5 ms·

I can sort of understand your point, but don't you think it's ironic to hold people responsible to NOT doing things in their power to avoid/prevent/solve troubl

by prower 6y ago

I can sort of understand your point, but don't you think it's ironic to hold people responsible to NOT doing things in their power to avoid/prevent/solve troubles, only to shout at them when they do? On a more general point of view, people enforcing the rules are the same people having both the data and the knowledge necessary to understand it. In other words, it's OK to be skeptical but don't forget you're not a scientist, and me neither, for that matter. Being skeptical of the government and refusing to wear a mask are not part of the same discussion, unless you're in bad faith.

auganov 6y ago
Skepticism is the lesser part of the point. I believe 100% that there are excess deaths, in some places non-trivial. I'm more skeptical about policy interventions, but I'm also willing to believe they are more likely to help than not. The degree to which they help, I think, is contentious, but harm unlikely. The question is what amount of freedom, legal order and economic growth is worth giving up over what amount of deaths. For example: I'm pretty sure most would agree 1 extra death a year wouldn't justify any limitations whatsoever. The implicit consensus also seemed to be that winter season flu (+ misc virus) excess deaths didn't justify any limitations either[0]. I don't believe that the (yes, yet higher) amount of deaths caused by COVID justifies them either. The moral precedent here is very troubling to me and I hope it will be rejected by the people. Many of the policies manufacture the impression of popular support. Without enough people actively signaling their disapproval the perception will remain slanted. So IMO it's perfectly reasonable for a healthy young person to disregard some rules. While those at real risk should obviously take necessary precautions including potential vaccines. And this is exactly what a good (in my opinion) policy would do. Focus on helping those at risk without any compulsion. In which case I would also be more willing to follow recommendations as doing so wouldn't signal support for any policies. [0] Although I could see that changing post corona, many were simply unaware.
- prower 6y ago
  So if I understand correctly, you're worried that every little piece of freedom lost, is lost forever. I can understand the sentiment, and I even agree to that. That said, context is important. I'm not sure this is the right way of thinking in this specific case. Problem is: that there's no way to control the virus. In other words, the law of big numbers throws a wrench in the health system... a small percentage of a very big number (like the people currently living in the US) is still a very big number. Many people getting ill together, is not good anyway you look at it. Also, keep in mind that health and money are directly related: an ill population is a poor population. That's why people happily pay taxes for healthcare in many countries. With a vaccine the situation should hopefully be more in control, but the basic modus operandi was to avoid people getting in touch too much (lockdowns, distancing etc.). Lockdowns were a hasty solution to a sudden emergency... it worked, but can't be enforced forever. Still, there is a reason why a policy is enforced. As I said, context is important. The solutions (basically just wear a mask and dont' be too close) are easy to follow and not so disruptive. Still, I have the feeling many people do not reject the policy per se, but the enforcement itself. This is not an honest reponse.
  - auganov 6y ago
    > So if I understand correctly, you're worried that every little piece of freedom lost, is lost forever. I can understand the sentiment, and I even agree to that. Potentially. I do expect that most restrictions will be rolled back eventually. But even the damage that has already happened is significant. If protesting stops just 1 more year of that I think it's worth it. The future concern is similar reasoning will be used in other domains. > Also, keep in mind that health and money are directly related: an ill population is a poor population. That's why people happily pay taxes for healthcare in many countries. Well, I am against too much government healthcare. I generally find that most of its proponents do not make the money argument (which I do disagree with). As far as I can tell the main argument has always been the same moral argument about potential deaths/suffering. Similarly I'm willing to acknowledge that some small percentage of the population would indeed be worse off under a private system. But that doesn't justify nationalization. The desirable policy is to focus on improvements to healthcare as a whole, which by proxy helps everybody. A poor person in 2020 has access to better private healthcare than a poor person in 1980 simply because everything got better. I'm not strictly against all collectivist solutions, but the threshold for such actions should be much higher. When COVID restrictions were first introduced around the world, I was generally supportive. The advertised death rate was an order of magnitude higher. Restrictions were presented as a temporary measure to let healthcare systems ramp up capacity. That seemed reasonable to me. > The solutions (basically just wear a mask and dont' be too close) are easy to follow and not so disruptive. If you're in the US, then I think many states are doing the right thing. A few are overzealous. If you look at GDP drops across the world US is one of the lowest. And I also credit that to the many people in the US who actively voiced their opposition. Haven't seen that happen much elsewhere. In the country I'm in there are mandatory (could go to jail) quarantines for merely suspected cases and those entering from some countries. Some businesses can't operate at all. Big fines for businesses breaking rules. Tickets for not wearing a mask. And as opposed to the US most of these restrictions are legally solid, you'll have a hard time challenging them. Compliance very high. From what I'm hearing and reading it's still one of the laxer ones in Europe. The GDP drop was one of the lower ones too.

by prower 6y ago

auganov 6y ago

Skepticism is the lesser part of the point. I believe 100% that there are excess deaths, in some places non-trivial. I'm more skeptical about policy interventions, but I'm also willing to believe they are more likely to help than not. The degree to which they help, I think, is contentious, but harm unlikely. The question is what amount of freedom, legal order and economic growth is worth giving up over what amount of deaths. For example: I'm pretty sure most would agree 1 extra death a year wouldn't justify any limitations whatsoever. The implicit consensus also seemed to be that winter season flu (+ misc virus) excess deaths didn't justify any limitations either[0]. I don't believe that the (yes, yet higher) amount of deaths caused by COVID justifies them either. The moral precedent here is very troubling to me and I hope it will be rejected by the people. Many of the policies manufacture the impression of popular support. Without enough people actively signaling their disapproval the perception will remain slanted. So IMO it's perfectly reasonable for a healthy young person to disregard some rules. While those at real risk should obviously take necessary precautions including potential vaccines. And this is exactly what a good (in my opinion) policy would do. Focus on helping those at risk without any compulsion. In which case I would also be more willing to follow recommendations as doing so wouldn't signal support for any policies. [0] Although I could see that changing post corona, many were simply unaware.

prower 6y ago
So if I understand correctly, you're worried that every little piece of freedom lost, is lost forever. I can understand the sentiment, and I even agree to that. That said, context is important. I'm not sure this is the right way of thinking in this specific case. Problem is: that there's no way to control the virus. In other words, the law of big numbers throws a wrench in the health system... a small percentage of a very big number (like the people currently living in the US) is still a very big number. Many people getting ill together, is not good anyway you look at it. Also, keep in mind that health and money are directly related: an ill population is a poor population. That's why people happily pay taxes for healthcare in many countries. With a vaccine the situation should hopefully be more in control, but the basic modus operandi was to avoid people getting in touch too much (lockdowns, distancing etc.). Lockdowns were a hasty solution to a sudden emergency... it worked, but can't be enforced forever. Still, there is a reason why a policy is enforced. As I said, context is important. The solutions (basically just wear a mask and dont' be too close) are easy to follow and not so disruptive. Still, I have the feeling many people do not reject the policy per se, but the enforcement itself. This is not an honest reponse.
- auganov 6y ago
  > So if I understand correctly, you're worried that every little piece of freedom lost, is lost forever. I can understand the sentiment, and I even agree to that. Potentially. I do expect that most restrictions will be rolled back eventually. But even the damage that has already happened is significant. If protesting stops just 1 more year of that I think it's worth it. The future concern is similar reasoning will be used in other domains. > Also, keep in mind that health and money are directly related: an ill population is a poor population. That's why people happily pay taxes for healthcare in many countries. Well, I am against too much government healthcare. I generally find that most of its proponents do not make the money argument (which I do disagree with). As far as I can tell the main argument has always been the same moral argument about potential deaths/suffering. Similarly I'm willing to acknowledge that some small percentage of the population would indeed be worse off under a private system. But that doesn't justify nationalization. The desirable policy is to focus on improvements to healthcare as a whole, which by proxy helps everybody. A poor person in 2020 has access to better private healthcare than a poor person in 1980 simply because everything got better. I'm not strictly against all collectivist solutions, but the threshold for such actions should be much higher. When COVID restrictions were first introduced around the world, I was generally supportive. The advertised death rate was an order of magnitude higher. Restrictions were presented as a temporary measure to let healthcare systems ramp up capacity. That seemed reasonable to me. > The solutions (basically just wear a mask and dont' be too close) are easy to follow and not so disruptive. If you're in the US, then I think many states are doing the right thing. A few are overzealous. If you look at GDP drops across the world US is one of the lowest. And I also credit that to the many people in the US who actively voiced their opposition. Haven't seen that happen much elsewhere. In the country I'm in there are mandatory (could go to jail) quarantines for merely suspected cases and those entering from some countries. Some businesses can't operate at all. Big fines for businesses breaking rules. Tickets for not wearing a mask. And as opposed to the US most of these restrictions are legally solid, you'll have a hard time challenging them. Compliance very high. From what I'm hearing and reading it's still one of the laxer ones in Europe. The GDP drop was one of the lower ones too.