At the very beginning of lockdown, we decided that seeing or next door neighbors was acceptable. That was helpful.
In early July, we decided seeing our closest friends was acceptable.
We started going to a teeny tiny farmers market once a week just to see other people.
Basically, I think it's important to remember that we are all human, and humans need other humans.
There's personal risk: What are the chances that I will suffer direct personal harm from this encounter?
There's direct social risk: What are the chances that others involved in the encounter will suffer direct personal harm?
There's direct propagation risk: What are the chances that the infectious virus further propagates because of this encounter, where it has the potential to cause substantially more harm to others outside of the encounter?
And then there are indirect personal, social, and propagation risks: What are the chances that because of this encounter, the pandemic grows more severe or goes on longer than it otherwise would have, extending the length of time before we can truly return to normal life?
I'm not saying that you, personally, don't factor all of these risks into your decision. But I think many people are only considering direct personal risk.
Why do people always assume that if someone is anti-mask or anti-lockdown that they didn't think about others before they made their decision? That they are selfish and dumb?
Stop making that assumption.
People do think it over. They do consider all points. And just because they come to a different conclusion than you doesn't make their conclusion invalid.
> What are the chances that because of this encounter, the pandemic grows more severe or goes on longer than it otherwise would have, extending the length of time before we can truly return to normal life?
ICUs are still fine. It is killing the elderly and those with co-morbidities. Any "spike" is barely a blip. The economy continues to crumble as days of social restrictions and lockdowns build up.
You think we don't consider the lives of others with our decision. We do.
You simply put too much weight on the perceived danger of this almost-at-this-point-not-a-pandemic-anymore. We simply don't agree on how dangerous it is.
PS: If you want to talk direct social risk and safety then it's time to ban alcohol for the greater safety of society.
...
> You simply put too much weight on the perceived danger of this almost-at-this-point-not-a-pandemic-anymore. We simply don't agree on how dangerous it is.
Something to reflect on here is that (a) the person you're replying to didn't accuse anyone of not taking others into account and (b) you invalidate their conclusions in the same way you believe they invalidated yours.
In my area, there were two points where ICUs got dangerously full. At the start, and then shortly after initial restrictions had been loosened. Fortunately, the spikes in case counts had been seen before, and restrictions were ramped up in response both times, and the hospitalization numbers flattened and then dropped. It certainly looks like a case of those restrictions being massively helpful, which you're discounting out of hand.
At least for me, the kind of people I know directly (in meatspace) with this attitude are the kind of people who decided the middle of the pandemic is the best time to make social visits to the elderly (for little other reason than being bored with the lockdown). And I know these people don't secretly want to murder their elders. After seeing plenty of that first and second-hand, it's kind of hard to not suspect motivated reasoning when someone goes out and says "sure I've considered the risks, there's no harm in 50-ish me dropping by my 80 years old mother on my way back from the private health clinic I work in" (real example I know, and that same clinic is staffed with people who consider the pandemic overblown and do the absolute minimum to protect themselves and their patients from it).
> PS: If you want to talk direct social risk and safety then it's time to ban alcohol for the greater safety of society.
It's been tried and decided against, but in this comparison, it's worth noting that harms caused by alcohol don't grow exponentially.
Yeah, we also have tried it with other drugs, we've been spending several decades ramping up regulations on automobiles to try to make them safer, and we have an emerging national debate about prescription painkillers as well.
I think whoever is planning for future pandemic responses should take that into account - the more normal, enjoyable things we can find ways to provide safely, the better.
I think the world ultimately was caught completely unprepared for this pandemic. I'm hoping that by the time the next one comes, we'll have given due considerations to psychological and emotional needs of everyone, so that even if we need to step into a cage for a while again, at least the cage will be a nice place to stay in.
* You're assuming death is the major potential consequence, and that there aren't potentially problems we haven't identified yet, and ignoring those we have[1]
* You're assuming the economy is crumbling because of social restrictions and lockdowns. It isn't. We could lift all restrictions today, and things would not return back to normal until PEOPLE STOP GETTING INFECTED AND DYING IN THIS STILL-VERY-MUCH-A-PANDEMIC.
[1]: https://gladstone.org/news/new-insights-how-covid-19-causes-...
I’ve been seeing this ageist and eugenics-like language coming up quite a lot lately and it’s really disturbing to me.
Why is it OK that hundreds of thousands of people are dying because they are mostly older? Should we amend our laws so it’s OK to murder anyone above a certain age, because they’re elderly so who cares?
Why is it OK that people with pre-existing health conditions are dying because they have these conditions? Should we never provide any health care services to people with any comorbidities because their lives don’t matter?
You may think you’re being rational by deciding these people have little to no societal value—survival of the fittest! they’re maximised their contribution to society!—but this seems like a maladaptive coping mechanism: minimisation[0] in order to avoid confronting the fact that, yes, this is actually a big problem and no, it’s not really OK that hundreds of thousands of people are dying needlessly due to a communicable disease. (Nor is it OK that government has failed to step in to protect those whose lives and livelihoods have been disrupted.)
These are human beings. They have families. Their deaths cause needless suffering, and that suffering goes far beyond just one old person dying from a preventable contagious disease. Humans do not live in vacuums.
It’s also a tragedy that other people—who are statistically unlikely to suffer any direct long-term consequence of infection—are suffering as a result of restrictions set on movements and activities to try to save lives. That people lose their livelihoods and have to go hungry, though, is a failure of government.
This is the worst possible interpretation of that statement, and not at all the argument they're going for.
The argument is that lockdown policy is being made over what's turned out to be barely noticeable in the larger picture, and those policies are causing a lot more suffering than necessary.
In other places where I see this argument, they often also say that lockdown-style measures should be enacted for the vulnerable, leaving the world business-as-usual for everyone else so that they can support the vulnerable.
Well... Yeah. If you considered the implications of harming others, then examined the data at hand, and concluded that not wearing a mask and not limiting your activities was what you wanted to do... Then yeah, that is selfish and "dumb" behavior.
This isn't a subjective thing. We have decently solid data now showing what the transmission rates are (we know certainly the lowest observed transmission rate), what the death rate is; we can objectively say that >180,000 in the US have died since March. So with all that being known, if you decide not to take the most basic steps to limit spreading it, you're either being incredibly selfish, or you're incapable of understanding that your actions have consequences. This is a definition, not an argument.
This is why we have laws against drunk driving; we know it kills people. It's bad for society. At least people who drive drunk have the plausible deniability that they were too impaired to make the rational decision to not drive while drunk. If unimpaired, you make that decision, there's no way to justify your actions.
From the discussions I have had with people around me , justifying the same 'calculated risks', it's clear that they aren't actually making rational decisions as much as rationalizing their decisions; bargaining with their emotions and then sliding into complacency.
Because one does not reach the same conclusion as you does not make their conclusion automatically irrational.
A very large part of the online community is irrational indeed. Irrational about the true danger of the virus.
I am not scared of the virus. I am scared of how scared people are of it.
All children who died of Covid-19 were already seriously ill https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/all-children-who-died-of-...
In Ireland: Median age of death is 84. 94% with underlying condition(s) https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronav...
54% of San Francisco storefronts have closed https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Half-of-all-San-Fran...
The lockdowns and doom seem 1000x more irrational to me.
> A very large part of the online community is irrational indeed. Irrational about the true danger of the virus.
Pick one. It’s hard to be persuasive when you hold your critics to a higher standard than you hold yourself.
There’s unmeasurable effects of all this hysteria and confinement. And if the over-cautious lockdown side is going to assume worst-case scenarios of covid, let’s assume worst-case scenarios for the cost and side-effects lockdown - the true worst-case is that the benefit is marginal and we suffer every drawback.
An ability to entertain that they're wrong.
It should be clear to people that at pretty much every stage, people have missed the mark massively on predictions.
The experts haven't been too helpful and really seem to be even worse than no advice.
The US regulatory state stood in the way of states offering testing as quickly as possible.
It's been a bungled mess and "but Trump" is all too easy and convenient.
I also don't agree that the experts have been unhelpful, and strongly disagree that they have been worse than no advice. They have been fought at every turn by people who don't understand epidemiology.
I think it's pretty clear that if we had actually listened to the public health experts, we (in the US) would be in much better shape. Trump (who you brought up) bears some of this responsibility for doing something so stupid as to politicize masks. He bears more blame because he appears to interfere with and try to adjust the science messaging to fit his narrative, which serves to confuse people.
So no - the experts haven't been wrong. We've just not spent much time listening to them.
Didn't Fauci discourage mask usage at the worst time to discourage mask usage?
Weren't the experts continuously downplaying the danger while Trump was shutting down flights?
Wasn't Pelosi, de Blasio and crew telling us to "hug asians" and jump on the subway?
I'm not claiming there's anyone who was right in this mess, but there's very little ground to say anyone managed this correctly or would have been better equipped.
The supposed Democratic utopias in this country (NJ and NYC) killed off the elderly. And people want Cuomo to run for president...
I didn't, initially, fault their conclusion. However, I noted that their conclusions consistently and increasingly favoured their immediate self-interest, regardless of what else was happening.
Another thing I noticed, in the same people and the same situations, is a difficulty noticing any nuance regarding the issue. When I presented them with something, instead of addressing it, they would react to the threat they perceive.
To me, this also suggests that they are arguing from their thesis, rather than the situation.
That's a human universal, no matter the situation.
We make up our mind, and then backfill an explanation.
I would, however, argue that there's lots of evidence that it is not evenly distributed.
Smart people are more susceptible to high impact biases though, which is maybe what you meant? Lower IQ people are experience this less?
I know lots of very intelligent people who seemingly can't apply that intelligence any time they have strong emotions about an outcome. We also know that children can be inculcated with difficulties distinguishing fiction from fact (1).
IMHO, as you mention, it's a spectrum, perhaps the equivalent of the Autistic spectrum for Emotional Reactivity Disorder. Though unlike autism or borderline personality disorder, I believe that it's a skill deficit rather than an inherent disorder of personality.
I also believe that more than half this country is suffering much more profoundly from it than we are aware.
(1) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cogs.12138
With all those changes, we meet the target pretty handily, so we don't worry much about our interactions with close friends. We default to seeing people outside with decent distance, but we don't sweat it if a friend comes over without a mask and asks to come in, or if they sit a little closer than expected. It's not like a competition where grinding out the hard last few percent is going to make the difference between winning and losing. It's more important to stay sane and help our friends stay sane so we can keep this up as long as necessary.
We did this before this most recent coronavirus also. What is important is the cost/benefit comparison, including mental health.
My wife has had multiple friends with similarly aged children try to convince her that it's not dangerous for her or the kids when she refuses play-dates, and no matter how many times we tell them that it's not us we're worried about, they still frame it in those terms.
If we cannot get our government to help us tackle the pandemic in an effective fashion, we are increasingly forced to contemplate questions like, "well, if this goes on forever, how do we adapt to preserve the other important things in life?"
This epidemic can still be won, but it takes effective and coordinated leadership to do so. When our government's response mirrors the reality of the situation, rather than proclaiming that we are doing a sufficient job, and nurtures a united approach to mitigation, we will start winning. Case rates are falling slowly -- we are on the cusp of improving the situation substantially if we can get our act together further.
When we start to win, winning gets easier. Such is the nature of confronting an exponential adversary.
We are the government. There is no magical "them" out there.
There are multiple timescales involved to effect change. No matter how hard we push, the government we have three minutes from now will be almost the same as the one we have at this moment.
At present, I have largely given up hope that the present administration or the present configuration of Congress will take responsibilities seriously. Thus, the minimum timescale for meaningful change is months. Working within that framework, one can imagine an environment in which our federal government cannot provide an improved mitigation strategy until January at the earliest.
There's a non-zero but low probability of you spreading a virus you don't know you have as long as you're following good practices, and the severity of doing so seems relatively minor (99% of people you infect will have minor symptoms. Not to say that's ok, but it is normal for people to get sick occasionally). A low probability multiplied with a relatively minor severity gives you a very small number.
On the other hand, if you're already finding yourself socially deprived, the probability of suffering severe effects from it is high, perhaps even approaching 1. The severity for some people could also be very bad: declining health, ruined relationships, perhaps even suicide. A high probability multiplied with a high severity gives you a very large number.
It's hard to quantify and everyone is different. The point is, it's better for someone to go socialize when they need to rather than go insane, and it can be a perfectly reasonable decision.
I still feel very uneasy about it though. We don't know the long term effects of COVID. I worry that I could be contributing to something terrible. It's not just the direct chance of me getting someone sick, there's also the fact that each person that goes out sends the message that going out is fine. Which maybe it is? But it seem that if everyone did small sacrifices could help a lot, so it would be wrong not to personally do these sacrifices.
In the prisoners' dilemma that we all find ourselves in, I really don't want to be the defector. And it bothers me that so many people are willing to be. I think it goes against my internal belief of what being a good person is.
Wearing a mask in a grocery store is a small sacrifice. Eliminating all physical proximity with other humans for months or years is very much not.
I think it goes against my internal belief of what being a good person is.
Those friends you're sometimes visiting, after which you beat yourself up for being selfish? Probably many of them are suffering quietly, and seeing you gives them the strength to get through the day.
Agreed. That is excessive and is not what I'm doing. I meet with friends roughly two out of three weekends, and I see my girlfriend every weekend (can't really see her more than that, she's working 15 hours per day during the week). But I'm not going to boardgaming meetups, to museums, to the gym, out to eat or to the cinema, which are things I would do three to five times per week on normal circumstances. I'm basically avoiding all activities where I would be in contact with strangers for more than a few minutes.
> Those friends you're sometimes visiting, after which you beat yourself up for being selfish? Probably many of them are suffering quietly, and seeing you gives them the strength to get through the day.
Thanks, that's nice to think about.
Before the pandemic, you and everyone else were constantly doing "unnecessary" things that put other people at risk. Every time you see other people you could be spreading any number of diseases that kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. Every time you take a car trip you're increasing the risk of a fatal accident to other drivers and pedestrians.
COVID makes some activities more risky, and will shift some of them from "acceptable" to "unacceptable". But it doesn't mean that you're a bad person if you put more than zero weight on your mental health.
I'm not criticizing; I'm sympathetic and agree with you that we're all human and need to maintain some empathy for how tough this is.
I'm just fascinated by the contrast. For my partner and I it hasn't been a big deal. I expect some of that is down to circumstance. We don't have kids, and already worked from home. While we still interact with people, it's far less than before and we maintain our distance. As volunteer firefighters / first responders we're particularly sensitive to the medical risks. We wear masks to go shopping and wash it all before it comes in the house (which is surely overkill, but not so onerous once you get used to it). We're fortunate that we adopted a dog a few months before this began and have a ton of great hiking terrain at our doorstep to go decompress. Of course we certainly haven't been unscathed - she was in finance and lost her job pretty early on when the market crash and pandemic-driven panic forced the company to downsize - but we're managing.
I have some very social friends (same walk of life, no kids, etc) who keep trying to get in our face, and while I love them to bits it gets annoying at times.
I can't say I envy the health authorities tasked with issuing guidance to the public and recommendations to legislators - they have to balance the need for containment - which can change rapidly depending on conditions on the ground - against the economic and social consequences (which as you alluded can leave some people feeling a sense of imprisonment).
If you get a chance to speak with people who landed in intensive care for Covid or lost loved ones to the disease, it really drives home the cogency of the risk you're dealing with - just as does hearing from those countless numbers who've been impacted in non-medical yet severe ways from society's countermeasures.
Decide X is a "safe enough" activity. Done.
I agree that trying to balance that every single day would be tiring, but broadly deciding "Our kids can play with the neighbors" is a one-time choice. As are the rest.
that takes care of the overwhelming majority of transmission risk. minutiae and the marginal are just not worth worrying about.