4 ms·

Even Hayek said epidemics were an obvious exception to most of his economic ideology and called for government planning: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1274

by cma 6y ago

Even Hayek said epidemics were an obvious exception to most of his economic ideology and called for government planning: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1274130684337172481 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1274130684337172481 Mostly we just have had anti-biotics, effective vaccines, etc. for everything deadly and have basically forgotten how to govern in the face of the massive externalities presented by communicable diseases. Whether someone thinks covid is severe enough to justify which particular actions is one thing, but if we had something like an incurable smallpox or measles going around there would be a lot more consensus on government action.

vladus2000 6y ago
Would we? I am not convinced the amount of idiocy would be low enough to prevent problems. Most of the arguments I have seen have been "this is a hoax" type or other arguments not based in reality. I agree there is an arugement to be made over whether or not to close based on death rates and whatnot, but I do not hear those arguments that much. The people screaming that it is a hoax and its their freedom I generally assume would react similarly to a even more severe crisis. Maybe I am over estimating their numbers based on the fact that they are loud, but assuming they will realize it is really serious in the cases you describe is a leap I am not willing to make.
- cma 6y ago
  There would be many more people with personal experience of death of loved ones young and old and I think that would mean less deniers.
clairity 6y ago
> "...but if we had something like an incurable smallpox or measles going around there would be a lot more consensus..." so, working as designed. our government was never designed to be highly mobilizable, except in the face of extraordinary threat (because then it would be too easy to mobilize for "evil"). while covid may seem to be a massive existential threat to those of us who've never faced anything more dangerous than the flu, it's a minor blip relative to the rest of human history. covid is serious but not extraordinary, which is why there isn't extraordinary concensus (and why everyone thinks it's handled all wrong).
- cma 6y ago
  It would have been so cheap to handle early with more strict policies.
  - clairity 6y ago
    that's hindsight bias at best. strict policies are not cheap by any measure. the best we could have done cheaply was distancing (and self-quarantining when sick), and drilling that singular message everywhere and all the time. instead, we got lost in the weeds of what-ifs, symptoms, masks, death counts, lockdowns, etc.
    - cma 6y ago
      It's been obvious from observation, no hindsight needed, since S Korea's outbreak and handling. And again once you had Italy to compare.

by cma 6y ago

vladus2000 6y ago

Would we? I am not convinced the amount of idiocy would be low enough to prevent problems. Most of the arguments I have seen have been "this is a hoax" type or other arguments not based in reality. I agree there is an arugement to be made over whether or not to close based on death rates and whatnot, but I do not hear those arguments that much. The people screaming that it is a hoax and its their freedom I generally assume would react similarly to a even more severe crisis. Maybe I am over estimating their numbers based on the fact that they are loud, but assuming they will realize it is really serious in the cases you describe is a leap I am not willing to make.

cma 6y ago
There would be many more people with personal experience of death of loved ones young and old and I think that would mean less deniers.

clairity 6y ago

> "...but if we had something like an incurable smallpox or measles going around there would be a lot more consensus..." so, working as designed. our government was never designed to be highly mobilizable, except in the face of extraordinary threat (because then it would be too easy to mobilize for "evil"). while covid may seem to be a massive existential threat to those of us who've never faced anything more dangerous than the flu, it's a minor blip relative to the rest of human history. covid is serious but not extraordinary, which is why there isn't extraordinary concensus (and why everyone thinks it's handled all wrong).

cma 6y ago
It would have been so cheap to handle early with more strict policies.
- clairity 6y ago
  that's hindsight bias at best. strict policies are not cheap by any measure. the best we could have done cheaply was distancing (and self-quarantining when sick), and drilling that singular message everywhere and all the time. instead, we got lost in the weeds of what-ifs, symptoms, masks, death counts, lockdowns, etc.
  - cma 6y ago
    It's been obvious from observation, no hindsight needed, since S Korea's outbreak and handling. And again once you had Italy to compare.