3 ms·

"Maybe they are going to prove to be the smart ones." I'm glad you have the humility about potentially being wrong that the math-illiterate journalists don't.

by JPKab 6y ago

"Maybe they are going to prove to be the smart ones." I'm glad you have the humility about potentially being wrong that the math-illiterate journalists don't. Instead, they have doubled down on their initial freakout. Most people, I think, treat this like poker. You get a few new data points, and you shift your chips to locking down. You get more data points, you start taking them out. Reasonable. The journalist crowd, and some of my relatives, went all in on the lockdown. They could either look at the new data, and chill out and admit they overreacted for 2 months, OR they can just try to shame me for not wearing a mask when I'm riding my bike on a trail in a massive, empty wildlife refuge.

doorstar 6y ago
Unfortunately the scientists are still pretty pro-lockdown too. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/08/upshot/when-epidemiologists-will-do-everyday-things-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/08/upshot/when-e... In my own home I think the difference is becoming stark ( and hopefully doesn't come to a head ). My spouse has worked with deadly viruses and sees risk risk risk. I'm the engineer, I'm the pragmatists, I look backwards and extrapolate from what has already happened. What are the chances of getting the virus during a barbecue with friends vs. the chances of dying in a car crash during the drive over? Can I believe that the virus "might" spread on surfaces without seeing a lot more cases than I'd expect? Healthy living doesn't just boil down to "not infected".
rabidrat 6y ago
I also view the initial "overreaction" as a kind of bootcamp for virus lockdown. Know what you need, how it works, what you'll be allowed to do, etc, so that when a local area needs to lockdown again, we'll be set up for it (emotionally and logistically). It may not have been strictly necessary for everyone for these two months, but it was nice to be largely in sync with the world for a short time.

by JPKab 6y ago

doorstar 6y ago

Unfortunately the scientists are still pretty pro-lockdown too. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/08/upshot/when-epidemiologists-will-do-everyday-things-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/08/upshot/when-e... In my own home I think the difference is becoming stark ( and hopefully doesn't come to a head ). My spouse has worked with deadly viruses and sees risk risk risk. I'm the engineer, I'm the pragmatists, I look backwards and extrapolate from what has already happened. What are the chances of getting the virus during a barbecue with friends vs. the chances of dying in a car crash during the drive over? Can I believe that the virus "might" spread on surfaces without seeing a lot more cases than I'd expect? Healthy living doesn't just boil down to "not infected".

rabidrat 6y ago

I also view the initial "overreaction" as a kind of bootcamp for virus lockdown. Know what you need, how it works, what you'll be allowed to do, etc, so that when a local area needs to lockdown again, we'll be set up for it (emotionally and logistically). It may not have been strictly necessary for everyone for these two months, but it was nice to be largely in sync with the world for a short time.