4 ms·

How can you reduce all of the freedoms we've lost in the lockdown to "go stand in stores." That's life to you? Standing in stores? It will not be possible to ha

How can you reduce all of the freedoms we've lost in the lockdown to "go stand in stores." That's life to you? Standing in stores? It will not be possible to have a rational argument about the cost/benefits of lockdown if people aren't going to acknowledge how many features of our lives have been sacrificed.

brandon272 6y ago
Can you provide a list of the freedoms we've lost? Honestly, perhaps my thinking on what I or others have lost in this is too narrow. People are being asked to make the temporary sacrifice of practicing physical distancing. That's what it boils down to in terms of "freedoms lost". And because, frankly, we have been utterly unprepared to deal with this completely predictable viral outbreak, much of our society is unprepared to conduct business in a way that allows or supports physical distancing. So people are scrambling. Yes, there will be severe economic hardship for many people. No one denies that. But as I said, for many people they are making an extremely difficult choice between economic hardship or what they perceive to be the health and wellbeing of family and loved ones.
- tripletao 6y ago
  Where I am in the USA, people are seriously proposing not to resume in-person elementary school in fall. Public education is one of very few equalizers in society here, and the children who fall behind because their parents can't/won't/don't supplement the videoconference lectures may never catch up. That cost is hard to quantify for me, but it seems tremendous, unquestionably worth a significant chance of my (but mostly others', since coronavirus mostly kills the elderly) death. Do you agree? How many quality-adjusted life years do you think it's worth paying to keep the kids in school? The answer can't be zero, since just driving them there costs something. This isn't a pleasant question, but it's one that society has to answer. I really don't like the binary argument about "lockdowns". It creates the impression that the pro side wants no one leaving the house except for food, and the anti side wants to resume status quo ante corona. The real answer is of course in between--that some measures, like masks and not standing too close are clearly worth it, while others, like banning all outdoor exercise, are not. Perhaps some people arguing for or against "lockdowns" really are at those extremes, but I doubt most are.
  - brandon272 6y ago
    Keeping kids out of school and not receiving a proper education is a serious issue, and keeping schools shut down is certainly not sustainable at all. But, and this speaks to your point about binary arguments, why are our only options presented to us "open schools as we normally would" or "keep them closed"? It seems to me that there are many ways that education systems could be re-tooled by the time school opens in the fall to enable education while substantially reducing risk of infection. To me the question is if there is a will to make those changes and compromises. It really seems to me like there isn't, and I think that is the part that distresses me the most among all of this.
    - tripletao 6y ago
      I certainly agree that elementary schools (a) should reopen on site, and (b) should reopen with measures to slow the spread of coronavirus. I've already seen discussion of (b) in the press, and that gives me some optimism. I hope a month from now, we're arguing e.g. about whether kids should be held entirely in a single class (to minimize the total number of kids that one infected could expose) vs. allowed to take electives. That seems a lot more productive to me than just pro/anti "lockdown". And while I'm here, I think the proposals to move university education entirely or mostly remote are insane. College students are themselves at very low risk from this, and they live mostly with college students. We should take measures to protect those at risk (help students living with their parents to instead live with classmates, let older professors lecture remotely while TAs run the class, etc.), but the cost of moving that online-only again seems huge to me.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

brandon272 6y ago

Can you provide a list of the freedoms we've lost? Honestly, perhaps my thinking on what I or others have lost in this is too narrow. People are being asked to make the temporary sacrifice of practicing physical distancing. That's what it boils down to in terms of "freedoms lost". And because, frankly, we have been utterly unprepared to deal with this completely predictable viral outbreak, much of our society is unprepared to conduct business in a way that allows or supports physical distancing. So people are scrambling. Yes, there will be severe economic hardship for many people. No one denies that. But as I said, for many people they are making an extremely difficult choice between economic hardship or what they perceive to be the health and wellbeing of family and loved ones.

tripletao 6y ago
Where I am in the USA, people are seriously proposing not to resume in-person elementary school in fall. Public education is one of very few equalizers in society here, and the children who fall behind because their parents can't/won't/don't supplement the videoconference lectures may never catch up. That cost is hard to quantify for me, but it seems tremendous, unquestionably worth a significant chance of my (but mostly others', since coronavirus mostly kills the elderly) death. Do you agree? How many quality-adjusted life years do you think it's worth paying to keep the kids in school? The answer can't be zero, since just driving them there costs something. This isn't a pleasant question, but it's one that society has to answer. I really don't like the binary argument about "lockdowns". It creates the impression that the pro side wants no one leaving the house except for food, and the anti side wants to resume status quo ante corona. The real answer is of course in between--that some measures, like masks and not standing too close are clearly worth it, while others, like banning all outdoor exercise, are not. Perhaps some people arguing for or against "lockdowns" really are at those extremes, but I doubt most are.
- brandon272 6y ago
  Keeping kids out of school and not receiving a proper education is a serious issue, and keeping schools shut down is certainly not sustainable at all. But, and this speaks to your point about binary arguments, why are our only options presented to us "open schools as we normally would" or "keep them closed"? It seems to me that there are many ways that education systems could be re-tooled by the time school opens in the fall to enable education while substantially reducing risk of infection. To me the question is if there is a will to make those changes and compromises. It really seems to me like there isn't, and I think that is the part that distresses me the most among all of this.
  - tripletao 6y ago
    I certainly agree that elementary schools (a) should reopen on site, and (b) should reopen with measures to slow the spread of coronavirus. I've already seen discussion of (b) in the press, and that gives me some optimism. I hope a month from now, we're arguing e.g. about whether kids should be held entirely in a single class (to minimize the total number of kids that one infected could expose) vs. allowed to take electives. That seems a lot more productive to me than just pro/anti "lockdown". And while I'm here, I think the proposals to move university education entirely or mostly remote are insane. College students are themselves at very low risk from this, and they live mostly with college students. We should take measures to protect those at risk (help students living with their parents to instead live with classmates, let older professors lecture remotely while TAs run the class, etc.), but the cost of moving that online-only again seems huge to me.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]