3 ms·
Aren't the first and second point in conflict? Point 1 is basically "lockdowns are unnecessary because people will behave in a safe manner regardless". Point
by slg 5y ago
Aren't the first and second point in conflict?
Point 1 is basically "lockdowns are unnecessary because people will behave in a safe manner regardless".
Point 2 is basically "lockdowns are ineffective because they don't stop all forms of dangerous behavior".
If people are willing to continue some dangerous behavior as part of point 2, why do we think they would stop other dangerous behavior without the lockdown enforcing that decision?
- inimino 5y agoThere's certainly no logical contradiction there, right? You have one group of Careful Carlas who always behave safely, lockdown or not. You also have a group of Reckless Rogers, standing too close to people in supermarkets and not washing their hands. If either of these two groups is too big, you won't see a positive effect from lockdowns.
- slg 5y agoIs your argument that lockdowns have no impact on the behavior of the Reckless Rogers? If that is the case, why is there any objection to lockdowns when they can be ignored?
- cuteboy19 5y agoThe objection would be that they are a needless inconvenience
- slg 5y agoHow are they inconvenient if they have no impact on behavior? Either one can ignore the lockdown and continue their usual behavior or one can't ignore the lockdown and their behavior changes.
- inimino 5y agoIt's not so much that they have no effect, it's that the effect isn't enough to bring R_0 < 1, so it's going to be at best a slowing of the natural spread, which in practice, you aren't going to be able to measure or prove.