4 ms·

> The formulation of Rawls’ question is designed to get people to focus on statistically unlikely scenarios at the expense of probable ones. As an engineer and

> The formulation of Rawls’ question is designed to get people to focus on statistically unlikely scenarios at the expense of probable ones. As an engineer and an Asian I find it incomprehensible that Rawls has so much purchase. We saw a lot of folks carefully ignoring a related issue during the covid pandemic: They argued angrily that it made no sense to mandate masks, lock down society, and spend billions on vaccine development, when only a small percentage of people would die or have long-term adverse effects. (There was a lot of that kind of talk in Texas.) But those folks never seemed willing to admit that they were really saying, "I'm willing to roll the dice that I'll be all right; the rest of you, well, you're on your own." Sadly, folks like that seldom take enough precautions on their own — and they're often the first to plead for "the gummint" to help them when they get in trouble. (Cf. the bail-outs of big, de-regulated banks during the financial crisis that kicked off the Great Recession, the demands for federal hurricane assistance by people who lived in flood zones, etc. Privatize the profits, socialize the risks.)

even_639765 2y ago
Masking does nothing to stop the spread of viruses. Neither does social distancing. Look it up. The vax was hugely destructive to healthy people and did not prevent transmission. These things are well established facts. The argument was never ”I'm too selfish to care about grandma”, it was always about the facts at hand.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > Masking does nothing to stop the spread of viruses. Neither does social distancing. Look it up. You’re going against what’s been widely publicized as the overwhelming scientific consensus, so it’d be useful if you’d cite some evidence, including your qualifications, to help the rest us feel comfortable accepting your judgment in this area. And you seem excessively sure of yourself (as do some of your other comments — yes, I looked you up), which tends to weigh against accepting your view.
  - even_639765 2y ago
    [dead]
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      We're getting off topic here. This discussion is about Rawls and whether it's OK for majorities to tell minorities that suffer misfortune, yeah, it sucks to be you, but that's not our problem. But since you're going there: Sure, there are studies saying various things. I'm not competent to evaluate these studies. So, like jurors in a courtroom trial (I'm a lawyer), I go with indirect evidence and which witnesses seem most reliable. A March 2023 Washington Post article [0] quoted a lot of experts, including Dr. Peter Hotez, a local Houston icon. Hotez and his colleague Dr. Maria Elena Bottazzi were nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize because they came up with corbevax, a low-cost covid vaccine that can be made very cheaply (esp. in developing countries) and put it in the public domain with no patent coverage. It might not be as good as mRNA vaccines (I have no idea), but it's far, FAR better than no vaccine at all. All of the folks quoted in the WaPo article are vaccinated. (Several touted vaccines.) Most said they wore masks in poorly-ventilated crowded spaces. I have confidence that Hotez — who's among many, many others who hold similar views — stays open to evidence and doesn't fall in love with his own opinions or get locked into groupthink. And to repeat: We don't know who you are, and you've offered no evidence about your qualifications concerning pandemic measures or the significance of the studies you cited. In a courtroom trial, judges and jurors generally aren't experts; that's what expert witnesses are for. But a purported expert witness won't even be allowed to testify in front of the jury until the party that wants to call the witness has put on evidence of the witness's qualifications, and the trial judge has concluded that the witness's opinion testimony is likely to be reasonably reliable. This is called the Daubert standard: A proposed expert witness has to be shown to (probably) know WTF s/he is talking about. [1] We have no Daubert evidence about you. So for now I'll stick with Peter Hotez and his friends. [0] https://wapo.st/3YRaWFf https://wapo.st/3YRaWFf [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
      - even_639765 2y ago
        You moved the goalpost. First, you wanted evidence. So I gave you evidence. Now you say you can't evaluate evidence, even the evidence of the people who told you to social distance admitting, under oath, they don't know where that idea came from and they know of no evidence to support it. So why did you ask for evidence?

even_639765 2y ago

Masking does nothing to stop the spread of viruses. Neither does social distancing. Look it up. The vax was hugely destructive to healthy people and did not prevent transmission. These things are well established facts. The argument was never ”I'm too selfish to care about grandma”, it was always about the facts at hand.

dctoedt 2y ago
> Masking does nothing to stop the spread of viruses. Neither does social distancing. Look it up. You’re going against what’s been widely publicized as the overwhelming scientific consensus, so it’d be useful if you’d cite some evidence, including your qualifications, to help the rest us feel comfortable accepting your judgment in this area. And you seem excessively sure of yourself (as do some of your other comments — yes, I looked you up), which tends to weigh against accepting your view.
- even_639765 2y ago
  [dead]
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    We're getting off topic here. This discussion is about Rawls and whether it's OK for majorities to tell minorities that suffer misfortune, yeah, it sucks to be you, but that's not our problem. But since you're going there: Sure, there are studies saying various things. I'm not competent to evaluate these studies. So, like jurors in a courtroom trial (I'm a lawyer), I go with indirect evidence and which witnesses seem most reliable. A March 2023 Washington Post article [0] quoted a lot of experts, including Dr. Peter Hotez, a local Houston icon. Hotez and his colleague Dr. Maria Elena Bottazzi were nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize because they came up with corbevax, a low-cost covid vaccine that can be made very cheaply (esp. in developing countries) and put it in the public domain with no patent coverage. It might not be as good as mRNA vaccines (I have no idea), but it's far, FAR better than no vaccine at all. All of the folks quoted in the WaPo article are vaccinated. (Several touted vaccines.) Most said they wore masks in poorly-ventilated crowded spaces. I have confidence that Hotez — who's among many, many others who hold similar views — stays open to evidence and doesn't fall in love with his own opinions or get locked into groupthink. And to repeat: We don't know who you are, and you've offered no evidence about your qualifications concerning pandemic measures or the significance of the studies you cited. In a courtroom trial, judges and jurors generally aren't experts; that's what expert witnesses are for. But a purported expert witness won't even be allowed to testify in front of the jury until the party that wants to call the witness has put on evidence of the witness's qualifications, and the trial judge has concluded that the witness's opinion testimony is likely to be reasonably reliable. This is called the Daubert standard: A proposed expert witness has to be shown to (probably) know WTF s/he is talking about. [1] We have no Daubert evidence about you. So for now I'll stick with Peter Hotez and his friends. [0] https://wapo.st/3YRaWFf https://wapo.st/3YRaWFf [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
    - even_639765 2y ago
      You moved the goalpost. First, you wanted evidence. So I gave you evidence. Now you say you can't evaluate evidence, even the evidence of the people who told you to social distance admitting, under oath, they don't know where that idea came from and they know of no evidence to support it. So why did you ask for evidence?