Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
A policy of requiring masks while walking but not while seated (as if the virus doesn't transmit while one is non-ambulatory) protects no one. You might as well not have anyone wearing masks.
|
I agree. Do you really think I was advocating for that sort of policy?
Quote:
|
And currently, given omicron's low kill/hospitalization rate, which is almost laser-like focused on the uniquely vulnerable and unvaccinated (the first of which which I estimate at roughly 5% of the population), 95% of people could sit around in a restaurant w/o masks without any problems. (Screw the intentionally unvaccinated. No one should change behavior to suit them.)
|
Well, that's not quite true. For example, I'm not willing to do that because I'm not willing to expose my wife, and jeopardize her ability to go to work.
Also, I don't think we know enough yet about long-term effects of COVID.
Quote:
|
Society makes decisions based on balancing of interests. The interests of 95% of people, including restaurateurs, must be balanced against those of the others.
|
I guess you're not a libertarian. Or maybe you are, but really bitter?
Quote:
I think you've highlighted a point of friction that's remained from the start of Covid. One view is that is there's any chance of harming others, all people must behave in a manner that ensures against that harm, no matter how small it is. A competing view, more broadly accepted, is that the amount of vigilance required/observed should be related to the amount of possible aggregate harm.
The latter sounds selfish. But it's not, really. It's the accepted cost/benefit analysis of most of the things society does.
|
No, that's horseshit. If you want to try to justify the way that a bunch of selfish, misguided, irrational and performative people have acted, go nuts. But at least acknowledge that's what you're doing.
The number of people in this country actually trying to assess the costs benefits of, e.g., wearing masks, is mind-numbingly small. The number of people who believe they are qualified to make that decision is immense.
The thing that you said in your previous post, the thing I specifically copied and objected to, was the suggestion that people wear masks to protect themselves. I said no, they wear masks to protect other people from themselves. Hey, selfishness works in a lot of contexts (remember a few posts ago, when I criticized socialists from a capitalist perspective and you leapt to their defense?). But not so much when there are externalities, when other people bear the costs of your choices. That's what a pandemic is about. When R > 1, the choice you make to bear the risk is going to make other people sick. Selfishness there is part of the problem.
As you and I both know, people decide whether or not to make masks for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with balancing aggregate costs and benefits. Tribal affiliation. Desire to troll. Irrational fear of getting sick. Social pressure. Let's not pretend that we live in a Eden of utilitarians.
Quote:
|
The former view I cited seems to be that any number of deaths that can be prevented are too many, and all precautions to avoid them, whatever the impact of such precautions on broader society, must be accepted by broader society.
|
No one actually thinks this, which you know ("seems" is one tell).
Quote:
|
The officious, scolding, and extreme have seen their political futures pretty well screwed (Newsome), while the reasonable have navigated Covid pretty well (DeWine, a conservative Republican in Ohio, is a good example of a gov who balanced the need to protect with the needs of broader society).
|
Not sure why you think that about Newsome. You should maybe reconsider whatever source you got that from. Also, he is neither officious, scolding nor extreme. I'm not a Newsome stan, but it wouldn't surprise me at all for him to be President one of these years.
