5 ms·

>You don't seem to attach much value to the lives of the elderly and those who have underlying health conditions. I presume that's because no one you care about

>You don't seem to attach much value to the lives of the elderly and those who have underlying health conditions. I presume that's because no one you care about, including yourself, is in that category. That's a pretty callous attitude. My parents are in that category, but I attach a very high negative value to using violence (or threat of it) to control people's behaviour. From my perspective it's extremely immoral to say to a huge swarth of the population: you can't work or meet your friends for the next few months, or else we'll throw you in jail if you're caught. I.e. human rights (free movement, association) are human rights; they're not compromisable just because somebody decided it's an emergency or there's some greater good that needs to be enforced. Yes it's reasonable to argue that those at risk have a right not to be infected (e.g. to require potential carriers to stay away), but this doesn't extend to requiring people they have no proximity/interaction with to stay at home and not interact with each other. > 10 years thrown away so some people can go on a march because they're angry about someone dying. 10 years lost by one person, vs 2-3 years lost by 10 people due to the permanent negative effects on lifetime outcomes of poverty resulting from the lockdown-induced depression. Not to mention lifetime reduction in standard of living. In terms of measure that actually account for this, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, it's like the intervention is probably not a net positive: https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/economic-cost-of-flattening-the-curve/ https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/economic-cost-o.... >I presume that's because no one you care about, including yourself, is in that category. Also, in general, making decisions based on their emotional effect on you is a selfish and unprincipled approach to any kind of public policymaking.

stormdennis 6y ago
Your conclusions are highly emotional and based on speculated consequences and thus any decisions you believe should be made would be too, ie the opposite of what you think ought to be the case. It's all about how you may be affected financially and psychologically and may therefore suffer a lower quality of life and lose 2 or 3 years of life decades hence. And for you, that trumps your parents' generation's well being in the here and now.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  I would be prepared to raise lockdowns and "sacrifice the elderly" (no, I don't hope they die, I would just advocate instead for better equipping care homes with PPE and sealing them off from visitors) for the sake of younger people. But it isn't really how I myself may be affected, as my existing lifestyle of remote work and reclusive living in the countryside handles the lockdown quite well. Rather, I am concerned about a generation much younger than myself which strict lockdowns prevent from engaging in the perennial rituals of youth. All the reasonable outlets for courtship have been closed in some places for months. You might laugh and say that young people can just suck it up, but lack of courtship opportunities is such a stressor and a source of social instability that large numbers of young men without such prospects are a major focus of their country’s domestic intelligence service around the world.
  - stormdennis 6y ago
    I agree with you but people being intimate with one or two other people from their locale is a whole different scenario to the protests I've seen where people are ignoring the most basic precautions in crowds numbering thousands.
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      Where do you think many people find others to be intimate with if not at mass events? Pubs, discos, music festivals, block parties, etc. are the sort of places where young people have always had an outlet to get their fuck on or establish serious relationships that lead to a family, and therefore IMHO it was wrong to prohibit them and go into lockdown for the sake of the elderly (who could be kept protected in some other way). And if those other large events for entertainment and socializing’s sake should permitted, then it would make no sense to complain about political protests being held.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >It's all about how you may be affected financially and psychologically and may therefore suffer a lower quality of life and lose 2 or 3 years of life decades hence. It's not affecting me at all; I work in finance, in a role that's fine with working from home. I actually made a bunch of money from the massive volatility that the lockdown announcements caused. If you're incapable of making decisions that aren't solely based on self-interest, that doesn't mean it's correct to project and assume everybody else thinks the same.
scoutt 6y ago
> human rights ... they're not compromisable ... or there's some greater good that needs to be enforced ... Well, there is (was?) the Patriot Act because 3000 were killed in a terrorist attack. This allowed for indefinite detentions, unwarranted search and surveillance, etc. If it is still in act, then it lasted almost 20 years. I don't assume you agree with measures like the Patriot Act, but I think some weeks of quarantine can be justified by the more than 100000 covid victims in the US, so far.

stormdennis 6y ago

Your conclusions are highly emotional and based on speculated consequences and thus any decisions you believe should be made would be too, ie the opposite of what you think ought to be the case. It's all about how you may be affected financially and psychologically and may therefore suffer a lower quality of life and lose 2 or 3 years of life decades hence. And for you, that trumps your parents' generation's well being in the here and now.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
I would be prepared to raise lockdowns and "sacrifice the elderly" (no, I don't hope they die, I would just advocate instead for better equipping care homes with PPE and sealing them off from visitors) for the sake of younger people. But it isn't really how I myself may be affected, as my existing lifestyle of remote work and reclusive living in the countryside handles the lockdown quite well. Rather, I am concerned about a generation much younger than myself which strict lockdowns prevent from engaging in the perennial rituals of youth. All the reasonable outlets for courtship have been closed in some places for months. You might laugh and say that young people can just suck it up, but lack of courtship opportunities is such a stressor and a source of social instability that large numbers of young men without such prospects are a major focus of their country’s domestic intelligence service around the world.
- stormdennis 6y ago
  I agree with you but people being intimate with one or two other people from their locale is a whole different scenario to the protests I've seen where people are ignoring the most basic precautions in crowds numbering thousands.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    Where do you think many people find others to be intimate with if not at mass events? Pubs, discos, music festivals, block parties, etc. are the sort of places where young people have always had an outlet to get their fuck on or establish serious relationships that lead to a family, and therefore IMHO it was wrong to prohibit them and go into lockdown for the sake of the elderly (who could be kept protected in some other way). And if those other large events for entertainment and socializing’s sake should permitted, then it would make no sense to complain about political protests being held.
logicchains 6y ago
>It's all about how you may be affected financially and psychologically and may therefore suffer a lower quality of life and lose 2 or 3 years of life decades hence. It's not affecting me at all; I work in finance, in a role that's fine with working from home. I actually made a bunch of money from the massive volatility that the lockdown announcements caused. If you're incapable of making decisions that aren't solely based on self-interest, that doesn't mean it's correct to project and assume everybody else thinks the same.

scoutt 6y ago

> human rights ... they're not compromisable ... or there's some greater good that needs to be enforced ... Well, there is (was?) the Patriot Act because 3000 were killed in a terrorist attack. This allowed for indefinite detentions, unwarranted search and surveillance, etc. If it is still in act, then it lasted almost 20 years. I don't assume you agree with measures like the Patriot Act, but I think some weeks of quarantine can be justified by the more than 100000 covid victims in the US, so far.