3 ms·

If you think that is biased then yes it is biased towards the goal of achieving the best less harm outcome. >the majority of the population understands the hug

by matz1 6y ago

If you think that is biased then yes it is biased towards the goal of achieving the best less harm outcome. >the majority of the population understands the huge risks posed by this virus, and will lockdown anyway. The majority of people don't want to go to work in crowded places, they don't want to go to restaurants, they don't want to spread disease among their employees. If that the case then you don't need lockdown measure. If you need lockdown measure then its shows that majority of people don't want lockdown. >Most multinational companies were in fact ahead of government lockdowns, Like I said if you want to lockdown yourself I'm fine with it, similarly if private company want implement lockdown measure themselves its fine, the issue is you are forcing other people to lockdown.

tsimionescu 6y ago
> If you think that is biased then yes it is biased towards the goal of achieving the best less harm outcome. No, it is biased towards moneyed interests, who want the low level workforce to work, human life be damned. It is obvious that a right-wing institute that also advocates against climate change can't be trusted to produce objective data, especially not in a propaganda lettet. If you want an unbiased opinion you need to look at the WHO, NHS, and similar institutions, which are all in agreement on the actual science and policy recommendations. Opinion pieces like that letter are simple propaganda. And while the majority of the population will lockdown anyway, especially if they are presented with the actual data, not propaganda about how the disease is not that bad, there are enough fringe groups who refuse that a law and explicit enforcement are necessary.
- matz1 6y ago
  The goal is to achieve best outcome that have the less harm. Lockdown cause harm that is more than the covid itself. It is because the human life is important that lockdown shouldn't be taken. The lockdown cause harm is based on science and data. The data shows that the disease is not that bad compared to lockdown. If you want lock yourself up then I won't prevent you. Majority of population will oppose to lockdown if they presented with actual data, not fear mongering.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    The only data that shows lockdowns being worse than the disease is from a clearly biased source. The data from non-biased sources is diametrically opposed: the disease is, to the best of our knowledge, much worse than the effects of the lockdown. You have to look at data from the real experts: WHO, NHS, NIH etc (NOT right-wing or left-wing think-tanks, actual public health orgs). With the unprecedented lockdowns and other mobilization measures, this disease has killed more people worldwide than the flu (~2x as many), malaria (~3x as many), AIDS (~2x as many), and may surpass deaths from TB by the end of the year, with an IFR hovering around 1%. In regions that didn't observe lockdowns (e.g. Italy in the early days, Iran in the early days) the death toll rose to around 5% of the confirmed infected population, because hospitals were completely overwhelmed and simply couldn't treat patients anymore. Even if a good portion of these deaths are not directly caused by the disease, it is still much worse than any other viral disease currently active in the world, and much worse than most infectious diseases, with few exceptions.
    - matz1 6y ago
      Yes its bias becuase it actually trying to measure the harm on lockdown and comparing the harm. It bias towards trying to achieve the better outcome. Not all experts even try to measure the lockdown harm. A good portion of the covid death number being reported is not caused by covid itself so you see the inflated number. The death toll maybe 'high' but it worse compared to the harm of lockdown.

by matz1 6y ago

tsimionescu 6y ago

> If you think that is biased then yes it is biased towards the goal of achieving the best less harm outcome. No, it is biased towards moneyed interests, who want the low level workforce to work, human life be damned. It is obvious that a right-wing institute that also advocates against climate change can't be trusted to produce objective data, especially not in a propaganda lettet. If you want an unbiased opinion you need to look at the WHO, NHS, and similar institutions, which are all in agreement on the actual science and policy recommendations. Opinion pieces like that letter are simple propaganda. And while the majority of the population will lockdown anyway, especially if they are presented with the actual data, not propaganda about how the disease is not that bad, there are enough fringe groups who refuse that a law and explicit enforcement are necessary.

matz1 6y ago
The goal is to achieve best outcome that have the less harm. Lockdown cause harm that is more than the covid itself. It is because the human life is important that lockdown shouldn't be taken. The lockdown cause harm is based on science and data. The data shows that the disease is not that bad compared to lockdown. If you want lock yourself up then I won't prevent you. Majority of population will oppose to lockdown if they presented with actual data, not fear mongering.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  The only data that shows lockdowns being worse than the disease is from a clearly biased source. The data from non-biased sources is diametrically opposed: the disease is, to the best of our knowledge, much worse than the effects of the lockdown. You have to look at data from the real experts: WHO, NHS, NIH etc (NOT right-wing or left-wing think-tanks, actual public health orgs). With the unprecedented lockdowns and other mobilization measures, this disease has killed more people worldwide than the flu (~2x as many), malaria (~3x as many), AIDS (~2x as many), and may surpass deaths from TB by the end of the year, with an IFR hovering around 1%. In regions that didn't observe lockdowns (e.g. Italy in the early days, Iran in the early days) the death toll rose to around 5% of the confirmed infected population, because hospitals were completely overwhelmed and simply couldn't treat patients anymore. Even if a good portion of these deaths are not directly caused by the disease, it is still much worse than any other viral disease currently active in the world, and much worse than most infectious diseases, with few exceptions.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Yes its bias becuase it actually trying to measure the harm on lockdown and comparing the harm. It bias towards trying to achieve the better outcome. Not all experts even try to measure the lockdown harm. A good portion of the covid death number being reported is not caused by covid itself so you see the inflated number. The death toll maybe 'high' but it worse compared to the harm of lockdown.