6 ms·

The problem is policy. Imagine two friends, Alice and Bob. Alice thinks COVID is not a problem. Doesn't mask, hasn't had a single shot, all the rest. Bob is te

by donw 5y ago

The problem is policy. Imagine two friends, Alice and Bob. Alice thinks COVID is not a problem. Doesn't mask, hasn't had a single shot, all the rest. Bob is terrified of COVID. Masks up at home, space bubble helmet outside, all the rest. The only outcome that works is Alice and Bob agreeing that they have different risk preferences. That they each should live their lives in accordance, but that they have no right to force each other to adopt the same behaviors. Bob gets used to doing a lot of stuff over Zoom, and Alice gets used to doing a lot more Zoom calls than she did before. What if, instead, Bob tries to force the entire world to wear masks all the time, and undergo an endless stream of boosters, all in order to satisfy his risk preference? Alice will respond in-kind, and now we're in a tit-for-tat situation. Endless retaliation. Now, imagine that Bob has political power, and can mandate his desires into law. Bob has now used deadly force -- the police -- to coerce Alice into doing what he wants. Alice, being a big fan of consent, is having none of it... and that's where we are today. Same would be true if the roles were reversed.

MengerSponge 5y ago
stirfish 5y ago
- Chris2048 5y ago
  There's a big difference between "can't go to a restaurant without vaccine" and "must be vaccinated".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
coliveira 5y ago
Imagine two friends, Alice and Bob. Alice thinks that wearing seat belts in airplanes is not necessary...
mindslight 5y ago
Thank you for your example of how to mislead with non-factual strawmen. This example might be connected to reality if: 1. There actually was a law requiring individuals "wear masks all the time". 2. There actually was a law requiring individuals to get an "endless stream of boosters". 3. Alice respected the boundaries of private businesses that made wearing respiratory protection or vaccination a requirement of associating with them. 4. Alice respected personal preferences of people wearing respiratory protection, rather than violating their personal space or perhaps even assaulting them. 5. Alice paid the costs of her own healthcare, and/or her "insurance" company were efficient enough to charge for her expected increased costs. 6. Healthcare providers were able to freely disassociate with Alice as to not have an undue burden on their resources due to the results of Alice's choices. 7. Alice displayed rational recognition of the scientific and legal realities she was dealing with, rather that irrational rejection of such. 8. Alice displayed some understanding of historical precedents, as pandemics are infrequent events that only appear novel. I'm a libertarian, so if you want to discuss practical ways of making it so that different value judgements can coexist, I'm all for it. It starts with acknowledging the existing non-independence like the points I listed, and will generally be about nuanced corrections to the medical consensus rather than wholesale rejection. But really, it's fallacious to frame the larger situation as being about individual freedom when the overriding characteristic is political herd behavior. What has really happened is an abrupt change in prevailing conditions, combined with professional political machines preaching simplistic easy answers that play to peoples' biases.
- stirfish 5y ago
  >Alice respected personal preferences of people wearing respiratory protection, I've found that a lot of people think of the masks like a gas mask - supposed to keep everything bad out. They are more like the breath guard at the salad bar - keeping you from exhaling droplets six feet in front of you. Bob's mask protects Alice more than it protects Bob.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    If you're still making do with an ersatz cloth mask, sure. I've been wearing a P100 from the start of the pandemic. Both bowls of political Kool Aid are actively harmful - framing PPE as being about protecting others has also damaged the discourse. Edit: also, I do agree that keeping stuff out of the air is preferable to filtering it after the fact (especially with mucous membranes etc). This concern is addressed somewhat by (3), and also by the additional point that Alice needs to demonstrate empathy of understanding and respecting Bob's choice as well.
maximus-decimus 5y ago
What if Bob is afraid of other people firing their guns in their backyard because he doesn't want to get killed by stray bullets. It just doesn't work anymore because the risk Alice and Bob are taking depends more on what other people do than what they themselves do. After all Bob isn't gonna kill himself with a stray bullet. Bob not shooting guns but Alice shooting guns while pointing in Bob's house direction doesn't solve the problem.
- donw 5y ago
  Anybody unable to grasp the difference between "virus with a sub-1% mortality rate for healthy working-age adults" and "inbound suppressive fire" does not get a seat at the risk-discussion table.

by donw 5y ago

MengerSponge 5y ago

stirfish 5y ago

Chris2048 5y ago
There's a big difference between "can't go to a restaurant without vaccine" and "must be vaccinated".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

coliveira 5y ago

Imagine two friends, Alice and Bob. Alice thinks that wearing seat belts in airplanes is not necessary...

mindslight 5y ago

Thank you for your example of how to mislead with non-factual strawmen. This example might be connected to reality if: 1. There actually was a law requiring individuals "wear masks all the time". 2. There actually was a law requiring individuals to get an "endless stream of boosters". 3. Alice respected the boundaries of private businesses that made wearing respiratory protection or vaccination a requirement of associating with them. 4. Alice respected personal preferences of people wearing respiratory protection, rather than violating their personal space or perhaps even assaulting them. 5. Alice paid the costs of her own healthcare, and/or her "insurance" company were efficient enough to charge for her expected increased costs. 6. Healthcare providers were able to freely disassociate with Alice as to not have an undue burden on their resources due to the results of Alice's choices. 7. Alice displayed rational recognition of the scientific and legal realities she was dealing with, rather that irrational rejection of such. 8. Alice displayed some understanding of historical precedents, as pandemics are infrequent events that only appear novel. I'm a libertarian, so if you want to discuss practical ways of making it so that different value judgements can coexist, I'm all for it. It starts with acknowledging the existing non-independence like the points I listed, and will generally be about nuanced corrections to the medical consensus rather than wholesale rejection. But really, it's fallacious to frame the larger situation as being about individual freedom when the overriding characteristic is political herd behavior. What has really happened is an abrupt change in prevailing conditions, combined with professional political machines preaching simplistic easy answers that play to peoples' biases.

stirfish 5y ago
>Alice respected personal preferences of people wearing respiratory protection, I've found that a lot of people think of the masks like a gas mask - supposed to keep everything bad out. They are more like the breath guard at the salad bar - keeping you from exhaling droplets six feet in front of you. Bob's mask protects Alice more than it protects Bob.
- mindslight 5y ago
  If you're still making do with an ersatz cloth mask, sure. I've been wearing a P100 from the start of the pandemic. Both bowls of political Kool Aid are actively harmful - framing PPE as being about protecting others has also damaged the discourse. Edit: also, I do agree that keeping stuff out of the air is preferable to filtering it after the fact (especially with mucous membranes etc). This concern is addressed somewhat by (3), and also by the additional point that Alice needs to demonstrate empathy of understanding and respecting Bob's choice as well.

maximus-decimus 5y ago

What if Bob is afraid of other people firing their guns in their backyard because he doesn't want to get killed by stray bullets. It just doesn't work anymore because the risk Alice and Bob are taking depends more on what other people do than what they themselves do. After all Bob isn't gonna kill himself with a stray bullet. Bob not shooting guns but Alice shooting guns while pointing in Bob's house direction doesn't solve the problem.

donw 5y ago
Anybody unable to grasp the difference between "virus with a sub-1% mortality rate for healthy working-age adults" and "inbound suppressive fire" does not get a seat at the risk-discussion table.