3 ms·

>"I understand that there's always a cost benefit analysis to all of this, but the high and mighty attitude towards people who simply want to feel happy needs t

>"I understand that there's always a cost benefit analysis to all of this, but the high and mighty attitude towards people who simply want to feel happy needs to stop. It damages every discussion." Everyone wants to simply feel happy. Everyone is sick and tired of all of this. Everyone wants to go out to a bar and have a pint. But we can't. We just can't. And not because the government says so. But because many many many more people than necessary will die if we do. That's the reality we live in now. And not understanding that, while acting as if your feelings matter more than others' lives makes you sound like a spoiled child. That is what people are being "high and mighty" about.

xyzzyz 6y ago
> But we can't. We just can't. That's the reality we live in now. Many many many more people than necessary will die if we do. You aren't using the word "can" in its meaning related to ability. You are making value judgement with respect to your perceived results of doing vs. not doing something. When you say "we can't", you actually mean "we shouldn't" or "we mustn't". Moreover, I'd like to point out that your argument that many more people die if we lift the lockdown is based on the model simulations. These model simulations already don't match the reality: we do not observe predicted exponential decay of cases to 0. When we lift the lockdown, and the outcomes will keep not matching the models, which consistently overpredict number of deaths, I expect people like you to keep saying that if we kept lockdown longer, we could have avoided more deaths, based on... model simulations. I think we need to stop confusing the map, that is, the model simulations, with the territory, that is, the reality.
ravenstine 6y ago
> But we can't. We just can't. Yes, actually, we can. We can reopen things like this with caution, some new social precautions, protect those who are vulnerable, and calculatingly reevaluate the risk once it turns out that the situation has become more or less safe. This idea that we "can't" is simply bogus and based on nothing. And the idea that people, who don't put the same weight on the risks the way that you do, are being childish, is asinine. People with your position might sound like they're the adults in the room, but a policy that is more rigorous is not necessarily the better policy. > And not understanding that, while acting as if your feelings matter more than others' lives makes you sound like a spoiled child. Clearly, I'm a spoiled little child who doesn't care about the lives of others. /s How would you like it if we made the stay-at-home orders permanent, decreased the speed limits to 25 MPH, and banned all drugs and alcohol, and put strict limits on added sugar and fat? After all, we could save tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives if we all just sacrificed our productivity and happiness. If we're going to apply your argument towards a single virus, why not go all the way? Even if you were to say yes, the vast majority of people don't actually want that because this idea that we're all supposed to stay alive is a relatively new idea and, in order to accomplish it, requires a lot of sacrifice. We don't want to live this way forever, even if it makes sense from a utilitarian standpoint. There is nothing wrong with accepting that a percentage of people are always going to die. This is not spoiled or childish.

xyzzyz 6y ago

> But we can't. We just can't. That's the reality we live in now. Many many many more people than necessary will die if we do. You aren't using the word "can" in its meaning related to ability. You are making value judgement with respect to your perceived results of doing vs. not doing something. When you say "we can't", you actually mean "we shouldn't" or "we mustn't". Moreover, I'd like to point out that your argument that many more people die if we lift the lockdown is based on the model simulations. These model simulations already don't match the reality: we do not observe predicted exponential decay of cases to 0. When we lift the lockdown, and the outcomes will keep not matching the models, which consistently overpredict number of deaths, I expect people like you to keep saying that if we kept lockdown longer, we could have avoided more deaths, based on... model simulations. I think we need to stop confusing the map, that is, the model simulations, with the territory, that is, the reality.

ravenstine 6y ago

> But we can't. We just can't. Yes, actually, we can. We can reopen things like this with caution, some new social precautions, protect those who are vulnerable, and calculatingly reevaluate the risk once it turns out that the situation has become more or less safe. This idea that we "can't" is simply bogus and based on nothing. And the idea that people, who don't put the same weight on the risks the way that you do, are being childish, is asinine. People with your position might sound like they're the adults in the room, but a policy that is more rigorous is not necessarily the better policy. > And not understanding that, while acting as if your feelings matter more than others' lives makes you sound like a spoiled child. Clearly, I'm a spoiled little child who doesn't care about the lives of others. /s How would you like it if we made the stay-at-home orders permanent, decreased the speed limits to 25 MPH, and banned all drugs and alcohol, and put strict limits on added sugar and fat? After all, we could save tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives if we all just sacrificed our productivity and happiness. If we're going to apply your argument towards a single virus, why not go all the way? Even if you were to say yes, the vast majority of people don't actually want that because this idea that we're all supposed to stay alive is a relatively new idea and, in order to accomplish it, requires a lot of sacrifice. We don't want to live this way forever, even if it makes sense from a utilitarian standpoint. There is nothing wrong with accepting that a percentage of people are always going to die. This is not spoiled or childish.