7 ms·

What’s more interesting is that most of these people will survive this episode (given the known mortality data) and thus will “win” the debate (from their point

by outime 5y ago

What’s more interesting is that most of these people will survive this episode (given the known mortality data) and thus will “win” the debate (from their point of view) and will never ever trust the government (or health authorities) again. That’s the biggest downside in reality, and regaining the trust is going to be extremely complicated.

nverno 5y ago
But the upside is that hopefully the govt/health authorities will learn a lesson and be better in the future. Id say in these situations any fallout is always the govt's fault since it is there to serve the people- a case of the customer is always right.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > But the upside is that hopefully the govt/health authorities will learn a lesson and be better in the future. But there's only so much they can do. Sowing distrust has proven to provide short-term self-benefit to many powerful interests (e.g. political factions, partisan media). Even if the health authorities have a perfect strategy, those interests will find an opening to subvert it (e.g. portraying initial confusion as lying).
  - Jensson 5y ago
    In a multi party system sowing distrust in an opposing party doesn't help your party, it mostly helps parties adjacent to that party. So then the goal becomes to be as trustworthy as possible to the public rather than make the public hate the enemy. It really solves many of these issues.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > In a multi party system sowing distrust in an opposing party doesn't help your party, it mostly helps parties adjacent to that party. So then the goal becomes to be as trustworthy as possible to the public rather than make the public hate the enemy. It really solves many of these issues. Does it through? I suppose what I had in mind wasn't so much narrowly-focused electioneering, but broader and somewhat sloppy gesticulations towards an ideological tendency. For instance, if there were two left-wing parties, a Rush Limbaugh could get both of them by encouraging his listeners to distrust the "left."
      - PeterisP 5y ago
        The voters of those left-wing parties identify as "left" so if a Rush Limbaugh encourages people to distrust the "left" then those voters simply distrust Rush Limbaugh instead of altering their vote. Otherwise, if he covers Left-1 party with shit, Left-2 gains voters; if he points out a scandal in Left-2, Left-1 gains voters; if he points out that both Left-1 and Left-2 have a horrible foreign policy, there's likely Left-3 that opposes Left-1 and Left-2 on that policy, but he won't convince them to vote for a Right party if there are reasonable Left options. Unlike the two-party scenario where you might disagree with your "main" party on a single key issue and thus feel forced to vote for "the other" party, in a multi-party environment you generally choose an alternative that's quite close in other aspects as well.
        tablespoon 5y ago
        > The voters of those left-wing parties identify as "left" so if a Rush Limbaugh encourages people to distrust the "left" then those voters simply distrust Rush Limbaugh instead of altering their vote. But what about the center? > if he points out that both Left-1 and Left-2 have a horrible foreign policy, there's likely Left-3 that opposes Left-1 and Left-2 on that policy That seems to assume there's a party for every combination of views, but is that realistic? How frequently is there a party that's say, hard right on social policy but very left on economic policy? I get the impression that it usually plays out that you get a few parties that are different "degrees" of left or right (say hard left, left, and center left).
        nverno 5y ago
        I don't think it is that unrealistic (not every combination, but popular ones). The results from parts of Europe that have many political parties, eg. Germany, show voters being relatively fluid over just a few years [1]. The US, on the other hand, has been consistently split in roughly two for ages. The combination of right on social/left on economics may be somewhat strange in the US now (and perhaps the west in general?), but in China it's the norm. [1] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/03/15/how-the-colour-palette-of-germanys-political-system-works https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/03/15/...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
JasonFruit 5y ago
I'm not trying to be flippant when I say that it's good that they will not trust government again, as long as that leads to greater public vigilance against government's creeping excesses and self-serving propaganda. If it prevents the next Iraq war and the next Japanese internment, I'm all for it.
- ajuc 5y ago
  > If it prevents the next Iraq war and the next Japanese internment, I'm all for it. How would it do that? Government didn't asked people about either of those. And if anything the people responsible for Iraq war will benefit from antivaxers votes.
  - ssully 5y ago
    Seriously. The vendiagram of people who would be for interment of a minority they distrust or a war for retribution, and the people currently rallying against mask/vaccine's would almost be a perfect circle.
    - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
      > people who would be for interment of a minority they distrust If the government announced tomorrow that they would be putting all unvaccinated people in internment camps for everyone's safety, how many people do you think would be in favor? I've certainly seen plenty of comments on the internet that would suggest it's not zero.
      - ssully 5y ago
        I would like to think that is something that would be acceptable to a fringe minority. Mandates are one thing; forced detention is like multiple steps further in the wrong direction.
      - philovivero 5y ago
        You are on hacker news. Left is good. Right is bad. Facts and reality will not change this formula. You are absolutely right. Just read the comments, not even "on the internet" but right here on HN. Some even seem in favour of a... "more extreme" solution yet than internment, and have not a shred of self-reflection when they talk a mad game about others being bad people.
jobigoud 5y ago
You can't really win the debate anyway: if everybody had followed strict isolation from the get go there wouldn't have been a pandemic and people would have said the restrictions were completely uncalled for.
- ryathal 5y ago
  This is one of the greatest falsehoods out there. A stricter lockdown wouldn't have changed much. Australia and New Zealand couldn't keep cases from popping up despite incredibly strict border control and lockdown procedures. There are also animal hosts that can incubate this virus, sure you can cull a mink farm, but you can't really do that to a wild deer herd.
  - anotherevan 5y ago
    Australia and New Zealand actually did quite well until delta came along. Speaking from Melbourne, Australia here, it certainly preserved life and (in the long run) the economy until vaccines came along (the rollout of which has been terribly bungled, but that's a different story.)
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  And the minute the restrictions were lifted the virus would be back again. Sorry. The idea that if we did lockdowns “right” this would be over is a lie. And to date I’ve yet to hear any “expert” tell the public that a strict lockdown wouldn’t work… all the more reason to not trust them.
  - somewhereoutth 5y ago
    It's over in China - has been for a while. I guess they did do lockdowns right.
hammock 5y ago
>That’s the biggest downside Downside for whom?
- sb52191 5y ago
  Society? People who want their fellow citizens to work toward greater goods collectively?
  - hammock 5y ago
    I guess we don't believe in disruption of suboptimal establishment forces anymore on HN.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      I think you are missing the point. Yes, lying governments don't deserve to be trusted. It is still unfortunate that the damage done may be so severe that for some people it will be irreparable. This isn't an absolution of the establishment, or a condemnation of those who lost trust. Increased barriers to developing better establishments in the future are still regrettable.
sto_hristo 5y ago
Such pandemics don't start every other year. Last great one was 100 years ago. So i wouldn't worry at all for the "winners", there's plenty of time for generations to refresh. Worry about government's inability to learn and improve based on past mistakes, also complacency. It's not hard to imagine 100 years from now, popular presidential guy spearheading the next great pandemic, calming the subjects down with the great medical advancements they had since today and how well prepared they are. Until nature, as it always does, disregards everything and does its own thing unchallenged.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  The vaccine hesitancy will impact vaccines for HPV, measles, HEP B, etc. etc. for generations.
  - skyde 5y ago
    it's not just the vaccine most of those people dont believe germs and virus are real. So I bet they will also stop washing hands or taking anti-biotic.
    - outime 5y ago
      I personally think we should stop labeling a whole diverse group under the most stupid categorization we can think of. Media is also guilty of this, for example when some outlet posted something like “anti-vaxxers are now drinking betadine” despite being an isolated act of stupidity. This type of confrontation will only yield more division and therefore enhance distrust.
  - Covzire 5y ago
    Most people against the COVID EUA vaccines are not anti-vaxx, at all.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > vaccine hesitancy will impact vaccines for HPV, measles, HEP B, etc. etc. for generations This will be geographically--and, over time, economically--isolated. Nearly 80% of American adults and over ¾ of eligible Americans have taken at least one dose of a Covid vaccine [1]. In the 65+ population, the figure is 95%. This simply isn't a big group of people, noisy as they may be. (Caveat: the group of people who are philosophically against vaccine mandates, but will get vaccinated anyway, is larger.) [1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-...

by outime 5y ago

nverno 5y ago

But the upside is that hopefully the govt/health authorities will learn a lesson and be better in the future. Id say in these situations any fallout is always the govt's fault since it is there to serve the people- a case of the customer is always right.

tablespoon 5y ago
> But the upside is that hopefully the govt/health authorities will learn a lesson and be better in the future. But there's only so much they can do. Sowing distrust has proven to provide short-term self-benefit to many powerful interests (e.g. political factions, partisan media). Even if the health authorities have a perfect strategy, those interests will find an opening to subvert it (e.g. portraying initial confusion as lying).
- Jensson 5y ago
  In a multi party system sowing distrust in an opposing party doesn't help your party, it mostly helps parties adjacent to that party. So then the goal becomes to be as trustworthy as possible to the public rather than make the public hate the enemy. It really solves many of these issues.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > In a multi party system sowing distrust in an opposing party doesn't help your party, it mostly helps parties adjacent to that party. So then the goal becomes to be as trustworthy as possible to the public rather than make the public hate the enemy. It really solves many of these issues. Does it through? I suppose what I had in mind wasn't so much narrowly-focused electioneering, but broader and somewhat sloppy gesticulations towards an ideological tendency. For instance, if there were two left-wing parties, a Rush Limbaugh could get both of them by encouraging his listeners to distrust the "left."
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      The voters of those left-wing parties identify as "left" so if a Rush Limbaugh encourages people to distrust the "left" then those voters simply distrust Rush Limbaugh instead of altering their vote. Otherwise, if he covers Left-1 party with shit, Left-2 gains voters; if he points out a scandal in Left-2, Left-1 gains voters; if he points out that both Left-1 and Left-2 have a horrible foreign policy, there's likely Left-3 that opposes Left-1 and Left-2 on that policy, but he won't convince them to vote for a Right party if there are reasonable Left options. Unlike the two-party scenario where you might disagree with your "main" party on a single key issue and thus feel forced to vote for "the other" party, in a multi-party environment you generally choose an alternative that's quite close in other aspects as well.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > The voters of those left-wing parties identify as "left" so if a Rush Limbaugh encourages people to distrust the "left" then those voters simply distrust Rush Limbaugh instead of altering their vote. But what about the center? > if he points out that both Left-1 and Left-2 have a horrible foreign policy, there's likely Left-3 that opposes Left-1 and Left-2 on that policy That seems to assume there's a party for every combination of views, but is that realistic? How frequently is there a party that's say, hard right on social policy but very left on economic policy? I get the impression that it usually plays out that you get a few parties that are different "degrees" of left or right (say hard left, left, and center left).
        nverno 5y ago
        I don't think it is that unrealistic (not every combination, but popular ones). The results from parts of Europe that have many political parties, eg. Germany, show voters being relatively fluid over just a few years [1]. The US, on the other hand, has been consistently split in roughly two for ages. The combination of right on social/left on economics may be somewhat strange in the US now (and perhaps the west in general?), but in China it's the norm. [1] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/03/15/how-the-colour-palette-of-germanys-political-system-works https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/03/15/...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

JasonFruit 5y ago

I'm not trying to be flippant when I say that it's good that they will not trust government again, as long as that leads to greater public vigilance against government's creeping excesses and self-serving propaganda. If it prevents the next Iraq war and the next Japanese internment, I'm all for it.

ajuc 5y ago
> If it prevents the next Iraq war and the next Japanese internment, I'm all for it. How would it do that? Government didn't asked people about either of those. And if anything the people responsible for Iraq war will benefit from antivaxers votes.
- ssully 5y ago
  Seriously. The vendiagram of people who would be for interment of a minority they distrust or a war for retribution, and the people currently rallying against mask/vaccine's would almost be a perfect circle.
  - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
    > people who would be for interment of a minority they distrust If the government announced tomorrow that they would be putting all unvaccinated people in internment camps for everyone's safety, how many people do you think would be in favor? I've certainly seen plenty of comments on the internet that would suggest it's not zero.
    - ssully 5y ago
      I would like to think that is something that would be acceptable to a fringe minority. Mandates are one thing; forced detention is like multiple steps further in the wrong direction.
    - philovivero 5y ago
      You are on hacker news. Left is good. Right is bad. Facts and reality will not change this formula. You are absolutely right. Just read the comments, not even "on the internet" but right here on HN. Some even seem in favour of a... "more extreme" solution yet than internment, and have not a shred of self-reflection when they talk a mad game about others being bad people.

jobigoud 5y ago

You can't really win the debate anyway: if everybody had followed strict isolation from the get go there wouldn't have been a pandemic and people would have said the restrictions were completely uncalled for.

ryathal 5y ago
This is one of the greatest falsehoods out there. A stricter lockdown wouldn't have changed much. Australia and New Zealand couldn't keep cases from popping up despite incredibly strict border control and lockdown procedures. There are also animal hosts that can incubate this virus, sure you can cull a mink farm, but you can't really do that to a wild deer herd.
- anotherevan 5y ago
  Australia and New Zealand actually did quite well until delta came along. Speaking from Melbourne, Australia here, it certainly preserved life and (in the long run) the economy until vaccines came along (the rollout of which has been terribly bungled, but that's a different story.)
spookthesunset 5y ago
And the minute the restrictions were lifted the virus would be back again. Sorry. The idea that if we did lockdowns “right” this would be over is a lie. And to date I’ve yet to hear any “expert” tell the public that a strict lockdown wouldn’t work… all the more reason to not trust them.
- somewhereoutth 5y ago
  It's over in China - has been for a while. I guess they did do lockdowns right.

hammock 5y ago

>That’s the biggest downside Downside for whom?

sb52191 5y ago
Society? People who want their fellow citizens to work toward greater goods collectively?
- hammock 5y ago
  I guess we don't believe in disruption of suboptimal establishment forces anymore on HN.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I think you are missing the point. Yes, lying governments don't deserve to be trusted. It is still unfortunate that the damage done may be so severe that for some people it will be irreparable. This isn't an absolution of the establishment, or a condemnation of those who lost trust. Increased barriers to developing better establishments in the future are still regrettable.

sto_hristo 5y ago

Such pandemics don't start every other year. Last great one was 100 years ago. So i wouldn't worry at all for the "winners", there's plenty of time for generations to refresh. Worry about government's inability to learn and improve based on past mistakes, also complacency. It's not hard to imagine 100 years from now, popular presidential guy spearheading the next great pandemic, calming the subjects down with the great medical advancements they had since today and how well prepared they are. Until nature, as it always does, disregards everything and does its own thing unchallenged.

Ensorceled 5y ago
The vaccine hesitancy will impact vaccines for HPV, measles, HEP B, etc. etc. for generations.
- skyde 5y ago
  it's not just the vaccine most of those people dont believe germs and virus are real. So I bet they will also stop washing hands or taking anti-biotic.
  - outime 5y ago
    I personally think we should stop labeling a whole diverse group under the most stupid categorization we can think of. Media is also guilty of this, for example when some outlet posted something like “anti-vaxxers are now drinking betadine” despite being an isolated act of stupidity. This type of confrontation will only yield more division and therefore enhance distrust.
- Covzire 5y ago
  Most people against the COVID EUA vaccines are not anti-vaxx, at all.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > vaccine hesitancy will impact vaccines for HPV, measles, HEP B, etc. etc. for generations This will be geographically--and, over time, economically--isolated. Nearly 80% of American adults and over ¾ of eligible Americans have taken at least one dose of a Covid vaccine [1]. In the 65+ population, the figure is 95%. This simply isn't a big group of people, noisy as they may be. (Caveat: the group of people who are philosophically against vaccine mandates, but will get vaccinated anyway, is larger.) [1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-...