6 ms·

For any system, one can always construct scenarios where resources are allocated sub-optimally or unfairly. We don't have to like capitalism, sometimes even it

For any system, one can always construct scenarios where resources are allocated sub-optimally or unfairly. We don't have to like capitalism, sometimes even its proponents refer to it "the worst system except for all the others." But usually the alternative to capitalism isn't perfection, it's something worse. Like a political boss who abuses his power to seize the goods and hand them out as political favors. The big mistake with COVID-19 was telling individuals to boycott masks and that it was wrong to buy or wear them. We could have opened whole new factories for producing them by now, if only demand had been encouraged rather than suppressed.

tombert 6y ago
I'm not a socialist, I more or less support capitalism, but there's a reasonable middle ground between Laissez-faire capitalism and Stalin-esque socialism. It's not like I found this really obscure edge case. Almost 30% of America has lost their job in some capacity; this isn't just some weird contrived example, and it's dishonest to act like it is. Service workers, at least in the US (I haven't lived anywhere else) are pretty damn vital to the US economy, but are also less likely to be able to afford price-gauged supplies like masks and hand-sanitizer than a yuppie like me. If we don't have some form of regulation to stop price guaging, we are sending a signal to 30% of America that they are simply less deserving of life than the yuppies that depend on them. I don't particularly care about people hiking up the price of bread machines and video games and whatnot, but I cannot in good conscience defend people who do things that will lead to poor people dying. EDIT: A few typos.
- marshray 6y ago
  It doesn't matter who could theoretically afford them at centrally-planned prices. Where I live the shelves at hardware and drug stores had been empty of masks since mid-February. While Americans were being told not to buy them, organized groups were buy them out of American supply channels and shipping them to mainland China. It would have been better if Americans had bought them and kept them around. They could have been used here by individuals, donated to care providers, or even (horrors) sold for a profit.
  - tombert 6y ago
    > The big mistake with COVID-19 was telling individuals to boycott masks and that it was wrong to buy or wear them. > While Americans were being told not to buy them They didn't tell people to "boycott" masks, they said that they weren't effective at stopping COVID and that people in hospitals needed them more than the average citizen. The initial research for masks indicated that they weren't helpful, due to Coronaviruses showing up on the outside of the masks after asking an infected person to cough. It wasn't until a few weeks later when they noticed that the petri dishes that the patients had coughed into had substantially more virus reproduction without masks than with the masks. The people doing the research weren't lying, it was a very logical sequence of events. Sometimes initial research implies an incorrect conclusion, that's why it's called "initial research" and not "conclusive research", which is why they "changed their minds" afterward. This is well documented and is not controversial [0]. The way you frame it, and the use of the word "boycott" is incredibly disrespectful to the people studying this. [0] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
    - marshray 6y ago
      I have absolutely no problem with being considered 'disrespectful' of anyone who told Americans not to wear masks during a respiratory pandemic. (Go ahead downvoters, do your thing.) One cannot claim that both A) masks are "not effective at stopping COVID" and B) "people in hospitals needed them more than the average citizen". It's a laughably obvious contradiction. This is a lie (sorry, yeah, it is) pushed by people who wanted to bully individuals out of their own PPE in a misguided attempt to make up for the failure to plan by the larger organizations (government, healthcare orgs) that were responsible for doing so. The reality is that masks are effective in stopping the transmission of coronaviruses and every country in Asia knew this from experience with SARS-1. EDIT: If this isn't urging a boycott, what is? https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        > One cannot claim that both A) masks are "not effective at stopping COVID" and B) "people in hospitals needed them more than the average citizen". It's a laughably obvious contradiction. Of course you can, and it's not a contradiction. It's true for surgical masks, whose purpose is to prevent the wearer from spreading the infection around; you can apply social distancing in lieu of these masks, which is not possible for medical staff. It's also true for respirators, which require specialized training to be worn correctly, which is something the medical staff has, and regular citizens don't. And again, most people can use social distancing as a substitute. The problem with masks was always that there just wasn't, and isn't, enough of them available to equip everyone. So governments had to prioritize, and healthcare workers need PPE more than most people not in healthcare. That doesn't justify downplaying the actual effectiveness; if it were up to me, I'd just say that yes, they're effective if properly used, and refocus the propaganda efforts on guilt-tripping society into donating all the hoarded PPEs to hospitals and clinics.
marnett 6y ago
> The big mistake with COVID-19 was telling individuals to boycott masks and that it was wrong to buy or wear them. We could have opened whole new factories for producing them by now, if only demand had been encouraged rather than suppressed. Classic market economics in a vacuum. Without the suppression of masks, mass chaos and social unrest would have ensued. The societal fear and unease was easily diverted towards non-essentials (TP, hand sanitizer) - proper public health advice could be given long after shelter-in-place, and thus societal order was established. People would have died had authorities came out the gate stating masks were critical to one’s health. So many people forget that you have to control the population in times of exceptional fear and anxiety or at any stage you risk a partial or complete societal collapse.

tombert 6y ago

I'm not a socialist, I more or less support capitalism, but there's a reasonable middle ground between Laissez-faire capitalism and Stalin-esque socialism. It's not like I found this really obscure edge case. Almost 30% of America has lost their job in some capacity; this isn't just some weird contrived example, and it's dishonest to act like it is. Service workers, at least in the US (I haven't lived anywhere else) are pretty damn vital to the US economy, but are also less likely to be able to afford price-gauged supplies like masks and hand-sanitizer than a yuppie like me. If we don't have some form of regulation to stop price guaging, we are sending a signal to 30% of America that they are simply less deserving of life than the yuppies that depend on them. I don't particularly care about people hiking up the price of bread machines and video games and whatnot, but I cannot in good conscience defend people who do things that will lead to poor people dying. EDIT: A few typos.

marshray 6y ago
It doesn't matter who could theoretically afford them at centrally-planned prices. Where I live the shelves at hardware and drug stores had been empty of masks since mid-February. While Americans were being told not to buy them, organized groups were buy them out of American supply channels and shipping them to mainland China. It would have been better if Americans had bought them and kept them around. They could have been used here by individuals, donated to care providers, or even (horrors) sold for a profit.
- tombert 6y ago
  > The big mistake with COVID-19 was telling individuals to boycott masks and that it was wrong to buy or wear them. > While Americans were being told not to buy them They didn't tell people to "boycott" masks, they said that they weren't effective at stopping COVID and that people in hospitals needed them more than the average citizen. The initial research for masks indicated that they weren't helpful, due to Coronaviruses showing up on the outside of the masks after asking an infected person to cough. It wasn't until a few weeks later when they noticed that the petri dishes that the patients had coughed into had substantially more virus reproduction without masks than with the masks. The people doing the research weren't lying, it was a very logical sequence of events. Sometimes initial research implies an incorrect conclusion, that's why it's called "initial research" and not "conclusive research", which is why they "changed their minds" afterward. This is well documented and is not controversial [0]. The way you frame it, and the use of the word "boycott" is incredibly disrespectful to the people studying this. [0] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
  - marshray 6y ago
    I have absolutely no problem with being considered 'disrespectful' of anyone who told Americans not to wear masks during a respiratory pandemic. (Go ahead downvoters, do your thing.) One cannot claim that both A) masks are "not effective at stopping COVID" and B) "people in hospitals needed them more than the average citizen". It's a laughably obvious contradiction. This is a lie (sorry, yeah, it is) pushed by people who wanted to bully individuals out of their own PPE in a misguided attempt to make up for the failure to plan by the larger organizations (government, healthcare orgs) that were responsible for doing so. The reality is that masks are effective in stopping the transmission of coronaviruses and every country in Asia knew this from experience with SARS-1. EDIT: If this isn't urging a boycott, what is? https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      > One cannot claim that both A) masks are "not effective at stopping COVID" and B) "people in hospitals needed them more than the average citizen". It's a laughably obvious contradiction. Of course you can, and it's not a contradiction. It's true for surgical masks, whose purpose is to prevent the wearer from spreading the infection around; you can apply social distancing in lieu of these masks, which is not possible for medical staff. It's also true for respirators, which require specialized training to be worn correctly, which is something the medical staff has, and regular citizens don't. And again, most people can use social distancing as a substitute. The problem with masks was always that there just wasn't, and isn't, enough of them available to equip everyone. So governments had to prioritize, and healthcare workers need PPE more than most people not in healthcare. That doesn't justify downplaying the actual effectiveness; if it were up to me, I'd just say that yes, they're effective if properly used, and refocus the propaganda efforts on guilt-tripping society into donating all the hoarded PPEs to hospitals and clinics.

marnett 6y ago

> The big mistake with COVID-19 was telling individuals to boycott masks and that it was wrong to buy or wear them. We could have opened whole new factories for producing them by now, if only demand had been encouraged rather than suppressed. Classic market economics in a vacuum. Without the suppression of masks, mass chaos and social unrest would have ensued. The societal fear and unease was easily diverted towards non-essentials (TP, hand sanitizer) - proper public health advice could be given long after shelter-in-place, and thus societal order was established. People would have died had authorities came out the gate stating masks were critical to one’s health. So many people forget that you have to control the population in times of exceptional fear and anxiety or at any stage you risk a partial or complete societal collapse.