4 ms·

No getting 'back to normal,' experts say. The sooner we accept that, the better

11 points by Kaibeezy 6y ago

Kaibeezy 6y ago
Surprisingly non-trite article. References this MIT business school article on recognizing the many forms of decisionmaking bias during a crisis. It’s discouraging to watch “status quo” and “normalcy” biases utterly paralyze otherwise effective customers and tech partners from getting their jobs done in this “new abnormal”. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-make-better-decisions-about-coronavirus/ https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-make-better-decis...
glitchdigger 6y ago
CNN such a valuable contributor. /s "Suprisingly non-trite article".... Wtf are you talking baout? Never going back to normal? Maybe not in the minds of the brainwashed
- thewarrior 6y ago
  You maybe exhibiting the normalcy bias the piece describes.
notcrazystill 6y ago
"Experts" are nuts if they think that I'm going to wear a mask for the rest of my life, or forgo visiting the office, going to a concert or traveling abroad. Willing to accept a temporary inconvenience during an emergency, but emergencies do end. Life is 100% deadly, people need to come to terms with that.
- thewarrior 6y ago
  Ironically this unwillingness to accept that things have changed forever (forever here meaning next 2-3 years atleast) is exactly what the article talks about. The sooner you accept this the easier it will be to continue with life.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Are you trying to push people to suicide? Because I'm not going to endure this hell for years.
    - thewarrior 6y ago
      You are far stronger than you think you are.
- wait_a_minute 6y ago
  Yeah, for real. Statists and tyrants love the idea of never going back to normal. They've never had this much power over individuals and businesses.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  As long as any concert, large public gathering, or whatever else you want to go to inevitably results in the deaths of dozens of individuals, those events won't be going on as normal, no matter how deep you stick your head in the sand.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Are we talking about the same virus, the one with a death rate far below 1%? The one that's almost completely harmless to everyone who wasn't severly ill and going to die soon to begin with? The one that many people are immune to already thanks to cross-immunity?
    - xg15 6y ago
      Not sure what you're talking about, but we're talking about the virus that killed a million people in nine months as of October and left millions more with lifelong medical conditions.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      >The one that's almost completely harmless to everyone who wasn't severly ill and going to die soon There are no facts I'm aware of the back this up. Existence of a comorbidity is not a severe illness.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      In a community near me, a church had a revival. Estimated 100 infected from 175 in attendance. 3 members of the congregation have died so far. Now, if you had large events with mostly young people, you probably wouldn't have as many direct deaths. But those young people probably have older family at home.
tinus_hn 6y ago
I’m not sure what entices people to dream about this infinite quarantine dystopia. It’s not going to happen. Even if, at worst, all the delays, doubts and failures make it take years to get over Corona, it is not going to last forever.
- Kaibeezy 6y ago
  And then? What __topia will we be in?
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    And then we’ll go back doing what we were doing. Except we’ll be fighting an enormous economic depression. But to fantasize that people will not be meeting, dancing, drinking together is just so bizarre.
xg15 6y ago
The 1918 pandemic lasted roughly two years, and that was during a world war and with far less knowledge, technology and international cooperation than we have today. Covid-19 will not be over by new year's - it will certainly shape our lifes in some form for the next year or more and there will certainly be many changes in outlook and policy that will stick around - but unless some fundamental discovery upends vaccine development, I don't see any reason why social distancing would become the new permanent way of living.
- thewarrior 6y ago
  If the vaccines are not very effective in older people then they may not make as much of a difference as you think.
  - xg15 6y ago
    As I understood it, this is where herd immunity comes in. The term got a bad reputation due to some politicians wanting to archive natural herd immunity, i.e. just letting the disease infect everyone - and accepting the resulting death toll. But in the end, herd immunity is what we want to archive - through vaccination, like we do with any other disease. So I believe if enough young, healthy people are vaccinated, so that herd immunity is archived, this will also lower the risk enough for old and vulnerable people so that restrictions can be lifted. Of course what's true is that the virus will likely never die out like SARS did and will stay with us forever in some form. However, it will likely be less deadly (through mutation and our knowledge of treatment) and we can make it less contagious (through vaccination) - so at some point hopefully it can be managed like an "ordinary" disease and not like a natural disaster. But this means the end of the pandemic is less clear-cut than if the virus would simply die out. So scientists and politicians will need to find good criteria for when the pandemic can be declared "over" and restrictions can be safely lifted without them having to backtrack a few months later. What will definitely stay though are changes in psychology and personal outlook and a profoundly shifted overton window. Locking down all if society if a threat demands it is now back in the table of options. However, this doesn't have to be bad it's done in a regulated and democratic fashion.

11 points by Kaibeezy 6y ago

Surprisingly non-trite article. References this MIT business school article on recognizing the many forms of decisionmaking bias during a crisis. It’s discouraging to watch “status quo” and “normalcy” biases utterly paralyze otherwise effective customers and tech partners from getting their jobs done in this “new abnormal”. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-make-better-decisions-about-coronavirus/ https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-make-better-decis...

glitchdigger 6y ago

CNN such a valuable contributor. /s "Suprisingly non-trite article".... Wtf are you talking baout? Never going back to normal? Maybe not in the minds of the brainwashed

thewarrior 6y ago
You maybe exhibiting the normalcy bias the piece describes.

notcrazystill 6y ago

"Experts" are nuts if they think that I'm going to wear a mask for the rest of my life, or forgo visiting the office, going to a concert or traveling abroad. Willing to accept a temporary inconvenience during an emergency, but emergencies do end. Life is 100% deadly, people need to come to terms with that.

thewarrior 6y ago
Ironically this unwillingness to accept that things have changed forever (forever here meaning next 2-3 years atleast) is exactly what the article talks about. The sooner you accept this the easier it will be to continue with life.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Are you trying to push people to suicide? Because I'm not going to endure this hell for years.
  - thewarrior 6y ago
    You are far stronger than you think you are.
wait_a_minute 6y ago
Yeah, for real. Statists and tyrants love the idea of never going back to normal. They've never had this much power over individuals and businesses.
jjeaff 6y ago
As long as any concert, large public gathering, or whatever else you want to go to inevitably results in the deaths of dozens of individuals, those events won't be going on as normal, no matter how deep you stick your head in the sand.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Are we talking about the same virus, the one with a death rate far below 1%? The one that's almost completely harmless to everyone who wasn't severly ill and going to die soon to begin with? The one that many people are immune to already thanks to cross-immunity?
  - xg15 6y ago
    Not sure what you're talking about, but we're talking about the virus that killed a million people in nine months as of October and left millions more with lifelong medical conditions.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    >The one that's almost completely harmless to everyone who wasn't severly ill and going to die soon There are no facts I'm aware of the back this up. Existence of a comorbidity is not a severe illness.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    In a community near me, a church had a revival. Estimated 100 infected from 175 in attendance. 3 members of the congregation have died so far. Now, if you had large events with mostly young people, you probably wouldn't have as many direct deaths. But those young people probably have older family at home.

tinus_hn 6y ago

I’m not sure what entices people to dream about this infinite quarantine dystopia. It’s not going to happen. Even if, at worst, all the delays, doubts and failures make it take years to get over Corona, it is not going to last forever.

Kaibeezy 6y ago
And then? What __topia will we be in?
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  And then we’ll go back doing what we were doing. Except we’ll be fighting an enormous economic depression. But to fantasize that people will not be meeting, dancing, drinking together is just so bizarre.

xg15 6y ago

The 1918 pandemic lasted roughly two years, and that was during a world war and with far less knowledge, technology and international cooperation than we have today. Covid-19 will not be over by new year's - it will certainly shape our lifes in some form for the next year or more and there will certainly be many changes in outlook and policy that will stick around - but unless some fundamental discovery upends vaccine development, I don't see any reason why social distancing would become the new permanent way of living.

thewarrior 6y ago
If the vaccines are not very effective in older people then they may not make as much of a difference as you think.
- xg15 6y ago
  As I understood it, this is where herd immunity comes in. The term got a bad reputation due to some politicians wanting to archive natural herd immunity, i.e. just letting the disease infect everyone - and accepting the resulting death toll. But in the end, herd immunity is what we want to archive - through vaccination, like we do with any other disease. So I believe if enough young, healthy people are vaccinated, so that herd immunity is archived, this will also lower the risk enough for old and vulnerable people so that restrictions can be lifted. Of course what's true is that the virus will likely never die out like SARS did and will stay with us forever in some form. However, it will likely be less deadly (through mutation and our knowledge of treatment) and we can make it less contagious (through vaccination) - so at some point hopefully it can be managed like an "ordinary" disease and not like a natural disaster. But this means the end of the pandemic is less clear-cut than if the virus would simply die out. So scientists and politicians will need to find good criteria for when the pandemic can be declared "over" and restrictions can be safely lifted without them having to backtrack a few months later. What will definitely stay though are changes in psychology and personal outlook and a profoundly shifted overton window. Locking down all if society if a threat demands it is now back in the table of options. However, this doesn't have to be bad it's done in a regulated and democratic fashion.