2 ms·

Well, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people by getting a haircut during COVID! Can you maybe try a little harder to grasp the analogy?

by bhupy 6y ago

pmiller2 6y ago
There is no analogy to be had. When I get in my car, the overhwelming probability is that absolutely nobody will be killed by my action, including myself. If we resume "normal life," the overhwelming probabilty is that I will eventually contract the coronavirus, and there is a significant probability that I will be killed, or that my actions would kill someone else. Do you not see the difference? Try a little harder to grasp reality.
- bhupy 6y ago
  There absolutely is an analogy: in both cases, the risk you do as an individual in a vacuum is nearly 0. The aggregate risk of everyone engaging in that behavior is not only non-zero, but results in tens of thousands of deaths. If we all started driving our cars again, the overwhelming probability is that someone will eventually get into a car accident and die, and in aggregate we've observed that to be about 35,000 every year. If we all resumed a "normal life", the overwhelming probability is that 60,000+ people will die from COVID.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    > There absolutely is an analogy: in both cases, the risk you do as an individual in a vacuum is nearly 0. This is absolutely untrue. > In order to achieve herd immunity, scientists say that a community would need to have at least 60% of its population infected. That’s the lowest estimate I’ve been told. Other scientists have told me 80% to 90%. The reason this percentage isn’t precisely known is because it depends on things like exactly how contagious the virus is and also whether people who have been infected are immune forever, or if they lose immunity after a while, which researchers also are furiously working to figure out. [0] With an infection fatality rate of 0.5% (which is on the conservative side), resuming normal activity means between 1.5 and 4.5% of the population will likely die. This is not an insignificant risk at all. In contrast, 35,000 dead from traffic accidents is .01% of the US population. This is precisely why your so called "analogy" is invalid. Why do you not realize this? --- [0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/what-antibody-studies-can-tell-you-and-more-importantly-what-they-cant https://www.propublica.org/article/what-antibody-studies-can...
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > With an infection fatality rate of 0.5% (which is on the conservative side), resuming normal activity means between 1.5 and 4.5% of the population will likely die. This is not an insignificant risk at all. In contrast, 35,000 dead from traffic accidents is .01% of the US population. Right, so you are essentially making a tradeoff! You have decided that losing 0.01% of the US population is, to use your framing, an "insignificant risk". I don't disagree with that. Your original argument was that we simply do not have the right to promote or otherwise further actions that will unnecessarily cause the death of innocents, even if there is an economic tradeoff to be had. I argued that we absolutely have the right to make tradeoffs with lives, we do it all the time. Sometimes the tradeoff is worth it, sometimes it isn't. You have just argued to me that "the analogy is invalid" because in one case a lot of people die, and in the other case far fewer people die. You are essentially making the same tradeoff, under the same moral framework — only your boundary for what constitutes an acceptable number of deaths is different. This is a difference in degree, and not kind.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        > Right, so you are essentially making a tradeoff! You have decided that losing 0.01% of the US population is, to use your framing, an "insignificant risk". I don't disagree with that. I have not. I have stated that a moral framework that could theoretically justify driving cars does not also justify releasing lockdowns. I have made no normative statement about Americans driving cars. Please show me where I have, if you disagree.
        bhupy 6y ago
        > I have stated that a moral framework that could theoretically justify driving cars does not also justify releasing lockdowns It's the same moral framework, you're just coming out of it with a different decision based on the number of lives impacted. > I have made no normative statement about Americans driving cars. Please show me where I have, if you disagree. Your words: "resuming normal activity means between 1.5 and 4.5% of the population will likely die. This is not an insignificant risk at all. In contrast, 35,000 dead from traffic accidents is .01% of the US population." You've implicitly shown that there is a line you draw at the number of lives lost that you feel is unacceptable, and that's somewhere between 1.5-4.5% of the population. 0.01% of the population is acceptable to you (it is acceptable to me, too). Drawing this line is a normative point of view! And my fundamental argument is that different people have different "lines". Your "line" isn't magically the universally correct one. We need to have the discussion to understand all of the "lines" we might be able to draw (ie what are the varying degrees of lockdown), what everyone's personal "lines" are, and then try and come up with the acceptable "line" for society.

Well, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people by getting a haircut during COVID! Can you maybe try a little harder to grasp the analogy?

by bhupy 6y ago

Well, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people by getting a haircut during COVID! Can you maybe try a little harder to grasp the analogy?

pmiller2 6y ago

There is no analogy to be had. When I get in my car, the overhwelming probability is that absolutely nobody will be killed by my action, including myself. If we resume "normal life," the overhwelming probabilty is that I will eventually contract the coronavirus, and there is a significant probability that I will be killed, or that my actions would kill someone else. Do you not see the difference? Try a little harder to grasp reality.

bhupy 6y ago
There absolutely is an analogy: in both cases, the risk you do as an individual in a vacuum is nearly 0. The aggregate risk of everyone engaging in that behavior is not only non-zero, but results in tens of thousands of deaths. If we all started driving our cars again, the overwhelming probability is that someone will eventually get into a car accident and die, and in aggregate we've observed that to be about 35,000 every year. If we all resumed a "normal life", the overwhelming probability is that 60,000+ people will die from COVID.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  > There absolutely is an analogy: in both cases, the risk you do as an individual in a vacuum is nearly 0. This is absolutely untrue. > In order to achieve herd immunity, scientists say that a community would need to have at least 60% of its population infected. That’s the lowest estimate I’ve been told. Other scientists have told me 80% to 90%. The reason this percentage isn’t precisely known is because it depends on things like exactly how contagious the virus is and also whether people who have been infected are immune forever, or if they lose immunity after a while, which researchers also are furiously working to figure out. [0] With an infection fatality rate of 0.5% (which is on the conservative side), resuming normal activity means between 1.5 and 4.5% of the population will likely die. This is not an insignificant risk at all. In contrast, 35,000 dead from traffic accidents is .01% of the US population. This is precisely why your so called "analogy" is invalid. Why do you not realize this? --- [0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/what-antibody-studies-can-tell-you-and-more-importantly-what-they-cant https://www.propublica.org/article/what-antibody-studies-can...
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > With an infection fatality rate of 0.5% (which is on the conservative side), resuming normal activity means between 1.5 and 4.5% of the population will likely die. This is not an insignificant risk at all. In contrast, 35,000 dead from traffic accidents is .01% of the US population. Right, so you are essentially making a tradeoff! You have decided that losing 0.01% of the US population is, to use your framing, an "insignificant risk". I don't disagree with that. Your original argument was that we simply do not have the right to promote or otherwise further actions that will unnecessarily cause the death of innocents, even if there is an economic tradeoff to be had. I argued that we absolutely have the right to make tradeoffs with lives, we do it all the time. Sometimes the tradeoff is worth it, sometimes it isn't. You have just argued to me that "the analogy is invalid" because in one case a lot of people die, and in the other case far fewer people die. You are essentially making the same tradeoff, under the same moral framework — only your boundary for what constitutes an acceptable number of deaths is different. This is a difference in degree, and not kind.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      > Right, so you are essentially making a tradeoff! You have decided that losing 0.01% of the US population is, to use your framing, an "insignificant risk". I don't disagree with that. I have not. I have stated that a moral framework that could theoretically justify driving cars does not also justify releasing lockdowns. I have made no normative statement about Americans driving cars. Please show me where I have, if you disagree.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        > I have stated that a moral framework that could theoretically justify driving cars does not also justify releasing lockdowns It's the same moral framework, you're just coming out of it with a different decision based on the number of lives impacted. > I have made no normative statement about Americans driving cars. Please show me where I have, if you disagree. Your words: "resuming normal activity means between 1.5 and 4.5% of the population will likely die. This is not an insignificant risk at all. In contrast, 35,000 dead from traffic accidents is .01% of the US population." You've implicitly shown that there is a line you draw at the number of lives lost that you feel is unacceptable, and that's somewhere between 1.5-4.5% of the population. 0.01% of the population is acceptable to you (it is acceptable to me, too). Drawing this line is a normative point of view! And my fundamental argument is that different people have different "lines". Your "line" isn't magically the universally correct one. We need to have the discussion to understand all of the "lines" we might be able to draw (ie what are the varying degrees of lockdown), what everyone's personal "lines" are, and then try and come up with the acceptable "line" for society.