4 ms·

>It's a huge mistake to think the choices are "lockdown" or nothing. Completely agree. Lockdowns and "shelter-in-place" orders were a reasonable response in M

>It's a huge mistake to think the choices are "lockdown" or nothing. Completely agree. Lockdowns and "shelter-in-place" orders were a reasonable response in March when we had no idea what we were dealing with and had to preserve the integrity of the hospital system. But they were never going to be sustainable for more than a few weeks. The next step, closing "non-essential" business and limiting gatherings, is a logical progression, and is something that can be tweaked and tightened/loosened as the data indicate. Then we have masks, social distancing, and frequent hygiene. This should continue indefinitely, at least until a vaccine has been widely distributed. I'm shocked by the opposition to this.

clairity 6y ago
> “...closing ‘non-essential’ business and limiting gatherings, is a logical progression...” you’re advocating lockdown. we only need to curtail (not completely shut down) socializing-oriented businesses like bars/clubs, not ‘non-essential’ businesses. we should advocate for, rather than try to coerce, limiting large private indoor gatherings and being responsible when gathering. > “Then we have masks, social distancing, and frequent hygiene...” only social distancing is needed, but you can’t mandate these things in any case. only social pressure works on the level of groups and communities. masks and over-cleaning are effective only on the (in some cases very slim) margins. don’t breath into each other’s faces and we’ve done the majority of what is effective, rather than ritualized compliance signals.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  Again, even the mythical Sweden bans gatherings of more than 50 people, with criminal penalties for non-compliance. Do you consider that a "lockdown"? To me, "lockdown" -- a word I had previously heard mostly in reference to prisons -- means absolute cancellation of all social life, the word implies an absolute and universalism. That is not possible on an indefinite ongoing basis. But we absolutely need restrictions. I'm not ready to say right now exactly what those restrictions should be -- they need to be based on science that we haven't done enough of, and they probably need to change as we learn more about things and as we observe how different restrictions (as well as different accomodations like improved ventilation) effect spread (which may be different from one society to another). We have barely yet begun to take seriously the need to seriously figure out what to do, instead of arguing about "lockdown" vs "do nothing". To my reading, you are still engaged in that odd dichotomous debate, advocating the "do pretty much nothing" approach, absoultely confident (based on what science?) that this is sufficient.
  - clairity 6y ago
    > "To my reading, you are still engaged in that odd dichotomous debate..." it's uncharitable to project. you're also trying to coerce my position into "do nothing", which is not only uncharitable but incorrect. "do only things that have meaningful, not mollifying, effect" is more correct. > "But we absolutely need restrictions." that's cart before horse, an overly confident a priori assertion, rather than an empirically-backed deduction, like much of the discussion around "the science". > "...they need to be based on science..." science will expand our body of knowledge in time, but science is not unassailable (science doesn't create truth, only reflects incomplete shades of it back to us), and an unrealistic faith in science to settle decision-making under uncertainty today simply doesn't help. it just plays into media partisanship, as an unwarranted appeal to authority to coerce others' behaviors (i.e., an application of power) irrationally. in 20-50 years, science might tell us what the best course of action might have been, but it won't settle the debate in this moment. but luckily we already have plenty of information to make informed decisions, even if much of that information is imperfect. and note that it's not the complicity rituals we've bought into from our "leadership". for instance, it was clear as early as february that the elderly were at much heightened risk. we should have locked down elderly care facilities and bubbled them, employing a tiny fraction of the $2T in economic aid spent already (in the US) rather than largely wasting it on further enriching the already wealthy. that would have reduced fatalities by on the order of ~60%. a meaningful effort, rather than safety theater. it was clear around march that those with co-morbidities were also at heightened risk. that's harder, but getting that information out to the public changed the behavior of those at risk without the need for lockdowns for everyone. people are capable of making informed decisions with trustworthy information. it's (partisan and media-fueled) propaganda that's made it difficult to tease out what's reliable and trustworthy, cornering us into largely ineffective, performative mitigations (i just heard a woman on npr proclaim "i don't just wash for 20 seconds, i wash for 30 seconds!" as if that makes any difference to anything other than her own self-righteous ego and npr's editorialized virtue signaling). it was clear that the trajectory of the virus was more flu than black death, deadly to less than 1% rather than 30-60%, despite the hyperbolic rhetoric around "exponential" growth (actually sigmoidal/logistic). if it had it been a new black plague, it would have been quite obvious early on, and people's behavior would have swiftly adapted out of self-preservation without requiring martial law. it's clear that a few simple mitigations (distancing, avoiding large gatherings) can keep the infection rate largely under control, which is about the best we can do without destroying entire societies, governments, and economies (which we seem wont to do anyway). life is an endless series of cost-benefit tradeoffs. we accept risk and death every day, not attempting to save every single life at all costs. if we did, we'd spend every excess dollar beyond water, food, shelter, and clothing on potentially preventable causes of mortality like cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory disease[0], but we don't. it's irrational to act differently for a novel virus that isn't very deadly, all things considered. lies told by the "left" are no better than the lies told by the "right". and the whole left-right dichotomy is a misdirection perpetrated by both to blinder our thinking in ways that benefit only the entrenched powers. in other words, break free and stop parroting phrases like "based on science" and apply your brain to understanding how to independently make decisions under uncertainty and with imperfect information. that's a true super-power. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rat...

clairity 6y ago

> “...closing ‘non-essential’ business and limiting gatherings, is a logical progression...” you’re advocating lockdown. we only need to curtail (not completely shut down) socializing-oriented businesses like bars/clubs, not ‘non-essential’ businesses. we should advocate for, rather than try to coerce, limiting large private indoor gatherings and being responsible when gathering. > “Then we have masks, social distancing, and frequent hygiene...” only social distancing is needed, but you can’t mandate these things in any case. only social pressure works on the level of groups and communities. masks and over-cleaning are effective only on the (in some cases very slim) margins. don’t breath into each other’s faces and we’ve done the majority of what is effective, rather than ritualized compliance signals.

jrochkind1 6y ago
Again, even the mythical Sweden bans gatherings of more than 50 people, with criminal penalties for non-compliance. Do you consider that a "lockdown"? To me, "lockdown" -- a word I had previously heard mostly in reference to prisons -- means absolute cancellation of all social life, the word implies an absolute and universalism. That is not possible on an indefinite ongoing basis. But we absolutely need restrictions. I'm not ready to say right now exactly what those restrictions should be -- they need to be based on science that we haven't done enough of, and they probably need to change as we learn more about things and as we observe how different restrictions (as well as different accomodations like improved ventilation) effect spread (which may be different from one society to another). We have barely yet begun to take seriously the need to seriously figure out what to do, instead of arguing about "lockdown" vs "do nothing". To my reading, you are still engaged in that odd dichotomous debate, advocating the "do pretty much nothing" approach, absoultely confident (based on what science?) that this is sufficient.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "To my reading, you are still engaged in that odd dichotomous debate..." it's uncharitable to project. you're also trying to coerce my position into "do nothing", which is not only uncharitable but incorrect. "do only things that have meaningful, not mollifying, effect" is more correct. > "But we absolutely need restrictions." that's cart before horse, an overly confident a priori assertion, rather than an empirically-backed deduction, like much of the discussion around "the science". > "...they need to be based on science..." science will expand our body of knowledge in time, but science is not unassailable (science doesn't create truth, only reflects incomplete shades of it back to us), and an unrealistic faith in science to settle decision-making under uncertainty today simply doesn't help. it just plays into media partisanship, as an unwarranted appeal to authority to coerce others' behaviors (i.e., an application of power) irrationally. in 20-50 years, science might tell us what the best course of action might have been, but it won't settle the debate in this moment. but luckily we already have plenty of information to make informed decisions, even if much of that information is imperfect. and note that it's not the complicity rituals we've bought into from our "leadership". for instance, it was clear as early as february that the elderly were at much heightened risk. we should have locked down elderly care facilities and bubbled them, employing a tiny fraction of the $2T in economic aid spent already (in the US) rather than largely wasting it on further enriching the already wealthy. that would have reduced fatalities by on the order of ~60%. a meaningful effort, rather than safety theater. it was clear around march that those with co-morbidities were also at heightened risk. that's harder, but getting that information out to the public changed the behavior of those at risk without the need for lockdowns for everyone. people are capable of making informed decisions with trustworthy information. it's (partisan and media-fueled) propaganda that's made it difficult to tease out what's reliable and trustworthy, cornering us into largely ineffective, performative mitigations (i just heard a woman on npr proclaim "i don't just wash for 20 seconds, i wash for 30 seconds!" as if that makes any difference to anything other than her own self-righteous ego and npr's editorialized virtue signaling). it was clear that the trajectory of the virus was more flu than black death, deadly to less than 1% rather than 30-60%, despite the hyperbolic rhetoric around "exponential" growth (actually sigmoidal/logistic). if it had it been a new black plague, it would have been quite obvious early on, and people's behavior would have swiftly adapted out of self-preservation without requiring martial law. it's clear that a few simple mitigations (distancing, avoiding large gatherings) can keep the infection rate largely under control, which is about the best we can do without destroying entire societies, governments, and economies (which we seem wont to do anyway). life is an endless series of cost-benefit tradeoffs. we accept risk and death every day, not attempting to save every single life at all costs. if we did, we'd spend every excess dollar beyond water, food, shelter, and clothing on potentially preventable causes of mortality like cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory disease[0], but we don't. it's irrational to act differently for a novel virus that isn't very deadly, all things considered. lies told by the "left" are no better than the lies told by the "right". and the whole left-right dichotomy is a misdirection perpetrated by both to blinder our thinking in ways that benefit only the entrenched powers. in other words, break free and stop parroting phrases like "based on science" and apply your brain to understanding how to independently make decisions under uncertainty and with imperfect information. that's a true super-power. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rat...