4 ms·

Is there a reason that you and many others default to the assumption that our leaders must be lying to us about covid? Not accusing, just curious why. Is it tha

Is there a reason that you and many others default to the assumption that our leaders must be lying to us about covid? Not accusing, just curious why. Is it that hard to believe that there actually is a novel virus circulating which is quite deadly to some people, and perceived by many to be a legitimate risk? Likewise, it is that hard to accept that currently no-one really knows how to 'stop' it? Is inaction, denial and protest really the best solution to a challenge like this?

bsksi 5y ago
Is taking our freedoms sine die the best solution, though?
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  "But it's temporary" "just trust us"
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  I don't know, but it's likely that a knee-jerk reaction against any and all intervention-- which is seemingly where things are in much of the US-- is not an intelligent or informed strategy. Many societal problems are improved by 'taking our freedoms.' We enforce speed limits because fatalities are much more likely at speeds above 65 MPH, and many people speed or drive recklessly when they are running late. I hope we can trend towards finding some 'happy medium' between burdensome interventions with limited impact and just letting covid 'rip' through vulnerable populations.
- only_as_i_fall 5y ago
  If the only solution you have is a bad one than it is the best solution by default.
glanard_frugner 5y ago
it doesn’t even have to be a conspiracy. maybe our leaders are just really dumb and making dumb decisions, is that really so implausible? many of them are also older and in higher risk groups, could that factor into their decisions?
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  It's certainly true that in most democratic countries, older (and higher risk) people are a powerful voting block. From a moral perspective it also seems good to protect our elders. I would hope that when I am old, the younger generation does not just put me out to pasture. I have heard many advance the solution that older/high risk people should just stay home, but that's not really feasible either. Many elderly people live alone. Everyone needs basic supplies, medical care, social interaction etc, and each of these presents a vector for infection. I'm sure there is an optimal solution where the most effective interventions are deployed to protect the vulnerable, without massively inconveniencing everyone. There is no reason we should accept 1000+ deaths per day as normal. The problem is that neither side in this debate seems remotely willing to compromise and/or do the experimentation needed.
only_as_i_fall 5y ago
My personal opinion is that a large subset of adults is either unable or unwilling to accept that bad things can happen for no reason and there isn't always a solution.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  Yes, lots of psychologists believe that that the need to 'rationalize' catastrophes is the reason for many conspiracy theories: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721417718261 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/096372141771826...

bsksi 5y ago

Is taking our freedoms sine die the best solution, though?

908B64B197 5y ago
"But it's temporary" "just trust us"
jasonlaramburu 5y ago
I don't know, but it's likely that a knee-jerk reaction against any and all intervention-- which is seemingly where things are in much of the US-- is not an intelligent or informed strategy. Many societal problems are improved by 'taking our freedoms.' We enforce speed limits because fatalities are much more likely at speeds above 65 MPH, and many people speed or drive recklessly when they are running late. I hope we can trend towards finding some 'happy medium' between burdensome interventions with limited impact and just letting covid 'rip' through vulnerable populations.
only_as_i_fall 5y ago
If the only solution you have is a bad one than it is the best solution by default.

glanard_frugner 5y ago

it doesn’t even have to be a conspiracy. maybe our leaders are just really dumb and making dumb decisions, is that really so implausible? many of them are also older and in higher risk groups, could that factor into their decisions?

jasonlaramburu 5y ago
It's certainly true that in most democratic countries, older (and higher risk) people are a powerful voting block. From a moral perspective it also seems good to protect our elders. I would hope that when I am old, the younger generation does not just put me out to pasture. I have heard many advance the solution that older/high risk people should just stay home, but that's not really feasible either. Many elderly people live alone. Everyone needs basic supplies, medical care, social interaction etc, and each of these presents a vector for infection. I'm sure there is an optimal solution where the most effective interventions are deployed to protect the vulnerable, without massively inconveniencing everyone. There is no reason we should accept 1000+ deaths per day as normal. The problem is that neither side in this debate seems remotely willing to compromise and/or do the experimentation needed.

only_as_i_fall 5y ago

My personal opinion is that a large subset of adults is either unable or unwilling to accept that bad things can happen for no reason and there isn't always a solution.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago
Yes, lots of psychologists believe that that the need to 'rationalize' catastrophes is the reason for many conspiracy theories: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721417718261 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/096372141771826...