36 ms·

> Governments can drastically reduce contacts between people, and doing so reverses the growth of the epidemic. But doing so has costs and epidemiology is not,

> Governments can drastically reduce contacts between people, and doing so reverses the growth of the epidemic. But doing so has costs and epidemiology is not, nor should it be, the only consideration. The US could enforce speed limits of 25 mph everywhere and effectively eradicate motor vehicle deaths. Could enforce limits on sugar intake and reduce heart disease deaths. But of course these seem fairly absurd propositions. The fervor of COVID reporting makes such measures seem reasonable. It reminds me a bit of Bostrom’s vulnerable world hypothesis, in which he imagines scenarios could arise (in that case due to technological progress) where the only way to prevent a rogue bad actor from accomplishing mass destruction is “turn-key totalitarianism” where freedoms are subsumed to allow the government to address the threat. And there are situations where this seems the only pragmatic response, for instance if technology was discovered that allowed an individual to easily and cheaply produce an explosion akin to a nuclear weapon. But COVID does not seem such a scenario to many. And yet what many others are asking for here is turn-key totalitarianism. Is that really favorable here to more vulnerable populations being at higher risk? Do we really want to just maximize age expectancy and reduce deaths as a guiding function of society? I don’t think so, but that is the implicit claim within, and it's why it's hard to enact in practice.

TomSwirly 6y ago
> And yet what many others are asking for here is turn-key totalitarianism Ah, America. This attitude is why the US is the world leader in COVID-19, and things are only getting worse. Very soon there will be days with 5000 Americans dead, 300,000 new infections, and God knows how many people crippled for life, and yet I'm sure people will still be going on about "totalitarianism" and fiercely resisting any public health measures.
- chronofar 6y ago
  You seem to have missed the point entirely and opted to just regurgitate numbers to plug into the guiding function I explicitly questioned. What is the number of deaths it takes for you to think the government should take whatever action necessary to prevent it? Is it 1? 100? 1000? When does reduction in deaths become more important than other considerations?
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
This isn't some minor inconvenience. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in the US, and hundreds of thousands more will die in the coming months. Healthcare systems across the country are at the breaking point, ICU beds are going to start running out, and we're going to see some pretty brutal triage in hospitals. Many countries have now taken action to suppress the epidemic. The US could do the same. Your elected government telling you that you can't go to a restaurant during a pandemic isn't "turn-key totalitarianism." What kind of a self-centered society do we live in, in which people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month?
- chronofar 6y ago
  > This isn't some minor inconvenience. Neither is shutting down economic activity for a significant period of time. > people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month What a ridiculously dishonest way to frame it. This is just political punditry at work. Restaurants closing for a month also has real people attached to it. People who lose their livelihood and don't have an ample safety net to keep them afloat. And of course it's not just restaurants, shutdowns impact many businesses in many ways, and those impact people in many other ways. And, as pointed out in the article here, it's highly questionable whether an action like this would save significant life. > Your elected government telling you that you can't go to a restaurant during a pandemic isn't "turn-key totalitarianism." But it is. I certainly agree it's not full-scale totalitarianism, but it is an authoritarian action in the face of a threat (which like I said reminds me of the kind of turn-key totalitarianism Bostrom mentions in the vulnerable world hypothesis). China was as successful as it was in such measures because it is inherently authoritarian, the US has been less successful because it isn't, and has deep-rooted propaganda against it. Should we wish the US was more ready to allow the government to take authoritarian action? What if the virus was 20x more deadly? What if it was 0.5x as deadly? Where do we say it's ok for the government to exert control? This is of course not a new, nor a readily decided or agreed upon, question. Look, all told I'm not really sure what the right answer is here. Maybe we actually should be less hostile toward authoritarian actions in general for the good of society as a whole. Maybe China is actually closer to the optimal model, I don't know, I could make some compelling points (to those open to hear them) in either direction. My main point here is just that the calculus shouldn't just be which actions reduce new cases and deaths the most, and indeed that isn't the calculus for many people, hence the resistance and difficulty in implementation. In reality the equation is and should be very complicated and nuanced, taking actions and reactions of various actors into account.

TomSwirly 6y ago

> And yet what many others are asking for here is turn-key totalitarianism Ah, America. This attitude is why the US is the world leader in COVID-19, and things are only getting worse. Very soon there will be days with 5000 Americans dead, 300,000 new infections, and God knows how many people crippled for life, and yet I'm sure people will still be going on about "totalitarianism" and fiercely resisting any public health measures.

chronofar 6y ago
You seem to have missed the point entirely and opted to just regurgitate numbers to plug into the guiding function I explicitly questioned. What is the number of deaths it takes for you to think the government should take whatever action necessary to prevent it? Is it 1? 100? 1000? When does reduction in deaths become more important than other considerations?

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

This isn't some minor inconvenience. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in the US, and hundreds of thousands more will die in the coming months. Healthcare systems across the country are at the breaking point, ICU beds are going to start running out, and we're going to see some pretty brutal triage in hospitals. Many countries have now taken action to suppress the epidemic. The US could do the same. Your elected government telling you that you can't go to a restaurant during a pandemic isn't "turn-key totalitarianism." What kind of a self-centered society do we live in, in which people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month?

chronofar 6y ago
> This isn't some minor inconvenience. Neither is shutting down economic activity for a significant period of time. > people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month What a ridiculously dishonest way to frame it. This is just political punditry at work. Restaurants closing for a month also has real people attached to it. People who lose their livelihood and don't have an ample safety net to keep them afloat. And of course it's not just restaurants, shutdowns impact many businesses in many ways, and those impact people in many other ways. And, as pointed out in the article here, it's highly questionable whether an action like this would save significant life. > Your elected government telling you that you can't go to a restaurant during a pandemic isn't "turn-key totalitarianism." But it is. I certainly agree it's not full-scale totalitarianism, but it is an authoritarian action in the face of a threat (which like I said reminds me of the kind of turn-key totalitarianism Bostrom mentions in the vulnerable world hypothesis). China was as successful as it was in such measures because it is inherently authoritarian, the US has been less successful because it isn't, and has deep-rooted propaganda against it. Should we wish the US was more ready to allow the government to take authoritarian action? What if the virus was 20x more deadly? What if it was 0.5x as deadly? Where do we say it's ok for the government to exert control? This is of course not a new, nor a readily decided or agreed upon, question. Look, all told I'm not really sure what the right answer is here. Maybe we actually should be less hostile toward authoritarian actions in general for the good of society as a whole. Maybe China is actually closer to the optimal model, I don't know, I could make some compelling points (to those open to hear them) in either direction. My main point here is just that the calculus shouldn't just be which actions reduce new cases and deaths the most, and indeed that isn't the calculus for many people, hence the resistance and difficulty in implementation. In reality the equation is and should be very complicated and nuanced, taking actions and reactions of various actors into account.