3 ms·

That's not research. That's opinion pieces from research organizations. There's a question of values, which is a personal question. I don't want the moral weigh

by wegs 6y ago

That's not research. That's opinion pieces from research organizations. There's a question of values, which is a personal question. I don't want the moral weight of risking that my child catch COVID19 and cause someone else to die. If I were a teacher, I wouldn't want to be in a position where a mistake I make can make people die. I can run the numbers as well as the next guy, and I know the risks. I don't want my schools to reopen. If you're from a different culture, you can run the same numbers, get the same risk profile, and say "Heck, if n people die to keep m more kids in school, that's worth it," for the exact same values of n and m. On questions of values and culture, reasonable people can disagree. Every fiber of my being can scream to prioritize life, and every fiber of your being can scream to prioritize schooling. It's entirely a question of values and culture. As a footnote, my concern is less about death and more about long-term disability. There, we can more-or-less speculate about the risks.

theonething 6y ago
I agree that a large part of it is a personal/cultural decision. I wouldn't frame it as pro reopening school people prioritize schooling over life though. That sounds pretty bad and doesn't seem fair. Whenever I get into a car and drive, I risk death and injury to myself, my passengers and other people on the road. I weigh the risks and benefits and make a decision that driving is worth the risk. Does that mean I value the convenience of driving over life? I don't think so. And for the record. I'm actually undecided on the issue of reopening schools. Like many people, I assumed not reopening was obviously the rational and sane choice. But when I looked into it, I found differing data and opinions from scientific sources so it made me reconsider.
- wegs 6y ago
  I don't see it that way. I think my language was neutral. Your statement: "I wouldn't frame it as pro reopening school people prioritize schooling over life though. That sounds pretty bad and doesn't seem fair" takes a very specific cultural frame as well. Plenty of people choose to risk their lives (or the lives of others) for all sorts of causes. I have as well. This statement sounds bad only if you take the position that staying alive trumps all other considerations. That's a very modern, Western perspective. Which is not to say Americans and Western Europeans act to protect lives at all costs, but to slightly generalize, Americans and Western Europeans morally believe that protecting lives is worth all costs. When that's not done, that's a moral compromise. People risk lives to volunteer in dangerous countries, to skydive, for ideological causes, for God and country, to be #1 in athletics competitions, or to earn enough to feed their families. All of those reflect different value systems. The exact same statement: "Would you risk you life to protect your honor by ____?" will make you sound like a horrible person if you say "yes" in some cultures and "no" in others. I don't think saying "I am glad to risk a few lives to make sure kids get an education" sound bad or seems unfair, and I don't think any less of people who say it. It's just a different value system from mine. Where I do have problems is where people push their value system on others. I understand see the public health perspective, where your actions affect my health and my decisions affect your health. But when my actions don't effect you (for example, keeping my child home), I should be able to follow my values. That goes broadly too -- if you decide not to teach your kids evolution, that should be your choice too.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
yosho 6y ago
It's not really a question of values because depending on what the actual death rate actually is, you can make informed objectionable decisions based off of it that two rational people with different values should agree upon. For example, if you determined that the risk of death from Covid was less than the risk of death from driving in a year, than I would argue that you should accept that risk if you're okay with driving. Basically, in order to be rational, you should be willing to accept the risk of dying from Covid if it is less than something else you do that is more risky on a daily basis. So the idea that it is a question of morality and differing opinions of N and M isn't really accurate. It's also why we compare death rates from Covid to Influenza and other diseases because we need to understand just how big of a risk to society it actually is to properly weigh our response.
- wegs 6y ago
  People make different decisions there too. Some drive recklessly, and some are super-conservative, exactly because of values. But rationally, you wouldn't make determinations like the ones you're making. False->True isn't a helpful argument. COVID19 isn't the flu, and it isn't driving. Unfortunately, COVID is very, very dangerous, both in terms of death and in terms of long-term disability. America has already lost more than the combat deaths of WWI and Vietnam combined, and that's with the level of shutdowns we've had. Many of the people who live seem to have horrible symptoms for months; it's too early to know long-term outcomes. In New York, 7.5% of the people who we know caught it died. You can apply whatever corrections you like for underreporting, etc. (and conversely, people who haven't died yet) but the death rate doesn't approach that of the flus or of driving. If 20 million weren't unemployed, we didn't have achievement gaps, and the nation wasn't saddled with crippling fixed costs like debt, leases, and rents, we'd all be staying home. As is, it's a question of values.

by wegs 6y ago

theonething 6y ago

I agree that a large part of it is a personal/cultural decision. I wouldn't frame it as pro reopening school people prioritize schooling over life though. That sounds pretty bad and doesn't seem fair. Whenever I get into a car and drive, I risk death and injury to myself, my passengers and other people on the road. I weigh the risks and benefits and make a decision that driving is worth the risk. Does that mean I value the convenience of driving over life? I don't think so. And for the record. I'm actually undecided on the issue of reopening schools. Like many people, I assumed not reopening was obviously the rational and sane choice. But when I looked into it, I found differing data and opinions from scientific sources so it made me reconsider.

wegs 6y ago
I don't see it that way. I think my language was neutral. Your statement: "I wouldn't frame it as pro reopening school people prioritize schooling over life though. That sounds pretty bad and doesn't seem fair" takes a very specific cultural frame as well. Plenty of people choose to risk their lives (or the lives of others) for all sorts of causes. I have as well. This statement sounds bad only if you take the position that staying alive trumps all other considerations. That's a very modern, Western perspective. Which is not to say Americans and Western Europeans act to protect lives at all costs, but to slightly generalize, Americans and Western Europeans morally believe that protecting lives is worth all costs. When that's not done, that's a moral compromise. People risk lives to volunteer in dangerous countries, to skydive, for ideological causes, for God and country, to be #1 in athletics competitions, or to earn enough to feed their families. All of those reflect different value systems. The exact same statement: "Would you risk you life to protect your honor by ____?" will make you sound like a horrible person if you say "yes" in some cultures and "no" in others. I don't think saying "I am glad to risk a few lives to make sure kids get an education" sound bad or seems unfair, and I don't think any less of people who say it. It's just a different value system from mine. Where I do have problems is where people push their value system on others. I understand see the public health perspective, where your actions affect my health and my decisions affect your health. But when my actions don't effect you (for example, keeping my child home), I should be able to follow my values. That goes broadly too -- if you decide not to teach your kids evolution, that should be your choice too.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

yosho 6y ago

It's not really a question of values because depending on what the actual death rate actually is, you can make informed objectionable decisions based off of it that two rational people with different values should agree upon. For example, if you determined that the risk of death from Covid was less than the risk of death from driving in a year, than I would argue that you should accept that risk if you're okay with driving. Basically, in order to be rational, you should be willing to accept the risk of dying from Covid if it is less than something else you do that is more risky on a daily basis. So the idea that it is a question of morality and differing opinions of N and M isn't really accurate. It's also why we compare death rates from Covid to Influenza and other diseases because we need to understand just how big of a risk to society it actually is to properly weigh our response.

wegs 6y ago
People make different decisions there too. Some drive recklessly, and some are super-conservative, exactly because of values. But rationally, you wouldn't make determinations like the ones you're making. False->True isn't a helpful argument. COVID19 isn't the flu, and it isn't driving. Unfortunately, COVID is very, very dangerous, both in terms of death and in terms of long-term disability. America has already lost more than the combat deaths of WWI and Vietnam combined, and that's with the level of shutdowns we've had. Many of the people who live seem to have horrible symptoms for months; it's too early to know long-term outcomes. In New York, 7.5% of the people who we know caught it died. You can apply whatever corrections you like for underreporting, etc. (and conversely, people who haven't died yet) but the death rate doesn't approach that of the flus or of driving. If 20 million weren't unemployed, we didn't have achievement gaps, and the nation wasn't saddled with crippling fixed costs like debt, leases, and rents, we'd all be staying home. As is, it's a question of values.