4 ms·

I think that you are making the same mistake that you are accusing healthcare workers and officials of making. You are assuming that these protests will "obvio

I think that you are making the same mistake that you are accusing healthcare workers and officials of making. You are assuming that these protests will "obviously" result in thousands more deaths because it feels that way to you. I believe that that's pretty unlikely, though, since there are probably fewer than a million protestors across the country. Many of the protestors are wearing masks and the protests being outside reduces the risk of spreading the disease. There will certainly be some spread due to the protests, but probably not nearly as much as at grocery stores or churches. You are also assuming that this is just about unjust police-involved deaths; it is not. It is about the many millions of negative interactions with the police and justice system that perpetuate poverty (police lying under oath, egregious sentences for non-violent crimes, etc.) I don't think it's a bad faith argument to say that correcting these injustices is more important than maintaining a totally strict quarantine. The reason both sides talk past each other is because they have different values and different assumptions. Based on your post your first priority is preventing deaths and your assumption is that these protests will cause more deaths than they prevent. My first priority is living in a fair world, with preventing deaths being a close second. My assumption is that the protests will not cause a large number of excess deaths, but that they do have a high chance of moving our justice system closer towards real justice. I also am making the assumption that living in a fair and just society will increase overall health outcomes over the long term. I believe that most (but definitely not all) people don't argue in bad faith, they just have different values and make different assumptions. There's not much that can be done about having different values, but better data can help every side have more similar assumptions, which should help opinions to converge somewhat.

throwawaysea 6y ago
> You are assuming that these protests will "obviously" result in thousands more deaths because it feels that way to you. I believe that that's pretty unlikely, though, since there are probably fewer than a million protestors across the country. Many of the protestors are wearing masks and the protests being outside reduces the risk of spreading the disease. I am not the one saying this. Trevor Bedford (Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Washington) noted that the protests will add 200-1100 deaths per day of protests: https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1269533303536664576 https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1269533303536664576. This is based on his mathematical modeling of the protests. > I don't think it's a bad faith argument to say that correcting these injustices is more important than maintaining a totally strict quarantine. My point is that if one [demographic or political] subset of people gets to evaluate the tradeoffs and decide for themselves that yes, protesting is worth it even with the risks of the coronavirus, then everyone should get to exercise that choice. You and I should get to exercise that choice when we visit a business or take on some outdoor activity or whatever. It seems to me that personal discretion is allowed only for favored groups and causes, and that seems in itself, unjust. > The reason both sides talk past each other is because they have different values and different assumptions. I think this is probably correct. So to rephrase my question, can a society with two big groups holding such divergent values survive? Or is it inevitable that is splits apart?
- thu2111 6y ago
  can a society with two big groups holding such divergent values survive? Or is it inevitable that is splits apart? There are historical examples in both directions, so arguably we don't know. A society that didn't survive: Russia during the Bolsheviks. One group was so aggressive it took over completely. A society that did come back from the brink: perhaps Britain during the 1970s? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent Left / right conflict resulted in widespread strikes, three day weeks, an IMF bailout, power cuts, garbage piling up in streets, bodies going unburied, hyperinflation and so on. It was resolved after voters replaced the left wing government with a right wing one that radically reformed trade union laws and refocused policy on inflation control, but at the cost of a huge recession. The UK pivoted from quite far leftism to (for Britain) nearly libertarian government within the span of one or two elections; eventually Thatcher's libertarian policies led to riots and she was kicked out by her own party. After that both parties moved more towards each other, paving the way for many years of Blairite centrism.
- nradov 6y ago
  Most of the mathematical models for viral transmission so far have not aligned with observed reality. Is there any particular for relying on Prof. Bedford's model as opposed to others?
thu2111 6y ago
I don't think number of deaths (from whatever cause) was the primary point of the post you're replying to. The concern is pretty clearly the destruction of trust, the widespread lack of logical consistency amongst people we're supposed to defer to due to their expertise, etc.

throwawaysea 6y ago

> You are assuming that these protests will "obviously" result in thousands more deaths because it feels that way to you. I believe that that's pretty unlikely, though, since there are probably fewer than a million protestors across the country. Many of the protestors are wearing masks and the protests being outside reduces the risk of spreading the disease. I am not the one saying this. Trevor Bedford (Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Washington) noted that the protests will add 200-1100 deaths per day of protests: https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1269533303536664576 https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1269533303536664576. This is based on his mathematical modeling of the protests. > I don't think it's a bad faith argument to say that correcting these injustices is more important than maintaining a totally strict quarantine. My point is that if one [demographic or political] subset of people gets to evaluate the tradeoffs and decide for themselves that yes, protesting is worth it even with the risks of the coronavirus, then everyone should get to exercise that choice. You and I should get to exercise that choice when we visit a business or take on some outdoor activity or whatever. It seems to me that personal discretion is allowed only for favored groups and causes, and that seems in itself, unjust. > The reason both sides talk past each other is because they have different values and different assumptions. I think this is probably correct. So to rephrase my question, can a society with two big groups holding such divergent values survive? Or is it inevitable that is splits apart?

thu2111 6y ago
can a society with two big groups holding such divergent values survive? Or is it inevitable that is splits apart? There are historical examples in both directions, so arguably we don't know. A society that didn't survive: Russia during the Bolsheviks. One group was so aggressive it took over completely. A society that did come back from the brink: perhaps Britain during the 1970s? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent Left / right conflict resulted in widespread strikes, three day weeks, an IMF bailout, power cuts, garbage piling up in streets, bodies going unburied, hyperinflation and so on. It was resolved after voters replaced the left wing government with a right wing one that radically reformed trade union laws and refocused policy on inflation control, but at the cost of a huge recession. The UK pivoted from quite far leftism to (for Britain) nearly libertarian government within the span of one or two elections; eventually Thatcher's libertarian policies led to riots and she was kicked out by her own party. After that both parties moved more towards each other, paving the way for many years of Blairite centrism.
nradov 6y ago
Most of the mathematical models for viral transmission so far have not aligned with observed reality. Is there any particular for relying on Prof. Bedford's model as opposed to others?

thu2111 6y ago

I don't think number of deaths (from whatever cause) was the primary point of the post you're replying to. The concern is pretty clearly the destruction of trust, the widespread lack of logical consistency amongst people we're supposed to defer to due to their expertise, etc.