3 ms·

Can you give examples? I see absolutely no indications that many countries are doing a good job containing the virus. Many are delaying its spread, but they are

by ptero 6y ago

Can you give examples? I see absolutely no indications that many countries are doing a good job containing the virus. Many are delaying its spread, but they are nowhere near containment; in fact when those countries that supposedly got the COVID under control lift restrictions the disease comes back. I do not see how containment is possible unless you institute a total lockdown and build perimeter around carriers, including those with no symptoms. >> Are we going to force folks wear masks for a year? Outlaw all in person schools and university classes? All contact sports? Honest question. > I would say yes, yes, and yes. I respect your opinion, but I would say "no, hell no, and hell no". Sooner rather than later your opinion and my opinion will have to be reconciled, perhaps not to a solution that makes everyone happy, but at least to a policy that is grudgingly acceptable to both camps. You can make policy by force, which is what we have now, but such enforcement does not work long-term. You need wide buy-in, without which people quickly start breaking rules, en masse. Which is what we are already seeing in the US; just look at cars at open beaches with license plates from states that supposedly keep citizenry in quarantines.

jacobolus 6y ago
If you think it’s worth more than a million US deaths so people don’t have to wear masks at grocery stores, take online classes, or stop going to disneyland, movie theaters, concerts, and live sporting events for the next 6-12 months, I don’t know what to tell you. If you are planning to take no precautions because to do so would be mildly personally inconvenient, I sincerely hope you stay far away from my neighborhood and anywhere I have friends/family living until the pandemic is past. If your position is representative of your local area, my heart goes out to your neighbors and the first responders and medical workers who will be trying to save their lives at grave personal risk.
- austhrow743 6y ago
  Do you have similar feelings about other convenience/death trade offs? Getting rid of soft drink, fast food, alcohol, all sorts of things would save so very many years while overall I would think impact lives less than corona virus measures do. Particularly quality adjusted life years.
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    You drinking Coke or eating fries will not directly lead to the death of your neighbor’s mother, and has no chance to start chains of infection that could kill hundreds or thousands of people. I do e.g. feel pretty strongly that people who drive cars while drunk or high are being incredibly selfish and antisocial (not to mention breaking the law). I do feel that cigarette companies doing their best to trick people into using products that directly lead to their deaths are unethical. Likewise it is unethical for people to dump toxic sludge into the local river. And so on. In normal times, public officials should try to err on the side of letting people do things that are personally risky but don’t kill third parties (say, skydiving, participating in contact sports, drinking cocktails, or having casual sex), while trying to accurately inform people of the risks involved. During a pandemic, however, public officials must be willing to take more extreme measures when the public is not compliant with basic precautions. Luckily this pandemic doesn’t actually require so strict a lockdown as was done in China. Getting everyone to wear masks while in public and dramatically reducing people’s indoor gatherings seems to be enough to get the reproductive number below 1. It seems that grocery store visits, take-out/delivery meals, exercise outdoors, limited social gatherings outdoors with reasonable precautions, etc. can effectively balance people’s basic social needs with controlling the epidemic. Any workers whose jobs are not possible under such precautions should be paid by the state until the crisis is less acute.

by ptero 6y ago

jacobolus 6y ago

If you think it’s worth more than a million US deaths so people don’t have to wear masks at grocery stores, take online classes, or stop going to disneyland, movie theaters, concerts, and live sporting events for the next 6-12 months, I don’t know what to tell you. If you are planning to take no precautions because to do so would be mildly personally inconvenient, I sincerely hope you stay far away from my neighborhood and anywhere I have friends/family living until the pandemic is past. If your position is representative of your local area, my heart goes out to your neighbors and the first responders and medical workers who will be trying to save their lives at grave personal risk.

austhrow743 6y ago
Do you have similar feelings about other convenience/death trade offs? Getting rid of soft drink, fast food, alcohol, all sorts of things would save so very many years while overall I would think impact lives less than corona virus measures do. Particularly quality adjusted life years.
- jacobolus 6y ago
  You drinking Coke or eating fries will not directly lead to the death of your neighbor’s mother, and has no chance to start chains of infection that could kill hundreds or thousands of people. I do e.g. feel pretty strongly that people who drive cars while drunk or high are being incredibly selfish and antisocial (not to mention breaking the law). I do feel that cigarette companies doing their best to trick people into using products that directly lead to their deaths are unethical. Likewise it is unethical for people to dump toxic sludge into the local river. And so on. In normal times, public officials should try to err on the side of letting people do things that are personally risky but don’t kill third parties (say, skydiving, participating in contact sports, drinking cocktails, or having casual sex), while trying to accurately inform people of the risks involved. During a pandemic, however, public officials must be willing to take more extreme measures when the public is not compliant with basic precautions. Luckily this pandemic doesn’t actually require so strict a lockdown as was done in China. Getting everyone to wear masks while in public and dramatically reducing people’s indoor gatherings seems to be enough to get the reproductive number below 1. It seems that grocery store visits, take-out/delivery meals, exercise outdoors, limited social gatherings outdoors with reasonable precautions, etc. can effectively balance people’s basic social needs with controlling the epidemic. Any workers whose jobs are not possible under such precautions should be paid by the state until the crisis is less acute.