4 ms·

> 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

> 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!).
xboxnolifes 5y ago
> 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. Honestly, the US has met the number of vaccinated people I expected to see, even ignoring any cost-benefit analysis of the specific vaccines available. When I looked at other vaccination rates in the US before the COVID vaccine rollouts, I expected the COVID vaccination rate to meet somewhere in the 50% to 70% range at the end of everything. I don't know what the target goal was for whoever in the government tracks this, or what the public was expecting, but I was expecting the 60%-70% range to be the end goal. Right now we're at 60% at least one dose, 50% full vaccination.
- jfengel 5y ago
  The government was hoping to hit 70% quickly, and then work its way up to 80-90%. 70% was their notional "herd immunity" number. It didn't have a really firm scientific grounding, but it was a useful target. They were hoping that people would get behind pushing it up to that number without coaxing, and then a combination of momentum and coaxing would push it well past. They assumed that perhaps 10-20% would be just plain ornery about it, but given the hundreds of thousands of deaths, most would err on the side of getting it. That assumes it was generally seen as safe and effective, which means that they see lots of people getting it and contrasting that with the vast numbers of people dying. Those assumptions turned out to be faulty, for a number of reasons. And that has caused them to flounder for alternative messaging.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >that has caused them to flounder for alternative messaging Is there any precedent for anybody predicting the evolution of a pathogen like this in detail, in advance? This is just such a weird thing to trigger people, from my perspective. And so was Fauci's early comments on masks.
    - jfengel 5y ago
      It's entirely about long-standing culture wars, not epidemiology. In that it's rather predictable, albeit disappointing. The recent uptick in vaccinations coincides with a partial reversal of tactic by one of the most prominent ideological media sources, and maybe that will push us to the magical but arbitrary 70%. What happens then is anybody's guess.
peakaboo 5y ago
It makes no sense to take that vaccine to me. But I'm watching the absolute majority go and inject it into their bodies.
- geofft 5y ago
  You both raise an interesting point - the most common reason cited for not getting the vaccine is safety. People say that it hasn't been tested, that we don't know what it does, that people "shed the spike protein," etc. Which I think reinforces my point about the bias of this source, actually: if they were genuinely worried about "safetyism," they would be interested in trying to figure out why so many otherwise-well-adjusted adults seem afraid to take this vaccine, afraid of other people "shedding," afraid of attacks on civil liberties if they wear a mask, afraid that businesses will go under, afraid of a New Normal, and so forth. They would be asking how to make people less afraid of all these things; as they say, progress is impossible without physical or emotional risk. But they have concluded, a priori, that the problem is public health officials being too "safetyist," and they're interested only in research that supports that conclusion. I do, actually, think both of you should be prohibited from participating in society if you refuse to take the vaccine, and I think that this position is at least as justifiable as anything CSPI believes. I do think that both of you are making bad cost-benefit analyses in refusing to take the vaccine, and this is a problem for society that should be fixed.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    > ...and this is a problem for society that should be fixed. Yikes! So you now refer to people you disagree with as problems that society must fix? What about if I get the vaccine and then suffer an adverse reaction that must be paid for by society (the government)? Does that not affect society either? Should we fix that problem? Here's why you are wrong: * COVID hardly kills. * New Zealand just announced that they are locking down over one case of COVID. * The vaccines are losing effectiveness. * Vaccinated people can still spread the virus. To be honest with you, believing that people who make bad cost-benefit analyses should be prohibited from participating in society is an argument for the War on Drugs. Do you like the War on Drugs? I don't.

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!).

xboxnolifes 5y ago

> 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. Honestly, the US has met the number of vaccinated people I expected to see, even ignoring any cost-benefit analysis of the specific vaccines available. When I looked at other vaccination rates in the US before the COVID vaccine rollouts, I expected the COVID vaccination rate to meet somewhere in the 50% to 70% range at the end of everything. I don't know what the target goal was for whoever in the government tracks this, or what the public was expecting, but I was expecting the 60%-70% range to be the end goal. Right now we're at 60% at least one dose, 50% full vaccination.

jfengel 5y ago
The government was hoping to hit 70% quickly, and then work its way up to 80-90%. 70% was their notional "herd immunity" number. It didn't have a really firm scientific grounding, but it was a useful target. They were hoping that people would get behind pushing it up to that number without coaxing, and then a combination of momentum and coaxing would push it well past. They assumed that perhaps 10-20% would be just plain ornery about it, but given the hundreds of thousands of deaths, most would err on the side of getting it. That assumes it was generally seen as safe and effective, which means that they see lots of people getting it and contrasting that with the vast numbers of people dying. Those assumptions turned out to be faulty, for a number of reasons. And that has caused them to flounder for alternative messaging.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >that has caused them to flounder for alternative messaging Is there any precedent for anybody predicting the evolution of a pathogen like this in detail, in advance? This is just such a weird thing to trigger people, from my perspective. And so was Fauci's early comments on masks.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    It's entirely about long-standing culture wars, not epidemiology. In that it's rather predictable, albeit disappointing. The recent uptick in vaccinations coincides with a partial reversal of tactic by one of the most prominent ideological media sources, and maybe that will push us to the magical but arbitrary 70%. What happens then is anybody's guess.

peakaboo 5y ago

It makes no sense to take that vaccine to me. But I'm watching the absolute majority go and inject it into their bodies.

geofft 5y ago
You both raise an interesting point - the most common reason cited for not getting the vaccine is safety. People say that it hasn't been tested, that we don't know what it does, that people "shed the spike protein," etc. Which I think reinforces my point about the bias of this source, actually: if they were genuinely worried about "safetyism," they would be interested in trying to figure out why so many otherwise-well-adjusted adults seem afraid to take this vaccine, afraid of other people "shedding," afraid of attacks on civil liberties if they wear a mask, afraid that businesses will go under, afraid of a New Normal, and so forth. They would be asking how to make people less afraid of all these things; as they say, progress is impossible without physical or emotional risk. But they have concluded, a priori, that the problem is public health officials being too "safetyist," and they're interested only in research that supports that conclusion. I do, actually, think both of you should be prohibited from participating in society if you refuse to take the vaccine, and I think that this position is at least as justifiable as anything CSPI believes. I do think that both of you are making bad cost-benefit analyses in refusing to take the vaccine, and this is a problem for society that should be fixed.
- ghoward 5y ago
  > ...and this is a problem for society that should be fixed. Yikes! So you now refer to people you disagree with as problems that society must fix? What about if I get the vaccine and then suffer an adverse reaction that must be paid for by society (the government)? Does that not affect society either? Should we fix that problem? Here's why you are wrong: * COVID hardly kills. * New Zealand just announced that they are locking down over one case of COVID. * The vaccines are losing effectiveness. * Vaccinated people can still spread the virus. To be honest with you, believing that people who make bad cost-benefit analyses should be prohibited from participating in society is an argument for the War on Drugs. Do you like the War on Drugs? I don't.