D&D and the rising pandemic

[seebs]

"We can't do everything, therefore, we shouldn't do this thing" is a bad argument.

Epidemics and pandemics have well-understood and very carefully studied impacts and mitigation strategies. We know how to drastically reduce the lasting harms done by them, and we know how to increase those harms. You're advocating the strategy that maximizes the harms (except for actual intentional harm-creation strategies, like explicitly trying to spread a plague), on the grounds that you want the harm minimized.

If you are trying to make a point about not taking pollution seriously enough, you might consider that the state we're in now is the result of decades of massive shifts towards reducing pollution compared to what it used to be like, and there's still a good argument to be made that we can and should do more.

But right now, there are things we can do easily and cheaply that massively reduce the cost of an immediate problem, and you're arguing specifically for not doing even those things.

"Business as usual" is an awful idea. Simple steps like "encourage people to work remotely if they can", "wash hands often", and "avoid touching your face" have very close to zero economic cost, and yet, offer huge benefits in this circumstance. (Heck, remote work even helps fight pollution. Yay.)

(Disclaimer: I'm biased, I last commuted regularly in 1997.)

 

[slobster]

Support your local businesses.

Always good advice. But it will be really necessary in the coming months.

Yeah I support this, as well. We're ordering out from one of our favorite restaurants for lunch at the office today, and part of the conversation was explicitly "hope this helps them make it through the next few weeks". Of course, we are ordering out, not dining in, as we're also trying to minimize our contact with others in social settings.

There have been a lot of great comments in this thread, kudos seriously to those spreading good information about the importance of flattening the curve. You guys are awesome.

For most of us who are young(ish) and healthy, the coronavirus poses a moderate but probably perhaps arguably acceptable level of danger (I don't know about you, but if I walked into a room with 99 other people and was told that one to three of us was going to be shot in the head, I'd consider that an entirely uncomfortable level of danger actually, but everyone evaluates risk in their own way).

"I'll probably be just fine" is not the be-all and end-all of every situation. I prefer to live by "Do unto others" personally, and I urge everyone to listen to the public health experts in your country. Know that any economic sacrifice you make now will be contributing to saving the lives of potentially tens of thousands of people, loved ones and friends, all throughout your country and the world!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

This is missing the point: People dying from this is still economic harm, and much more severe economic harm than we suffer from quarantines. Even if we assume all of your ideological stances to be reasonable, what you are advocating is worse at obtaining your stated goals than the best practices the epidemiologists are recommending.

You can't have no financial disruption or harm. You can minimize it, and you do that by reducing the spread of the disease.

Look at the death tolls in Philadelphia and St. Louis from the 1918 flu. Note how one of them had twice as many deaths as the other per capita. Why? Because they stuck with "business as usual". But dead people don't work jobs, and don't pay taxes, and it turns out that those costs are a lot higher than the costs of a very temporary interruption of public activities.

Well, having different opinions is quite normal. Those epidemiologists and I probably have different values.

Personally, I advocate for the following:
-> minimal government intervention
-> epidemiologists freely give their opinions and recommendations
-> people choose what is best for themselves

What this means is that 1) borders should not be close and quarantines should not be mandatory; 2) schools should not closed , especially when kids are not at risk. (Although, moving schooling online might be a net positive, and very different than stopping education.) 3) Individuals should be decisions about what is best for themselves and their communities. 4) Businesses should compete to solve new market problems created by the virus.

My goal is to give small businesses a fighting chance and avoid closure. The fewer people who end up unemployed the better.

Anyone at risk should stay at home and quarantine him/herself. That is a personal decision. I've sponsored ro send my wife, who suffers some hormonal issues, her parents, our daughter away from the city, for example. They're now temporarily staying in her grandmothers' a small, isolated village. That was our decision based on our values and personal priorities.

As a plus, my wife is taking care of the vineyard, instead of leaving it to become even more overgrown, which means we'll have more and better wine this year.

 

[seebs]

Well, having different opinions is quite normal. Those epidemiologists and I probably have different values.

Yes, but you don't get to have different facts. And given your stated values, your proposed course of action is, in fact, directly contrary to your stated values.

"Business as usual" is not a sane or rational response to an epidemic. It just isn't. This isn't a question of what your values are, except that it's a good response if your values are that you want to maximize harm.

If you want to reduce financial harm to small businesses, then business as usual is an awful choice.

This isn't a question of relative values, this is a question of observable, predictable, patterns of cause and effect.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Yes, but you don't get to have different facts. And given your stated values, your proposed course of action is, in fact, directly contrary to your stated values.

"Business as usual" is not a sane or rational response to an epidemic. It just isn't. This isn't a question of what your values are, except that it's a good response if your values are that you want to maximize harm.

If you want to reduce financial harm to small businesses, then business as usual is an awful choice.

This isn't a question of relative values, this is a question of observable, predictable, patterns of cause and effect.

For me, it's business as usual. I'm going to work, etc. I haven't changed any of my habits because I, as a fit 27 year old don't need to. Because I'll be fine, I find it my duty to continue to live me life in a way that causes as little disturbance as possible, which means continuing to work and renewing my gym membership instead of hiding at home or being quarantined.

My daughter is also 3, which means she isn't in school anyway.

If someone is actually at risk - like my wife's parents - I recommend that person stay home, which is a far cry from what's happening in Italy or imposing travel bans.

 

[Sacrosanct]

For me, it's business as usual. I'm going to work, etc. I haven't changed any of my habits because I, as a fit 27 year old don't need to. Because I'll be fine, I find it my duty to continue to live me life in a way that causes as little disturbance as possible, which means continuing to work and renewing my gym membership instead of hiding at home or being quarantined.

My daughter is also 3, which means she isn't in school anyway.

If someone is actually at risk - like my wife's parents - I recommend that person stay home, which is a far cry from what's happening in Italy or imposing travel bans.

You're continuing to ignore 2 important facts:

1. Being 27 doesn't mean you'll be fine. You don't know. Outside of a fatality rate, 20% of people with the virus require breathing assistance.

2. Even if you're fine, you're still a carrier for several weeks. So you just got more at risk people infected. Your actions and philosophy on this is highly irresponsible.

Personally, I advocate for the following:
-> minimal government intervention
-> epidemiologists freely give their opinions and recommendations
-> people choose what is best for themselves

I'd love to hear why you came to the conclusion that the best way to handle a pandemic is to let people choose for themselves how to handle it. When has that ever worked? In fact, by your statement above about how you're handling it yourself, you're making it worse.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

You're continuing to ignore 2 important facts:

1. Being 27 doesn't mean you'll be fine. You don't know. Outside of a fatality rate, 20% of people with the virus require breathing assistance.

2. Even if you're fine, you're still a carrier for several weeks. So you just got more at risk people infected. Your actions and philosophy on this is highly irresponsible.

I'd love to hear why you came to the conclusion that the best way to handle a pandemic is to let people choose for themselves how to handle it. When has that ever worked? In fact, by your statement above about how you're handling it yourself, you're making it worse.

1) True. I may not be fine. If I'm not, that's on me. I take responsibility for that. My silly life insurance policy might pay off for my wife.

2) Yes. I might end up being a carrier. I agree there, but I'm not sure its irresponsible. Shouldn't someone who doesn't want to risk exposure make the personal choice to quarantine him/herself?

3) I'm not sure it's anyone job to "handle a pandemic." Whether it should be is an interesting discussion I wish we were having. I'd like to see the arguments for and against. So far, I'm undecided on that front.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

......um .....

¯\(ツ)/¯

There was an article recently about a guy who came into Palm Beach International Air Port. He had Covid-19. Apparently, he had already taken the screening test because he had concerns and exposure, but took the flight anyway because he was afraid that the results would be positive.

...and they were. I mean, he'll be fine. I'm sure. The rest of the people on the plane? Eh....

...and this is why we have public health issues.

1) Why didn't the airline screen him if they were worried?

2) Why were people outside their homes if they didn't want to risk exposure?