4 ms·

I mean, that’s life? Sure, doubling my money in every investment is great, but unrealistic. Plenty of strategies work as long as every does it and everything wo

by tjs8rj 6y ago

I mean, that’s life? Sure, doubling my money in every investment is great, but unrealistic. Plenty of strategies work as long as every does it and everything works perfectly. The problem is finding a strategy that works in the real world. Lockdowns failed because they weren’t the right solution, because reality is what it is and they weren’t calibrated for the reality that locking down everyone’s lives for a month simply isn’t realistic at all. I think this was obvious to everyone on some level even early in the pandemic, but the politicization of the pandemic meant safety theater and then blaming the noncompliant was the play, when a winning strategy was probably more like: protect the vulnerable, be completely transparent with the people about the dangers, make accommodations to minimize unnecessary risks (no sit in dining, close non essentials, sanitize often), then let people make their own risk calculations based on the available evidence and their own situation, taking steps to ensure their decisions don’t affect others as much as possible. A realistic strategy should have been the go-to, not some ideal strategy that only works in dreams.

chii 6y ago
> let people make their own risk calculations based on the available evidence and their own situation and there-in lies the heart of the issue - the assumption that most people are able to make a good assessment, and that the assessment takes into account the impact on a societal level, rather than an individual level. This simply does not happen. People are selfish. People only look out for themselves. Therefore, it is required that in a pandemic, authoritarian rules and strict adherence to public safety be applied. Even if some individuals believe they can remain safe, even if they can take precautions. Unfortunately, this mindset does not exist in america - not everyone would follow this sort of authoritarian rule. And thus, the lockdown is half-assed and ineffective. And not to mention that there's been misinformation being spread, leading to people to believe that they shouldn't be locked down or wear masks.
- jhanschoo 6y ago
  Small quibble, without expressing opinion on the substance of your comment: you mean totalitarian, not authoritarian: in the latter, the despotic power is primarily concerned with political power, whereas the totalitarian seeks to regulate the citizen's entire life.
- tjs8rj 6y ago
  The problem I have with this thinking is: why do you stop at covid then? Isn’t deciding the national budget, or when to go to war, or public policy just as difficult an assessment and the public just as incapable of making it? The president has incredibly power over others lives, can cause just as many deaths as covid, should the people be deciding that in their selfishness and stupidity? Your argument is just against democracy in general because so much of public policy is far more “dangerous” than covid. Not to mention: the lockdown route didn’t work still didn’t work because it’s still unrealistic! We tried lockdowns, and they failed because Americans didn’t like them. That was completely predictable, and if our goal is results, and have to consider the fact that humans are some simple system that follow plans to the tee. We can’t make policy based on what works in frictionless vacuums, the real world is messier than that.

by tjs8rj 6y ago

chii 6y ago

> let people make their own risk calculations based on the available evidence and their own situation and there-in lies the heart of the issue - the assumption that most people are able to make a good assessment, and that the assessment takes into account the impact on a societal level, rather than an individual level. This simply does not happen. People are selfish. People only look out for themselves. Therefore, it is required that in a pandemic, authoritarian rules and strict adherence to public safety be applied. Even if some individuals believe they can remain safe, even if they can take precautions. Unfortunately, this mindset does not exist in america - not everyone would follow this sort of authoritarian rule. And thus, the lockdown is half-assed and ineffective. And not to mention that there's been misinformation being spread, leading to people to believe that they shouldn't be locked down or wear masks.

jhanschoo 6y ago
Small quibble, without expressing opinion on the substance of your comment: you mean totalitarian, not authoritarian: in the latter, the despotic power is primarily concerned with political power, whereas the totalitarian seeks to regulate the citizen's entire life.
tjs8rj 6y ago
The problem I have with this thinking is: why do you stop at covid then? Isn’t deciding the national budget, or when to go to war, or public policy just as difficult an assessment and the public just as incapable of making it? The president has incredibly power over others lives, can cause just as many deaths as covid, should the people be deciding that in their selfishness and stupidity? Your argument is just against democracy in general because so much of public policy is far more “dangerous” than covid. Not to mention: the lockdown route didn’t work still didn’t work because it’s still unrealistic! We tried lockdowns, and they failed because Americans didn’t like them. That was completely predictable, and if our goal is results, and have to consider the fact that humans are some simple system that follow plans to the tee. We can’t make policy based on what works in frictionless vacuums, the real world is messier than that.