5 ms·

I think you meant to reply to someone else, because you're quoting words that I didn't write. If I was running things, I would tell people that they have no po

by Natsu 5y ago

I think you meant to reply to someone else, because you're quoting words that I didn't write. If I was running things, I would tell people that they have no power to punish anyone whatsoever and design the Covid rules with that in mind, making them focused entirely on helping people instead of controlling them.

jjgreen 5y ago
To be fair, "helping people comply with rules" and "just follow the rules" are pretty much synonymous.
- Natsu 5y ago
  Properly understood, they're on opposite sides of the equation and as mentioned, I'd prefer not to do any punishment at all, because I feel like that cuts off most of the nonsense. So that means giving people masks if they don't have one or making reasonable accommodations where possible and making interventions about safety. But I know it's not quite so easy and especially now a lot of people are hardened and less willing to work together to smooth things over.
  - jjgreen 5y ago
    "Prefer" is pretty woolly, what happens when push comes to shove? "Well thank you for offering me that mask, but masks simply don't work" [hands you a copy of the DANMASK19 paper]. Do you punish the person why defies you or not?
    - Natsu 5y ago
      Yes, it's not easy. In general I prefer interventions like avoiding them, offering them an alternate way to shop (online/someone will gather a list of the items they want/etc.), or similar measures. I doubt there's any perfect answer. I do feel if things had been like "here's a mask" from the start, though, that there wouldn't be nearly as many people refusing them.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > But I know it's not quite so easy and especially now a lot of people are hardened and less willing to work together to smooth things over. The whole point of enforcing public health and safety rules is that a significant percentage of the population is uninformed/misinformed and shows poor decision-making skills based on their personal risk perception and how they value the impact of their own actions on everyone else's risk. If it only takes one ignorant fool to spread a deadly disease to dozens around him, how do you expect to mitigate or contain a pandemic?
    - Natsu 5y ago
      That's the point, you can't. That's why I believe that softer interventions like this would've reduced the number of people who turned hard against this as they wouldn't have nonsense to point at like that guy who got arrested for being alone on the beach or whatnot. The resistance is proportional to the force used and the polarization of the populace. I'm trying to reduce those factors. Look at all the non-polarized states and you see that people aren't trying to manipulate each other into doing what they want, they're trying to help each other. This isn't typhoid Mary, you can't just quarantine one person. I hope that we can patch the vaccine escape from Delta with boosters, but even that is unclear.
clairity 5y ago
> "If I was running things, I would tell people that they have no power to punish anyone whatsoever and design the Covid rules with that in mind, making them focused entirely on helping people instead of controlling them." to be fair, i agree that we should avoid punishing people for making different risk calculations, and resultant choices, because as a population, it's advantageous to have a variety of strategies employed simultaneously to any potential catastrophe. folks who are trying to coerce a singular "right" approach are literally wrong in their meta-approach. however, the phrasing of your initial comment fails to recognize that a range of responses could be entirely valid, and suggests 'helping' people find the one right and true way. the better phrasing and intention is to admit that many approaches can simultaneously be valuable, and focus less on being right. being humble is recognizing that no one of us (or even a group) ever has perfect and complete information, and that we should act compassionately and acceptingly towards our fellow humans in light of this truth. yes, we should share information with each other, but we should also accept that people will actualize that information differently because we're each touching different parts of the elephant[0] and are acting in accordance with our different senses. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
- Natsu 5y ago
  Well, I agree that there are valid reasons to make different risk calculations, however, part of that calculation has to be the chance of catching and spreading Covid to people who have higher risk. I personally have almost no risk from Covid. But if I don't take precautions I could easily kill grandma, who can't vaccinate, and others at the nursing home. I agree that there's no one true risk calculation for everyone, and there are costs whatever we do, but a lot of this would be solved if we were trying to help each other instead of fighting.
  - clairity 5y ago
    > "...I could easily kill grandma..." see, there's the hyperbole that makes you lose credibility. ~95% of those 65 and older in the US are vaccinated. visiting with grandma (or any family, for that matter) is an instance where wearing a mask (and certainly a number of other potential mitigations) could make a difference, so use your brain to make that assessment, not some brainless heuristic infringed upon you by an irrelevant affiliation.
nuerow 5y ago
> I would tell people that they have no power to punish anyone whatsoever and design the Covid rules with that in mind, making them focused entirely on helping people instead of controlling them. How effective do you believe your approach would be? An unenforceable rule is merely a suggestion, and one which relies on responsible and informed decision-making to be followed. If anything, the current state of affairs shows that ignorance and irresponsible behavior runs rampant, and we're seeing reckless idiots putting everyone around them at risk.
- roenxi 5y ago
  The alternative is a world where a ~66% majority (if that) can override the remainder on their medical decisions - which is about as personal as decisions can get. The "force them to do what I say" approach will cause more damage the more effective it is. If this is an option for vaccines, there are a lot of things out there that are more important than COVID.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > The alternative is a world where a ~66% majority (if that) can override the remainder on their medical decisions - which is about as personal as decisions can get. I'm sure that those who repeat the "rights and freedom" mantra are also aware that there is a tradeoff between individual freedom and the ability to live in a free society, which requires tradeoffs between your own personal freedom and the individual freedom of everyone around you. The case of Typhoid Mary is a great example. Should she be entitled to dictate her "medical decisions" and not be subjected to any form of quarantine? Your argument is actually not about freedom at all, but about exceptionalism, entitlements, and excluding yourself from any responsibility or duty towards ensuring that the priviledges you enjoy are also made available to others.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      > Your argument is actually not about freedom at all, but about exceptionalism, entitlements, and excluding yourself from any responsibility or duty towards ensuring that the priviledges you enjoy are also made available to others. The technical term I prefer is "basic human rights". Like right to work, right to freedom of movement, right to associate, etc, etc. That might be a bit entitled I suppose.

by Natsu 5y ago

jjgreen 5y ago

To be fair, "helping people comply with rules" and "just follow the rules" are pretty much synonymous.

Natsu 5y ago
Properly understood, they're on opposite sides of the equation and as mentioned, I'd prefer not to do any punishment at all, because I feel like that cuts off most of the nonsense. So that means giving people masks if they don't have one or making reasonable accommodations where possible and making interventions about safety. But I know it's not quite so easy and especially now a lot of people are hardened and less willing to work together to smooth things over.
- jjgreen 5y ago
  "Prefer" is pretty woolly, what happens when push comes to shove? "Well thank you for offering me that mask, but masks simply don't work" [hands you a copy of the DANMASK19 paper]. Do you punish the person why defies you or not?
  - Natsu 5y ago
    Yes, it's not easy. In general I prefer interventions like avoiding them, offering them an alternate way to shop (online/someone will gather a list of the items they want/etc.), or similar measures. I doubt there's any perfect answer. I do feel if things had been like "here's a mask" from the start, though, that there wouldn't be nearly as many people refusing them.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > But I know it's not quite so easy and especially now a lot of people are hardened and less willing to work together to smooth things over. The whole point of enforcing public health and safety rules is that a significant percentage of the population is uninformed/misinformed and shows poor decision-making skills based on their personal risk perception and how they value the impact of their own actions on everyone else's risk. If it only takes one ignorant fool to spread a deadly disease to dozens around him, how do you expect to mitigate or contain a pandemic?
  - Natsu 5y ago
    That's the point, you can't. That's why I believe that softer interventions like this would've reduced the number of people who turned hard against this as they wouldn't have nonsense to point at like that guy who got arrested for being alone on the beach or whatnot. The resistance is proportional to the force used and the polarization of the populace. I'm trying to reduce those factors. Look at all the non-polarized states and you see that people aren't trying to manipulate each other into doing what they want, they're trying to help each other. This isn't typhoid Mary, you can't just quarantine one person. I hope that we can patch the vaccine escape from Delta with boosters, but even that is unclear.

clairity 5y ago

> "If I was running things, I would tell people that they have no power to punish anyone whatsoever and design the Covid rules with that in mind, making them focused entirely on helping people instead of controlling them." to be fair, i agree that we should avoid punishing people for making different risk calculations, and resultant choices, because as a population, it's advantageous to have a variety of strategies employed simultaneously to any potential catastrophe. folks who are trying to coerce a singular "right" approach are literally wrong in their meta-approach. however, the phrasing of your initial comment fails to recognize that a range of responses could be entirely valid, and suggests 'helping' people find the one right and true way. the better phrasing and intention is to admit that many approaches can simultaneously be valuable, and focus less on being right. being humble is recognizing that no one of us (or even a group) ever has perfect and complete information, and that we should act compassionately and acceptingly towards our fellow humans in light of this truth. yes, we should share information with each other, but we should also accept that people will actualize that information differently because we're each touching different parts of the elephant[0] and are acting in accordance with our different senses. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Natsu 5y ago
Well, I agree that there are valid reasons to make different risk calculations, however, part of that calculation has to be the chance of catching and spreading Covid to people who have higher risk. I personally have almost no risk from Covid. But if I don't take precautions I could easily kill grandma, who can't vaccinate, and others at the nursing home. I agree that there's no one true risk calculation for everyone, and there are costs whatever we do, but a lot of this would be solved if we were trying to help each other instead of fighting.
- clairity 5y ago
  > "...I could easily kill grandma..." see, there's the hyperbole that makes you lose credibility. ~95% of those 65 and older in the US are vaccinated. visiting with grandma (or any family, for that matter) is an instance where wearing a mask (and certainly a number of other potential mitigations) could make a difference, so use your brain to make that assessment, not some brainless heuristic infringed upon you by an irrelevant affiliation.

nuerow 5y ago

> I would tell people that they have no power to punish anyone whatsoever and design the Covid rules with that in mind, making them focused entirely on helping people instead of controlling them. How effective do you believe your approach would be? An unenforceable rule is merely a suggestion, and one which relies on responsible and informed decision-making to be followed. If anything, the current state of affairs shows that ignorance and irresponsible behavior runs rampant, and we're seeing reckless idiots putting everyone around them at risk.

roenxi 5y ago
The alternative is a world where a ~66% majority (if that) can override the remainder on their medical decisions - which is about as personal as decisions can get. The "force them to do what I say" approach will cause more damage the more effective it is. If this is an option for vaccines, there are a lot of things out there that are more important than COVID.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > The alternative is a world where a ~66% majority (if that) can override the remainder on their medical decisions - which is about as personal as decisions can get. I'm sure that those who repeat the "rights and freedom" mantra are also aware that there is a tradeoff between individual freedom and the ability to live in a free society, which requires tradeoffs between your own personal freedom and the individual freedom of everyone around you. The case of Typhoid Mary is a great example. Should she be entitled to dictate her "medical decisions" and not be subjected to any form of quarantine? Your argument is actually not about freedom at all, but about exceptionalism, entitlements, and excluding yourself from any responsibility or duty towards ensuring that the priviledges you enjoy are also made available to others.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > Your argument is actually not about freedom at all, but about exceptionalism, entitlements, and excluding yourself from any responsibility or duty towards ensuring that the priviledges you enjoy are also made available to others. The technical term I prefer is "basic human rights". Like right to work, right to freedom of movement, right to associate, etc, etc. That might be a bit entitled I suppose.