3 ms·

> "The reason it seems like there's no hysteria around cars is because we've already gone through that phase and implemented the best safeguards we could come u

> "The reason it seems like there's no hysteria around cars is because we've already gone through that phase and implemented the best safeguards we could come up with..." no, we've just collectively decided that we're willing to put up with the small risk. it's nowehere near all that we could come up with. we could be much more stringent (stricter licensing & testing, tougher and more diverse training, more danger-apparent roads, better segregating roads from streets, fewer in-car and out-of-car distractions, more rigorous enforcement, higher carbon/fuel taxes, congestion pricing, stricter pollution standards, dense mixed-use neighborhoods, greater transit investment, etc.) and further reduce that risk, but we've collectively decided that the imposition and cost are not worth it (though i personally disagree). cars are a visible and imminent threat every day, in much the same way that covid is perceived to be, as a new member of the constellation of endemic infectious diseases we now live with. as for the rest, torturing analogies that way merely to coerce them into fitting a desired explication is cruel and unusual punishment imho. i can't partake in good conscience.

tolmasky 5y ago
> as for the rest, torturing analogies that way merely to coerce them into fitting a desired explication is cruel and unusual punishment imho. i can't partake in good conscience. It’s OK to just admit you chose a really bad comparison point, there are others that would probably support your case better, you just happened to choose one of the most heavily regulated areas that has had plenty of constitutional challenges (see everything around breathalyzer checkpoints and the 5th amendment), as well as one of the ones that went through the most hysteria: Ralph Nader built an entire career after publishing “Unsafe at Any Speed” and then testifying to Congress which rocked the automotive world and lead to a ton of regulations. This was all in the 60s though, so easy to forget. But for a more recent example, MADD became a huge “hysteria” to the point of the ACLU fighting against them over the constitutionality of roadblocks. Whether you think it’s justified or not (and to be clear, I’m not arguing either side in this instance), it’s undeniable that car safety was on people’s mind in a big way, and not just in one specific moment in time, but on several separate occasions, over many different issues. I mean, hell, the driver’s license is the closest thing we have to the feared “government ID,” so even the expansion of scope arguments apply. With regard to “how much we could do” — sure, same can be said with COVID. There’s way more we could do than forcing employees of companies with over 100 people to take a free vaccine or be tested. There’s tremendously more drastic measures that could be taken. As such, the investment is at best comparable (and in reality much smaller) than what we’ve done for cars.
- clairity 5y ago
  vehicle safety has experienced a decades-long but dilute attention (of which nader and madd are two minor blips) befitting of its risk, the kind we should apply to covid rather than the mass hysteria it currently enjoys. covid doesn't need more attention and mitigation, because none of it will reduce the long-run consequences materially (relative to both the fully-internalized costs and other comparable risks).
  - tolmasky 5y ago
    Do you think that the OSHA requirement this thread is specifically relating to (which is less strict than vaccine requirements in most schools) qualifies as too much attention, or are you referring to the different levels of attention it has gotten from the various other companies/governments/etc.?
    - clairity 5y ago
      yes, too much of the wrong kind of attention and focus. biden had to do something splashy considering his approval ratings have been hovering in the low 40's for a while, and covid continues to garner the broad mediopolitical attention he needs in that regard. if our collective attention had been on vehicle injuries/deaths, he would have made arbitrary pronouncements in that arena instead. these current pronouncements require some significant portion (perhaps 40+%) of 100 million people to give in to political aims or face unemployment and potentially destitution, to slow down a virus that is going to burn through the whole population eventually (and do so again and again). presumably by now everyone who's risk-averse or at elevated risk has gotten vaccinated. so now that those folks are vaccinated, why force others to do so, other than for political reasons (and for no other seasonal maladies killing tens to hundreds of thousands)? it won't stop spread, mutation, illness, or even death, but rather will only prolong the pandemic while shoveling federal dollars at pharma, making it a purely political gambit. on top of the vaccination levels we have now, we can get the same epidemiological slowdown without the socioeconomic costs via some modest distancing indoors and mask wearing by public-facing workers (like cashiers) and in social settings (like at home, not generally out in public where it does practically nothing), but that doesn't have nearly the same political punch.

tolmasky 5y ago

> as for the rest, torturing analogies that way merely to coerce them into fitting a desired explication is cruel and unusual punishment imho. i can't partake in good conscience. It’s OK to just admit you chose a really bad comparison point, there are others that would probably support your case better, you just happened to choose one of the most heavily regulated areas that has had plenty of constitutional challenges (see everything around breathalyzer checkpoints and the 5th amendment), as well as one of the ones that went through the most hysteria: Ralph Nader built an entire career after publishing “Unsafe at Any Speed” and then testifying to Congress which rocked the automotive world and lead to a ton of regulations. This was all in the 60s though, so easy to forget. But for a more recent example, MADD became a huge “hysteria” to the point of the ACLU fighting against them over the constitutionality of roadblocks. Whether you think it’s justified or not (and to be clear, I’m not arguing either side in this instance), it’s undeniable that car safety was on people’s mind in a big way, and not just in one specific moment in time, but on several separate occasions, over many different issues. I mean, hell, the driver’s license is the closest thing we have to the feared “government ID,” so even the expansion of scope arguments apply. With regard to “how much we could do” — sure, same can be said with COVID. There’s way more we could do than forcing employees of companies with over 100 people to take a free vaccine or be tested. There’s tremendously more drastic measures that could be taken. As such, the investment is at best comparable (and in reality much smaller) than what we’ve done for cars.

clairity 5y ago
vehicle safety has experienced a decades-long but dilute attention (of which nader and madd are two minor blips) befitting of its risk, the kind we should apply to covid rather than the mass hysteria it currently enjoys. covid doesn't need more attention and mitigation, because none of it will reduce the long-run consequences materially (relative to both the fully-internalized costs and other comparable risks).
- tolmasky 5y ago
  Do you think that the OSHA requirement this thread is specifically relating to (which is less strict than vaccine requirements in most schools) qualifies as too much attention, or are you referring to the different levels of attention it has gotten from the various other companies/governments/etc.?
  - clairity 5y ago
    yes, too much of the wrong kind of attention and focus. biden had to do something splashy considering his approval ratings have been hovering in the low 40's for a while, and covid continues to garner the broad mediopolitical attention he needs in that regard. if our collective attention had been on vehicle injuries/deaths, he would have made arbitrary pronouncements in that arena instead. these current pronouncements require some significant portion (perhaps 40+%) of 100 million people to give in to political aims or face unemployment and potentially destitution, to slow down a virus that is going to burn through the whole population eventually (and do so again and again). presumably by now everyone who's risk-averse or at elevated risk has gotten vaccinated. so now that those folks are vaccinated, why force others to do so, other than for political reasons (and for no other seasonal maladies killing tens to hundreds of thousands)? it won't stop spread, mutation, illness, or even death, but rather will only prolong the pandemic while shoveling federal dollars at pharma, making it a purely political gambit. on top of the vaccination levels we have now, we can get the same epidemiological slowdown without the socioeconomic costs via some modest distancing indoors and mask wearing by public-facing workers (like cashiers) and in social settings (like at home, not generally out in public where it does practically nothing), but that doesn't have nearly the same political punch.