7 ms·

While I don't think this necessarily affects the conclusions, this source is kind of brazenly ideologically-driven. From their home page https://cspicenter.org/

by geofft 5y ago

While I don't think this necessarily affects the conclusions, this source is kind of brazenly ideologically-driven. From their home page https://cspicenter.org/ https://cspicenter.org/ : > 3. Safetyism > The sacralization of physical and emotional safety is a worrying trend. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw the inability of public health officials to consider the tradeoffs between physical safety and personal freedom. > Progress in science and technology is impossible without physical risk. Progress in ethics and politics is impossible without emotional risk. Yet, society and government seem to be becoming more risk-averse. > CSPI welcomes work investigating the origins, nature, and effects of safetyism. We are also interested in policies and practices that reduce risk aversion or encourage better cost-benefit analysis. That is - they are taking as a given that people are being too risk-averse, especially in regards to COVID-19, and that public health officials are unable to consider tradeoffs (as opposed to having considered them and reached a different conclusion), and they want "better," by which they mean riskier, cost-benefit analyses. (It also makes me think that the point about it being difficult to vaccinate everyone is a bit disingenuous - it's true that it's difficult, but it would be easier if there weren't political organizations arguing for political reasons that we shouldn't vaccinate everyone!)

ghoward 5y ago
> That is - they are taking as a given that people are being too risk-averse, especially in regards to COVID-19, and that public health officials are unable to consider tradeoffs (as opposed to having considered them and reached a different conclusion), and they want "better," by which they mean riskier, cost-benefit analyses. Australia locked down for three deaths, so I think they are right here. > (It also makes me think that the point about it being difficult to vaccinate everyone is a bit disingenuous - it's true that it's difficult, but it would be easier if there weren't political organizations arguing for political reasons that we shouldn't vaccinate everyone!) It's funny you say that, but really, there are just a lot of people that don't want to get any of the vaccines, myself included. That's because, with a thought cost-benefit analysis, it did not make sense for me. Making that decision for myself is only a problem because of Safetyism. The funny thing is that once physical and emotional safety is sacred, the government can get away with all sorts of actions that would not be acceptable otherwise, actions that might actually compromise the safety of individuals from the government itself! And then we are not really safe.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >And then we are not really safe. Once you have found yourself in a mental spiderweb where everything that promises safety is actually unsafe, you can break out very simply, although maybe not easily. Just tell yourself that if nothing is safe, then your entire analysis is irrelevant and you can simply follow the herd and get on with your life. This is, seriously, a coping mechanism for people who are clinically paranoid and aware of it.
  - teeray 5y ago
    This assumes a binary world of safe and unsafe. If jumping off tall bridges provided a protective effect against death from lightning strikes, by the same reasoning we should jump off the bridge because nothing is safe. Safety is probability-based and thus continuous. We can reason about one action being less unsafe than something else, so the analysis is still relevant.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      >This assumes a binary world of safe and unsafe I replied to a comment that ended with "we are not really safe". That is not a quantitative statement. It seems indicative of a binary view to me, the comment about a cost-benefit analysis notwithstanding.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    To be frank, I think that it is more important to be safe from a government, which can decide what is legal for them to do to you, than it is to be safe from a virus that does not discriminate.
    - geofft 5y ago
      You can rise up against a government with weapons. You cannot rise up against a virus with weapons. Therefore, it is more important to take proactive measures against a malicious virus. Both can threaten life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but you have more reactive options against the government (provided that the right to bear arms is not infringed, of course!).
magwa101 5y ago
I also looked at the "about" page, they have an axe to grind.
nradov 5y ago
On safetyism in general I really like the "safety third" post by Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs fame. People who criticize safety culture get harshly shamed as immoral and irresponsible, but in reality there are always trade-offs to consider. We should keep our minds open and not assume that contrarian statements are ideologically driven. https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-third-thing/ https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-thi...
- jjk166 5y ago
  An important thing to keep in mind with the "safety third" idea is also the distinction between true safety and low liability. A lot of "safety culture" is composed of things like checklists and hazard warnings which are more geared towards shifting the blame for accidents onto somebody else than actually preventing those accidents, and that many people saying safety is a top priority are just going through the motions. The major impetus for Mike Rowes' safety third thing was when a member of his camera crew, despite the many safety procedures in place, was horrifically crushed to death. It's not so much that people should be less risk averse, but rather that our judgements should be made based on efficacy instead of emotion. I disagree with Mike Rowe on a lot of things, but people often unfairly malign his stance to be opposed to safety when really it's the opposite, and I think that's a disservice to healthy discussion.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Which member of the camera crew was crushed to death? I've seen most of the Dirty Jobs episodes and don't recall that accident.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      https://www.ishn.com/articles/93505--dirty-jobs--guy-says-safety-third-is--a-conversation-worth-having- https://www.ishn.com/articles/93505--dirty-jobs--guy-says-sa... > The job sites were no more dangerous than they’d always been, but the mishaps among my crew were skyrocketing. Then one day, a man was killed while we were shooting in a factory near Pittsburg. He was crushed by the door on a giant coke oven. In the break room, where I was told of the accident, a large banner said, “We Care About Your Safety!” That got me thinking about things like unintended consequences, and the dangers of confusing compliance with real safety. My mistake, it does not explicitly state they were a member of the camera crew
jfengel 5y ago
It took me a minute to realize that this is not the Center for Science in the Public Interest -- a group they would almost certainly accuse of "safetyism". This is the "Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology", whose web site I can't read at the moment. But it does sound suspiciously like a partisan, ideological group that adopts a fake neutral name.

by geofft 5y ago

ghoward 5y ago

> That is - they are taking as a given that people are being too risk-averse, especially in regards to COVID-19, and that public health officials are unable to consider tradeoffs (as opposed to having considered them and reached a different conclusion), and they want "better," by which they mean riskier, cost-benefit analyses. Australia locked down for three deaths, so I think they are right here. > (It also makes me think that the point about it being difficult to vaccinate everyone is a bit disingenuous - it's true that it's difficult, but it would be easier if there weren't political organizations arguing for political reasons that we shouldn't vaccinate everyone!) It's funny you say that, but really, there are just a lot of people that don't want to get any of the vaccines, myself included. That's because, with a thought cost-benefit analysis, it did not make sense for me. Making that decision for myself is only a problem because of Safetyism. The funny thing is that once physical and emotional safety is sacred, the government can get away with all sorts of actions that would not be acceptable otherwise, actions that might actually compromise the safety of individuals from the government itself! And then we are not really safe.

perl4ever 5y ago
>And then we are not really safe. Once you have found yourself in a mental spiderweb where everything that promises safety is actually unsafe, you can break out very simply, although maybe not easily. Just tell yourself that if nothing is safe, then your entire analysis is irrelevant and you can simply follow the herd and get on with your life. This is, seriously, a coping mechanism for people who are clinically paranoid and aware of it.
- teeray 5y ago
  This assumes a binary world of safe and unsafe. If jumping off tall bridges provided a protective effect against death from lightning strikes, by the same reasoning we should jump off the bridge because nothing is safe. Safety is probability-based and thus continuous. We can reason about one action being less unsafe than something else, so the analysis is still relevant.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >This assumes a binary world of safe and unsafe I replied to a comment that ended with "we are not really safe". That is not a quantitative statement. It seems indicative of a binary view to me, the comment about a cost-benefit analysis notwithstanding.
- ghoward 5y ago
  To be frank, I think that it is more important to be safe from a government, which can decide what is legal for them to do to you, than it is to be safe from a virus that does not discriminate.
  - geofft 5y ago
    You can rise up against a government with weapons. You cannot rise up against a virus with weapons. Therefore, it is more important to take proactive measures against a malicious virus. Both can threaten life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but you have more reactive options against the government (provided that the right to bear arms is not infringed, of course!).

magwa101 5y ago

I also looked at the "about" page, they have an axe to grind.

nradov 5y ago

On safetyism in general I really like the "safety third" post by Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs fame. People who criticize safety culture get harshly shamed as immoral and irresponsible, but in reality there are always trade-offs to consider. We should keep our minds open and not assume that contrarian statements are ideologically driven. https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-third-thing/ https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-thi...

jjk166 5y ago
An important thing to keep in mind with the "safety third" idea is also the distinction between true safety and low liability. A lot of "safety culture" is composed of things like checklists and hazard warnings which are more geared towards shifting the blame for accidents onto somebody else than actually preventing those accidents, and that many people saying safety is a top priority are just going through the motions. The major impetus for Mike Rowes' safety third thing was when a member of his camera crew, despite the many safety procedures in place, was horrifically crushed to death. It's not so much that people should be less risk averse, but rather that our judgements should be made based on efficacy instead of emotion. I disagree with Mike Rowe on a lot of things, but people often unfairly malign his stance to be opposed to safety when really it's the opposite, and I think that's a disservice to healthy discussion.
- nradov 5y ago
  Which member of the camera crew was crushed to death? I've seen most of the Dirty Jobs episodes and don't recall that accident.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    https://www.ishn.com/articles/93505--dirty-jobs--guy-says-safety-third-is--a-conversation-worth-having- https://www.ishn.com/articles/93505--dirty-jobs--guy-says-sa... > The job sites were no more dangerous than they’d always been, but the mishaps among my crew were skyrocketing. Then one day, a man was killed while we were shooting in a factory near Pittsburg. He was crushed by the door on a giant coke oven. In the break room, where I was told of the accident, a large banner said, “We Care About Your Safety!” That got me thinking about things like unintended consequences, and the dangers of confusing compliance with real safety. My mistake, it does not explicitly state they were a member of the camera crew

jfengel 5y ago

It took me a minute to realize that this is not the Center for Science in the Public Interest -- a group they would almost certainly accuse of "safetyism". This is the "Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology", whose web site I can't read at the moment. But it does sound suspiciously like a partisan, ideological group that adopts a fake neutral name.