3 ms·

I am not sure why you hesitate. I advocate for the atomomy of people. I assume people are rational actors. Person A decides they have a low mortality risk from

I am not sure why you hesitate. I advocate for the atomomy of people. I assume people are rational actors. Person A decides they have a low mortality risk from catchimg covid. They go to the gym. Persons B, C,..., Z all decide their riak of mortality from covid os too high, and they don't go to the gym. The gym cannot stay open unless at least 2 people subscribe. Therefore the business shuts down. How is this unreasonable?

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
Well for starters, it isn't A versus B through Z, it's more like A through H vs I through Z. And the problem is that even if I through Z do stay home, the infections, transmissions and re-infections between A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H all carry with them a minor chance of a mutation in the virus itself, which can make it more threatening to more people, or transmit more effectively, what have you. Secondly, a whole lot of the downplaying of COVID as a whole and the opposition to masks/mandates/business stoppages was decidedly not rational and was in fact deeply rooted in conservative/libertarian culture war nonsense. If you wanted to go out, without a mask, and open yourself to that risk in full understanding of it, fair enough. The thing is with the amount of disinformation it's extremely dubious how many people did that with that understanding. And, more to the point, that risk is simply not isolated to you, that actor: that risk is shared by you, your co-habitants, your neighbors if you live in an apartment or condominium, your coworkers if you worked in person, and anyone else you happened to be in contact with. And, due to the long incubation period before symptoms showed, it was entirely possible you could get infected and spend upwards of a week spreading it around before you even realized you needed to quarantine. So saying "I'm not concerned about covid" sounds fine on paper, but you're exposing numerous people through your decision to greater risk, and they should have a say in that too, don't you think? And to be clear: I am not in the slightest opposed to giving businesses money to survive those weird circumstances, that makes complete fucking sense to me. The part that doesn't is that while business got hundreds of thousands of dollars, people got... what, $2,200? Over the course of a year and a half. Fucking peanuts by comparison.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > The part that doesn't is that while business got hundreds of thousands of dollars, people got... what, $2,200? Over the course of a year and a half. Fucking peanuts by comparison. Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations. Though to be fair there was extended unemployment benefits, so those would have to be considered in each person's assessment of harm. > Well for starters,... I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion regarding general transmission (though unless the entirety of the world self isolated for 14 days we were guaranteed to hit endemic status). But when the government shuts things down for that line of thinking, it is doing so for the good of the public's health. And we have 5A which says they owe people money. A lot of money! Apart from considering folk rational, even when they fall for misimformation, I also acknowledge that the federal government had nowhere near enough funds to compensate everyone for sheltering in place, and therefore believe it is preferable to allow folks to make their own rosk assessments, despite knowing this outcome would lead to more loss of life. *Also, another tidbit is that banks were compensated for lending ppp loans by a percent of the total loan's value, so bigger corporations were more likely to get a ppp loan because the bank received more money for the same amount of work. Corrupt incentives by design.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations. Expecting common workers to SUE THE GOVERNMENT for lost wages is patently fucking absurd. > I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion regarding general transmission (though unless the entirety of the world self isolated for 14 days we were guaranteed to hit endemic status). But when the government shuts things down for that line of thinking, it is doing so for the good of the public's health. And we have 5A which says they owe people money. A lot of money! Again, this is conflating "confiscated private property" with "prevented potential revenue from being prohibited from conducting business." Even in the most charitable terms these are not the same thing for good reason. Add to it, where does this stop? If the city shuts you down for health code violations, is that also pursuant under the fifth? If a crime is committed near your business and the police have to shut down the road, is that also? If the government fails to act on climate change and your business is flooded out in the rising oceans, how about that? And for how long? If it's the first example that could be however long until they can inspect your remodeled/cleaned premises. If it's the second, it could be anywhere from an hour to several weeks depending what happened. If it's the second one, it might be for eternity. Are we calculating lost business revenue to your likely age of retirement then? This whole thing is a bottomless pit of litigation and legal gray areas. > Apart from considering folk rational, even when they fall for misimformation, I also acknowledge that the federal government had nowhere near enough funds to compensate everyone for sheltering in place, Do you have evidence for that? Because we pumped about three trillion additional into the economy and nothing seems to have really happened. > and therefore believe it is preferable to allow folks to make their own rosk assessments, despite knowing this outcome would lead to more loss of life. Yeah I don't believe that at all. We curb individual liberty literally all of the time, in all sorts of ways, at all times and at a variety of scales because everyone having their own perfect bubble of autonomy leads to an utterly unmanageable society at scale. You don't have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, you don't have the freedom to drive on the left side of the road, you don't have the freedom to build a 200 story skyscraper on your suburban lot, etc. etc. etc. This hyper individualistic libertarian fantasy is just that: a fantasy.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

Well for starters, it isn't A versus B through Z, it's more like A through H vs I through Z. And the problem is that even if I through Z do stay home, the infections, transmissions and re-infections between A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H all carry with them a minor chance of a mutation in the virus itself, which can make it more threatening to more people, or transmit more effectively, what have you. Secondly, a whole lot of the downplaying of COVID as a whole and the opposition to masks/mandates/business stoppages was decidedly not rational and was in fact deeply rooted in conservative/libertarian culture war nonsense. If you wanted to go out, without a mask, and open yourself to that risk in full understanding of it, fair enough. The thing is with the amount of disinformation it's extremely dubious how many people did that with that understanding. And, more to the point, that risk is simply not isolated to you, that actor: that risk is shared by you, your co-habitants, your neighbors if you live in an apartment or condominium, your coworkers if you worked in person, and anyone else you happened to be in contact with. And, due to the long incubation period before symptoms showed, it was entirely possible you could get infected and spend upwards of a week spreading it around before you even realized you needed to quarantine. So saying "I'm not concerned about covid" sounds fine on paper, but you're exposing numerous people through your decision to greater risk, and they should have a say in that too, don't you think? And to be clear: I am not in the slightest opposed to giving businesses money to survive those weird circumstances, that makes complete fucking sense to me. The part that doesn't is that while business got hundreds of thousands of dollars, people got... what, $2,200? Over the course of a year and a half. Fucking peanuts by comparison.

hellojesus 3y ago
> The part that doesn't is that while business got hundreds of thousands of dollars, people got... what, $2,200? Over the course of a year and a half. Fucking peanuts by comparison. Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations. Though to be fair there was extended unemployment benefits, so those would have to be considered in each person's assessment of harm. > Well for starters,... I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion regarding general transmission (though unless the entirety of the world self isolated for 14 days we were guaranteed to hit endemic status). But when the government shuts things down for that line of thinking, it is doing so for the good of the public's health. And we have 5A which says they owe people money. A lot of money! Apart from considering folk rational, even when they fall for misimformation, I also acknowledge that the federal government had nowhere near enough funds to compensate everyone for sheltering in place, and therefore believe it is preferable to allow folks to make their own rosk assessments, despite knowing this outcome would lead to more loss of life. *Also, another tidbit is that banks were compensated for lending ppp loans by a percent of the total loan's value, so bigger corporations were more likely to get a ppp loan because the bank received more money for the same amount of work. Corrupt incentives by design.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations. Expecting common workers to SUE THE GOVERNMENT for lost wages is patently fucking absurd. > I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion regarding general transmission (though unless the entirety of the world self isolated for 14 days we were guaranteed to hit endemic status). But when the government shuts things down for that line of thinking, it is doing so for the good of the public's health. And we have 5A which says they owe people money. A lot of money! Again, this is conflating "confiscated private property" with "prevented potential revenue from being prohibited from conducting business." Even in the most charitable terms these are not the same thing for good reason. Add to it, where does this stop? If the city shuts you down for health code violations, is that also pursuant under the fifth? If a crime is committed near your business and the police have to shut down the road, is that also? If the government fails to act on climate change and your business is flooded out in the rising oceans, how about that? And for how long? If it's the first example that could be however long until they can inspect your remodeled/cleaned premises. If it's the second, it could be anywhere from an hour to several weeks depending what happened. If it's the second one, it might be for eternity. Are we calculating lost business revenue to your likely age of retirement then? This whole thing is a bottomless pit of litigation and legal gray areas. > Apart from considering folk rational, even when they fall for misimformation, I also acknowledge that the federal government had nowhere near enough funds to compensate everyone for sheltering in place, Do you have evidence for that? Because we pumped about three trillion additional into the economy and nothing seems to have really happened. > and therefore believe it is preferable to allow folks to make their own rosk assessments, despite knowing this outcome would lead to more loss of life. Yeah I don't believe that at all. We curb individual liberty literally all of the time, in all sorts of ways, at all times and at a variety of scales because everyone having their own perfect bubble of autonomy leads to an utterly unmanageable society at scale. You don't have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, you don't have the freedom to drive on the left side of the road, you don't have the freedom to build a 200 story skyscraper on your suburban lot, etc. etc. etc. This hyper individualistic libertarian fantasy is just that: a fantasy.