7 ms·

One cool thing about the pandemic is that many countries took the opportunity to run large-scale social experiments under the guise of Covid Restrictions. I exp

One cool thing about the pandemic is that many countries took the opportunity to run large-scale social experiments under the guise of Covid Restrictions. I expect social scientists will be digging into this data for years to come. One experiment in South Africa was banning the sale, or transportation, of alcohol. (Production and consumption was still allowed, just not sale or transportation.) This resulted in a marked decrease in hospital admissions, traffic accidents and domestic crimes. [1] The ban would morph during the first year of Covid, alternately covering things like trading hours, availability in restaurants and so on. Some restrictions were more effective than others, and overall effectiveness decreased as the population got smarter about stocking up with sufficient quantities to bypass any restrictions. Even the hint of restrictions now (such as was rumored to happen, but did not happen, when Omicron was first recognized) resulted in huge surges of sales. Generally speaking though more restrictions resulted in fewer hospital admissions. Clearly prohibition taught us that a blanket ban on alcohol just incentivizes organized crime. So it's not like a long-term ban is useful. But the effects of lowering alcohol consumption are also clear. Balancing these two very conflicting points of view is going to be a challenge for society as we move forward. [2] [1] Clearly not all decreases are solely because of this, less traffic means fewer accidents for example, but it's considered to be a high contributing factor. [2] https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/547654/what-all-those-lockdown-bans-mean-for-future-alcohol-regulation-in-south-africa/ https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/547654/what-all-t...

mmmpop 5y ago
"Interesting" perhaps... but our definitions of "cool" vary widely.
- bruce511 5y ago
  Cool because data is always cool :) More seriously,because it would simply be impossible to run these social experiments in normal circumstances. There are other examples; New Zealand and Australia tested a "closed border" approach, Sweden adopted a "personal responsibility" approach. Some places had curfews. The shere variety and scale of the last two years have generated enormous amounts of data, and matching data to long-term consequences will keep anthropologists busy for years. And just might inform better choices when the next one happens.
  - inter_netuser 5y ago
    For some, data is not needed to figure out that tyranny isn't worth investigating.
    - bruce511 5y ago
      I think possibly we have different definitions of tyranny
      - eggsbenedict 5y ago
        >many countries took the opportunity to run large-scale social experiments under the guise of Covid Restrictions Regardless of how you define tyranny, how can you be so blithely supportive of rule-by-decree in supposed democracies? Especially for the purpose of running "social experiments?" Covid Restrictions gained the grudging mandate of the masses, and in many places only by a hair, due to legitimate public-health concerns. Even in that context the subversion of legislative processes should be concerning. Running "experiments" on a non-consenting populace is at least the definition of dictatorship or oligarchy, if the word tyranny doesn't work for you.
        sdoering 5y ago
        > how can you be so blithely supportive of rule-by-decree in supposed democracies Because that is the reason we life in a democracy with checks and balances implemented. In Germany some decrees were canceled by our (up to the highest) courts, others were declared to be in line with the constitution. We elect officials (setting the policy) every four years to rule us in our name. So we hand them the right and the power to "rule-by-decree" as long as they do not leave the grounds of the constitution (and we have courts to check against that). > for the purpose of running "social experiments?" I actually think (and believe) that most politicians in most countries tried to safe people. As much people as possible while also taking other factors like the economy and the health sector and stuff into account. And yes: They overshot sometimes. Yes, they made massive mistakes. Yes, they sometimes filled their own (or buddies') pockets. Yes, the more this pandemic progresses the less I think our politicians really know what they are doing. But I never felt, that policies were implemented for the purpose of running an experiment. But the different implementations now offer the possibility to learn from them for the future. Like scientists looking at different implementations of daylight savings time and learning from that. Or different implementations of regulations regarding wearing helmets while driving motorcycles, regarding seat belt usage or even regarding the ability for contraception and abortion. The fact that we are allowed to disagree and publicly argue against restrictions, to challenge them in court imho shows that we are living in a democracy. But yeah - keep going on arguing about a straw man (that nobody but you put in place) like: > Running "experiments" on a non-consenting populace is at least the definition of dictatorship or oligarchy, if the word tyranny doesn't work for you.
vmception 5y ago
> This resulted in a marked decrease in hospital admissions, traffic accidents and domestic crimes. That was the same worldwide because nobody was outside. Holy retcon, Batman!
- bruce511 5y ago
  Yes, so it's not the only cause, but the reductions in SA were like 65% compared to the UK at about 25%
  - thrashh 5y ago
    But your article also says that SA has major issues with the regulation of alcohol consumption, issues that do not exist in a country like the US (according to the article).
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Traffic accidents actually went up in the US. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-12-08/traffic-deaths-surged-during-covid-19-pandemic-heres-why https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-12-08/traffi... Generally speaking, emptier roads encourage more speeding and reckless driving, increasing the severity of car accidents.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Guess we should have banned alcohol again.
  - pja 5y ago
    That's down to US road design I suspect: Wide multi lane roads with clear sight lines encourage drivers to think it's safe to go very fast. If these roads are normally congested with traffic then you don't see this downside, but when traffic dropped during the pandemic & it became possible to drive far too fast on these roads that's exactly what happened, with the inevitable consequences.
  - bsza 5y ago
Terry_Roll 5y ago
>One cool thing about the pandemic is that many countries took the opportunity to run large-scale social experiments under the guise of Covid Restrictions. I expect social scientists will be digging into this data for years to come. So I wonder how much was learnt from the error rates and signal strength variations from wifi enabled devices in a phased array radar setup in order to track human beings walking around their homes. I wonder what patterns were discovered and if it was possible to discover when arguments and falling outs showed up. What other data was garnered that could predict certain behaviours? I also wonder what would be discovered which will help with the isolation of space travel, like limited human contact, small human group dynamics, things like that.
kumarvvr 5y ago
The thing about human psychology is that if you tell someone not to do something, especially something that is not outright harmful to themselves or others, they will yearn to do it. The answer to alcoholism is to de-glamorize it. Young impressionable minds are susceptible to such glamorization. If governments around the world are seriously committed to reduce alcohol consumption, better shun it, rather than putting in laws to prohibit or restrict it. Ultimately, if the people reject it, it will come down. And that is the only way it works.
- flatiron 5y ago
  I wonder if they simply banned alcohol advertising what the effect would be. That was a big thing for tobacco in the 90s. I still remember “joe cool” the camel on the back of my parents magazines.
  - kumarvvr 5y ago
    You can see a general non-acceptance of smoking in public. There has been a consistent decrease in the number of smokers, in absolute terms over time.
  - mark-r 5y ago
    I still remember the jingle from the Camel ads on TV, which were outlawed in 1971.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
int_19h 5y ago
It's not like the Prohibition was the first or the last such attempt. The one I'm personally familiar with was Gorbachev's anti-alcohol campaign. It was also beneficial on paper, with statistically significant improvements in average health etc. But it was similarly flouted in practice. My family lived in an apartment in panel housing at the time, and if you went out onto the balcony and looked around, every balcony around you had some kind of glass flask or jar brewing fruit wine. The question you should be asking wrt South Africa is how they're enforcing the ban on sales - because people will sell regardless. The general problem with any kind of ban that goes against what a significant part of the society enjoys is that it either goes most unenforced, weakening the rule of law in general; or is mostly enforced, and then you end up ruining numerous lives by running them through the law enforcement grinder.
- bruce511 5y ago
  The alcohol ban on sales was temporary and lasted around 3 months. There was minimal enforcement required - shops simply didn't sell it. The time scale was too short to develop home brewing to any significant degree. Yes, the effect of a permanent prohibition is well known (illegal alcohol production, which given how easy alcohol is to produce at home is unenforceable) but this was not that.
cactusmatt 5y ago
That's interesting. In my state in the US, government took an opposite approach due to the pandemic to where now cocktails can be ordered "to-go" and curbside. It started as an emergency order and was recently passed as law.

mmmpop 5y ago

"Interesting" perhaps... but our definitions of "cool" vary widely.

bruce511 5y ago
Cool because data is always cool :) More seriously,because it would simply be impossible to run these social experiments in normal circumstances. There are other examples; New Zealand and Australia tested a "closed border" approach, Sweden adopted a "personal responsibility" approach. Some places had curfews. The shere variety and scale of the last two years have generated enormous amounts of data, and matching data to long-term consequences will keep anthropologists busy for years. And just might inform better choices when the next one happens.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  For some, data is not needed to figure out that tyranny isn't worth investigating.
  - bruce511 5y ago
    I think possibly we have different definitions of tyranny
    - eggsbenedict 5y ago
      >many countries took the opportunity to run large-scale social experiments under the guise of Covid Restrictions Regardless of how you define tyranny, how can you be so blithely supportive of rule-by-decree in supposed democracies? Especially for the purpose of running "social experiments?" Covid Restrictions gained the grudging mandate of the masses, and in many places only by a hair, due to legitimate public-health concerns. Even in that context the subversion of legislative processes should be concerning. Running "experiments" on a non-consenting populace is at least the definition of dictatorship or oligarchy, if the word tyranny doesn't work for you.
      - sdoering 5y ago
        > how can you be so blithely supportive of rule-by-decree in supposed democracies Because that is the reason we life in a democracy with checks and balances implemented. In Germany some decrees were canceled by our (up to the highest) courts, others were declared to be in line with the constitution. We elect officials (setting the policy) every four years to rule us in our name. So we hand them the right and the power to "rule-by-decree" as long as they do not leave the grounds of the constitution (and we have courts to check against that). > for the purpose of running "social experiments?" I actually think (and believe) that most politicians in most countries tried to safe people. As much people as possible while also taking other factors like the economy and the health sector and stuff into account. And yes: They overshot sometimes. Yes, they made massive mistakes. Yes, they sometimes filled their own (or buddies') pockets. Yes, the more this pandemic progresses the less I think our politicians really know what they are doing. But I never felt, that policies were implemented for the purpose of running an experiment. But the different implementations now offer the possibility to learn from them for the future. Like scientists looking at different implementations of daylight savings time and learning from that. Or different implementations of regulations regarding wearing helmets while driving motorcycles, regarding seat belt usage or even regarding the ability for contraception and abortion. The fact that we are allowed to disagree and publicly argue against restrictions, to challenge them in court imho shows that we are living in a democracy. But yeah - keep going on arguing about a straw man (that nobody but you put in place) like: > Running "experiments" on a non-consenting populace is at least the definition of dictatorship or oligarchy, if the word tyranny doesn't work for you.

vmception 5y ago

> This resulted in a marked decrease in hospital admissions, traffic accidents and domestic crimes. That was the same worldwide because nobody was outside. Holy retcon, Batman!

bruce511 5y ago
Yes, so it's not the only cause, but the reductions in SA were like 65% compared to the UK at about 25%
- thrashh 5y ago
  But your article also says that SA has major issues with the regulation of alcohol consumption, issues that do not exist in a country like the US (according to the article).
bobthepanda 5y ago
Traffic accidents actually went up in the US. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-12-08/traffic-deaths-surged-during-covid-19-pandemic-heres-why https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-12-08/traffi... Generally speaking, emptier roads encourage more speeding and reckless driving, increasing the severity of car accidents.
- vmception 5y ago
  Guess we should have banned alcohol again.
- pja 5y ago
  That's down to US road design I suspect: Wide multi lane roads with clear sight lines encourage drivers to think it's safe to go very fast. If these roads are normally congested with traffic then you don't see this downside, but when traffic dropped during the pandemic & it became possible to drive far too fast on these roads that's exactly what happened, with the inevitable consequences.
- bsza 5y ago

Terry_Roll 5y ago

>One cool thing about the pandemic is that many countries took the opportunity to run large-scale social experiments under the guise of Covid Restrictions. I expect social scientists will be digging into this data for years to come. So I wonder how much was learnt from the error rates and signal strength variations from wifi enabled devices in a phased array radar setup in order to track human beings walking around their homes. I wonder what patterns were discovered and if it was possible to discover when arguments and falling outs showed up. What other data was garnered that could predict certain behaviours? I also wonder what would be discovered which will help with the isolation of space travel, like limited human contact, small human group dynamics, things like that.

kumarvvr 5y ago

The thing about human psychology is that if you tell someone not to do something, especially something that is not outright harmful to themselves or others, they will yearn to do it. The answer to alcoholism is to de-glamorize it. Young impressionable minds are susceptible to such glamorization. If governments around the world are seriously committed to reduce alcohol consumption, better shun it, rather than putting in laws to prohibit or restrict it. Ultimately, if the people reject it, it will come down. And that is the only way it works.

flatiron 5y ago
I wonder if they simply banned alcohol advertising what the effect would be. That was a big thing for tobacco in the 90s. I still remember “joe cool” the camel on the back of my parents magazines.
- kumarvvr 5y ago
  You can see a general non-acceptance of smoking in public. There has been a consistent decrease in the number of smokers, in absolute terms over time.
- mark-r 5y ago
  I still remember the jingle from the Camel ads on TV, which were outlawed in 1971.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

int_19h 5y ago

It's not like the Prohibition was the first or the last such attempt. The one I'm personally familiar with was Gorbachev's anti-alcohol campaign. It was also beneficial on paper, with statistically significant improvements in average health etc. But it was similarly flouted in practice. My family lived in an apartment in panel housing at the time, and if you went out onto the balcony and looked around, every balcony around you had some kind of glass flask or jar brewing fruit wine. The question you should be asking wrt South Africa is how they're enforcing the ban on sales - because people will sell regardless. The general problem with any kind of ban that goes against what a significant part of the society enjoys is that it either goes most unenforced, weakening the rule of law in general; or is mostly enforced, and then you end up ruining numerous lives by running them through the law enforcement grinder.

bruce511 5y ago
The alcohol ban on sales was temporary and lasted around 3 months. There was minimal enforcement required - shops simply didn't sell it. The time scale was too short to develop home brewing to any significant degree. Yes, the effect of a permanent prohibition is well known (illegal alcohol production, which given how easy alcohol is to produce at home is unenforceable) but this was not that.

cactusmatt 5y ago

That's interesting. In my state in the US, government took an opposite approach due to the pandemic to where now cocktails can be ordered "to-go" and curbside. It started as an emergency order and was recently passed as law.