3 ms·

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. Healthca

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.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  > What a ridiculously dishonest way to frame it. It's a direct and honest way to put it. Which would you prefer? Should the US lock down and save hundreds of thousands of lives, or would you rather keep restaurants open? It's easy to muse about hypothetical questions about how many people should die before the government should act, but this is too serious an issue for sophistry. There are consequences here. > 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. Restaurants can be compensated. Their employees and customers will be safer for it. > it is an authoritarian action There's nothing authoritarian about it. It's a reasonable, rational response to a health crisis taken by a democratically elected government. It's just as "authoritarian" as mandating seatbelts or childhood vaccinations. > 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. And that goes for authoritarian New Zealand and Australia too, I suppose? Populations in highly democratic countries will actually support strong lockdown measures if they believe they will be effective and if the government compensates people financially. The President of the US has been whipping up opposition to any rational public health measures, from face masks to lockdowns. That doesn't help for public acceptance of rational measures. But if it truly is impossible to gain public support for lockdowns in the US, then something is deeply wrong with American society.
  - chronofar 6y ago
    > Should the US lock down and save hundreds of thousands of lives, or would you rather keep restaurants open? How about restaurants stay open and there is little to no additional loss of life? > It's easy to muse about hypothetical questions about how many people should die before the government should act This isn't hypothetical. We're seeing it play out and the difficulty you're having is that people disagree with you about that number and you appear to be unable to understand why. > Restaurants can be compensated. Oh geez why didn't I or LA or the US think of that? Alright then, pack it in problem solved, let's just make sure everyone's compensated. Of course were it that simple few would have a problem with the sacrifice, and a much more convincing argument could be made that it would be better for society as a whole to lock down. > There's nothing authoritarian about it. Nothing? There's nothing authoritarian about the government imposing a lockdown? Are you somehow of the notion that "democratically elected" governments cannot be authoritarian in any way? I'm struggling to understand your perspective here. > It's just as "authoritarian" as mandating seatbelts or childhood vaccinations. Absolutely (well, for the sake of argument, I wouldn't argue mandating seatbelts is on the same level as shutting down restaurants but for our purposes here let's say we're on the same page). We always make tradeoffs of this kind all the time to be sure. Few want anarchy (the opposite of authoritarianism). It's again why the "hypothetical" question is important to understanding why people disagree with you. Where do we draw the line? > And that goes for authoritarian New Zealand and Australia too, I suppose? Moreso than the US? Most definitely. Less than China? Of course. Australia and NZ benefit from largely homogenous cultures and low population density that allow them to better handle such things. Singapore would likely have been a better counter-example. > Populations in highly democratic countries will actually support strong lockdown measures if they believe they will be effective and if the government compensates people financially. Sure, except none of your conditionals there actually get bourn out. Many people question the effectiveness (again not just of reducing cases, but on providing a net positive impact to society) and in the US stimulus measures haven't been nearly precise enough to find themselves to the right hands. > But if it truly is impossible to gain public support for lockdowns in the US, then something is deeply wrong with American society Rephrased: "If American society cannot widely support the action I think is correct, there is something deeply wrong with American society." There is something deeply wrong with American society, but it is thinking like that.
twblalock 6y ago
> people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month There is no evidence that closing outdoor dining would save that many lives. If such evidence existed, LA surely would have shown it to the court. People aren't mad that they can't go to restaurants anymore -- they are mad that they are losing their jobs and their businesses as a direct result of government action for which the government cannot provide any public health justification, while they watch the government allow far riskier activities to continue.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dangerous each activity is is difficult to know. We have to apply reasoning to what we know about the transmission mechanisms and people's social behaviors. People sit across from one another without masks for long periods of time at restaurants, and they're social meeting points. It's entirely reasonable to assume they're a likely location for transmission. The basic point is that at the moment, most public life has to be shut down, so that R drops below 1 and new cases decrease. Restaurants are very low down on the list of essential services that need to be kept running in order for society to function. We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses.
  - twblalock 6y ago
    > We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dangerous each activity is is difficult to know. We have data on various types of activities now. LA's own data showed outdoor dining only being responsible for 4% of the spread, for example. It's hard to justify draconian measures for such a drop in the bucket. > We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses. For how long? California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.)
    - 6y ago

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.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
> What a ridiculously dishonest way to frame it. It's a direct and honest way to put it. Which would you prefer? Should the US lock down and save hundreds of thousands of lives, or would you rather keep restaurants open? It's easy to muse about hypothetical questions about how many people should die before the government should act, but this is too serious an issue for sophistry. There are consequences here. > 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. Restaurants can be compensated. Their employees and customers will be safer for it. > it is an authoritarian action There's nothing authoritarian about it. It's a reasonable, rational response to a health crisis taken by a democratically elected government. It's just as "authoritarian" as mandating seatbelts or childhood vaccinations. > 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. And that goes for authoritarian New Zealand and Australia too, I suppose? Populations in highly democratic countries will actually support strong lockdown measures if they believe they will be effective and if the government compensates people financially. The President of the US has been whipping up opposition to any rational public health measures, from face masks to lockdowns. That doesn't help for public acceptance of rational measures. But if it truly is impossible to gain public support for lockdowns in the US, then something is deeply wrong with American society.
- chronofar 6y ago
  > Should the US lock down and save hundreds of thousands of lives, or would you rather keep restaurants open? How about restaurants stay open and there is little to no additional loss of life? > It's easy to muse about hypothetical questions about how many people should die before the government should act This isn't hypothetical. We're seeing it play out and the difficulty you're having is that people disagree with you about that number and you appear to be unable to understand why. > Restaurants can be compensated. Oh geez why didn't I or LA or the US think of that? Alright then, pack it in problem solved, let's just make sure everyone's compensated. Of course were it that simple few would have a problem with the sacrifice, and a much more convincing argument could be made that it would be better for society as a whole to lock down. > There's nothing authoritarian about it. Nothing? There's nothing authoritarian about the government imposing a lockdown? Are you somehow of the notion that "democratically elected" governments cannot be authoritarian in any way? I'm struggling to understand your perspective here. > It's just as "authoritarian" as mandating seatbelts or childhood vaccinations. Absolutely (well, for the sake of argument, I wouldn't argue mandating seatbelts is on the same level as shutting down restaurants but for our purposes here let's say we're on the same page). We always make tradeoffs of this kind all the time to be sure. Few want anarchy (the opposite of authoritarianism). It's again why the "hypothetical" question is important to understanding why people disagree with you. Where do we draw the line? > And that goes for authoritarian New Zealand and Australia too, I suppose? Moreso than the US? Most definitely. Less than China? Of course. Australia and NZ benefit from largely homogenous cultures and low population density that allow them to better handle such things. Singapore would likely have been a better counter-example. > Populations in highly democratic countries will actually support strong lockdown measures if they believe they will be effective and if the government compensates people financially. Sure, except none of your conditionals there actually get bourn out. Many people question the effectiveness (again not just of reducing cases, but on providing a net positive impact to society) and in the US stimulus measures haven't been nearly precise enough to find themselves to the right hands. > But if it truly is impossible to gain public support for lockdowns in the US, then something is deeply wrong with American society Rephrased: "If American society cannot widely support the action I think is correct, there is something deeply wrong with American society." There is something deeply wrong with American society, but it is thinking like that.

twblalock 6y ago

> people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month There is no evidence that closing outdoor dining would save that many lives. If such evidence existed, LA surely would have shown it to the court. People aren't mad that they can't go to restaurants anymore -- they are mad that they are losing their jobs and their businesses as a direct result of government action for which the government cannot provide any public health justification, while they watch the government allow far riskier activities to continue.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dangerous each activity is is difficult to know. We have to apply reasoning to what we know about the transmission mechanisms and people's social behaviors. People sit across from one another without masks for long periods of time at restaurants, and they're social meeting points. It's entirely reasonable to assume they're a likely location for transmission. The basic point is that at the moment, most public life has to be shut down, so that R drops below 1 and new cases decrease. Restaurants are very low down on the list of essential services that need to be kept running in order for society to function. We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses.
- twblalock 6y ago
  > We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dangerous each activity is is difficult to know. We have data on various types of activities now. LA's own data showed outdoor dining only being responsible for 4% of the spread, for example. It's hard to justify draconian measures for such a drop in the bucket. > We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses. For how long? California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.)
  - 6y ago