hearted hoax.
listenallyall 6y ago
Vast simplification that undermines working-class people. Tens of millions of people have lost their job and income, while bills continue to accumulate. It's fair to acknowledge the potential risks of contracting COVID-19, and still decide, I'd prefer to work, observing sanitization & social distancing measures, than to have my entire financial life ruined. We just had the NFL draft this week. Plenty of these players will have their bodies seriously harmed in the next few years, while others will get multiple concussions and potentially set themselves up for CTE or other brain damage. Not once did anyone raise any alarms about, maybe these young people shouldn't go into this line of work...
- pgsbathhouse2 6y ago
  >than to have my entire financial life ruined. You know we can just literally choose to not have this problem, instead of buying into other people's narratives. >Not once did anyone raise any alarms about, maybe these young people shouldn't go into this line of work Actually plenty of people do. It's just not a very thrilling subject to the U.S. populace.
  - willvarfar 6y ago
    > we can just literally choose to not have this problem how can people facing financial ruin right now choose not to have it?
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      That clearly isn't what they mean, they are talking about society taking steps to minimize the financial harm. The feasibility of succeeding at that is a different thing than your question.
      - scottLobster 6y ago
        So technically correct is the best kind of correct? The feasibility of succeeding makes the point moot, and frankly makes it sound like puerile moralizing. You might as well say, in the wake of a murder, "well your society could stop murder altogether if they decided not to kill each other". Especially considering that we've already passed the largest economic bailout/safety net measures in world history in a matter of 3 weeks, and it looks like more is on the way. It would seem that "society" is doing its best over here given the realities of the situation, theoretical Kumbaya ideals aside.
lixtra 6y ago
> basically three groups of people now I can imagine more groups. For example people might need to get out of the city/house for psychological reasons. Taking a small chance to get/spread the virus might be better than hurting oneself/others.
cactus2093 6y ago
I’m seeing a lot of in between in my own friend/friend of friends networks. Particularly in SF it seems a lot of people don’t quite think this is a hoax, but just aren’t very concerned and are stretching the boundaries of the stay at home order as much as they can. Big groups are meeting up in parks where they don’t all live walking distance away, just hanging out having picnics. Lots of people are eating together in the street outside of takeout places. And lots of politicians are even encouraging this kind of thing. So aside from the shit show of the Trump administration, I’m not seeing even the areas that are being praised as being the “best” in America really take this seriously. At this point, it looks like we’re way off the trajectory of squashing the outbreak. The curve has plateaued, but we aren’t on track to get the numbers low enough to safely open businesses again and go back to containment and contact tracing. We’re failing at the “hammer” stage of the hammer and the dance, and it seems to me like the probable outcome at this point is a whack a mole of continuous, half hearted hammering for the next year or more where we won’t be able to lift this lockdown much at all.
closeparen 6y ago
Maybe you’ve stopped seeing friends but still have sex your non-cohabitating partner. Maybe you went for a walk with a friend and tried to keep 6 feet away but slipped up. Maybe there was an emotional moment and you touched them before you could think. Maybe you had one person over for a special occasion. Lots of people have at least some intention to take it seriously, but not the steely heart for the hardcore isolation that’s required.

paypalcust83 6y ago

The world isn't software engineering; if anything, it's philosophy. I look at it this way, and it sounds harsh but it's big-time decision-making life: 1. You could compel people to listen to something to ensure their safety by force, and then have a riot. OR 2. You could urge sensible people do something for their own safety while letting the idiots commit suicide and clean-up the gene pool in the process. I say take option #2 all-day, everyday because it's easier, cheaper, and better for others who do listen to have one less fewer, stupid liability in the world who would otherwise put others in danger.

qqssccfftt 6y ago
I would rather take 100 "idiots" in the gene pool for genetic diversity Of course, "idiot" is pretty relative, and not everyone going out is an idiot, but that would undermine your eugenics argument
mlyle 6y ago
Option 2 doesn't really work with an exponential process. There are people who have to work for society to continue functioning who have no choice but to be exposed to the "idiots", and even people able to self-isolated generally cannot completely remove encounters that could cause infection, but instead just greatly reduce them.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  Correct. Other people's idiotic choices have deadly implications for everyone else. That's why we can't just let people ignore this problem. They don't just hurt themselves.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    At the same time, we can't just let zeal/fear drive us into making the short-term safest choices that may not be safest in the long run. I do think we're overshooting the other way.
    - 6y ago

bb2018 6y ago

I agree. I think the issue with mask recommendations was ultimately that politicians/public health officials were worried people would put on a mask and then feel invincible, therefore leading to more spread. I think that is the case with lots of calls to re-open now. There are so many businesses that could return safely now if people followed safety protocol, but realistically not only will there be unintentional safety errors but loosening of some government restrictions will lead to the loosening of people's personal safetly restrictions they have been doing since the start.