The scientists then do what scientists are trained to do. Asked A+B=C questions, they give A+B=C answers. If the job is to stop the spread of a contagion, you stop human interaction. As science it works. The problem being that society is not in an isolated petri dish and that the cure wrecks havoc in the broader society. The errors here are multiple. A culture that thinks that it is entitled to perfect safety and that every problem must have an answer. Policymakers who - especially as they do not wish, understandably, to be blamed for loss of life - are too quick to reach for the easy answer, rather then the most balanced and optimum one. Scientists who apply theoretical answers to complex real world social questions.Bottom line, science is great for exploring Mars or curing cancer. It is less good as a mechanism for ordering society and mapping out the nature of a just social order. In that sense, the word "unscientific" has not been overused. Rather it has been misused, suggesting the application of science where moral speculation and philosophy rooted in historical studies might be the wiser course.
Countries which introduced restrictions earlier are now in the best position with a low number of active or new daily cases in terms of the pandemic. Taiwan for example has an economy operating much closer to normal than many other countries.
@ayque Japan and Sweden never introduced full quarantines and yet have comparable low infection and fatality rates.The point being that there is a complex array of issues and factors to take into account and a purely scientific approach may limit the number of infections and fatalities but takes no account of the increase in hunger, child abuse and abandonment, suicides, and deaths from other causes such as cancer that was not caught because screenings were blocked.This is a policy issue - a balancing of costs and benefits - and not a single minded scientific question. Unfortunately, because of the public's fear, quest for perfect security and paradoxically almost religious faith in science, this has been forgotten. The question being, what is the trade-off between lives saved and lives ruined.Here also an article that may be of interest that comes at it from an alternative scientific approach: thehill.com/.../494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation
You have a good point. I can’t speak for the US but in the UK, cancer care isn’t being missed because of lockdown. It’s being missed because the healthcare capacity is being overwhelmed. We won’t know the rates on suicides for a while but it could be argued that this is from the effects of the virus mostly. It can also to a certain extent be managed in the UK as good mental health services are still available. There is little increase in hunger in the UK. Support services have been setup for the vulnerable so that people receive food. I can’t speak for the US though. Sweden’s death rate is rising faster than the rest of Europe.
@ayque On Sweden, that is not the data I have. See also - www.statista.com/.../As to the rest, the British system - and the UK has a higher death rate than Sweden - may have a harder time providing hospital beds over time given its highly centralized system, even by European standards. 'As to the rest, hunger will become an issue more over time. Immediately, most families still have food on hand and at least small cash reserves. The higher unemployment goes over the longer term, the worse problem hunger will become.Just to be clear, we are already seeing some of these problems that I mentioned - especially suicides and reports of domestic violence - but overall I submit that the longer depressed economic conditions continue, the worse all these problems will become. Despite all the happy talk, there is no on/off switch that can be flipped when the virus passes that will make it all better.
Unemployment hasn’t become a problem in the Uk. The UK government has offered grants and furlough schemes to all including self employed and small businesses. As you say, UK death rate is high. UK is not Sweden.
@ayque That is good to hear, but at some point public monies to sustain private business will reach its limits.The UK has an aging population and a rising national debt. That is simply not sustainable long term. As to Sweden and the UK not being the same, that goes without saying. Each case must be judged on both their similarities and their differences. Nonetheless, the similarities are such that they bear examination and study.
They don’t seem to care about the national debt at the moment, given they’ve also written off the debts of several hospital trusts.
@ayque They don't now. However, the longer the recession, the deeper the national debt the more future productivity and growth will be compromised. You are literally borrowing from future growth with no means to repay it as the population ages, the workforce shrinks and the number of people paying in decreases relative to the number of people taking out.This will, over time, undermine the ability not only to get future economic growth and investment will decline and interest payments consume a larger share of national income, it will also undermine both future and increasingly current benefits. (Indeed, given that the NHS serves more old people - since they use health care more than the young - this strikes particularly at the long term viability of the national health care system.) Further, with slower long term economic growth will come lower employment. This hitting particularly hard those currently in school. It will also widen the gap between the rich and the poor.Bottom line, the longer the lockdown, the worse the economy over time. In the nation's preoccupations with the fears of the moment, the future is slipping away. (This, by the way, being true of the West in general as its population is older and its welfare states the most expansive. The UK, however, with the 6th largest economy and an older population will pay more harder and sooner than say, the US, with a bigger - though also aging - economy and population.)
Well they keep deflecting any possibility of relaxing lockdown.
@ayque That is because, to recount my original thesis, there is a cultural assumption that every problem has a solution, that the public is entitled to perfect safety, and fear is obscuring the fact that there are trade-offs to be made and that life has an irreducible amount of risk.So the society looks to science. Science answers the question is scientific ways that do not take account of the collateral social, cultural and economic effects. The policymakers and politicians, driven by public fears and not wanting to be blamed for any deaths, fall back on the pure science. It damages the economy and the culture in the long term, but in the short term provides social catharsis and affords government officials and politicians immunity from the charge that they were careless about the disease.
Well public support for the lockdown is still strong in the UK so looks like we’re stuck in it for a while longer.
@ayque Watch what happens when people start getting hungry and their jobs evaporate. Frankly, even if they just get bored and to feeling confined.That is the problem. Emotion is driving policy and the urgent is being allowed to overtake the necessary. As likely as not the lockdowns were initiated in haste and will die as the mood changes and the public simply begins to grow listless. As likely as not, the lockdowns will die from unconscious boredom and changing priorities as by conscious policy choices.
It seems to be working for now. The government keeps driving home the stay home, save lives message and those who breach it are named and shamed by everyone. That’s despite the chief medical officer and chief scientific officer telling the nation that we shouldn’t expect any restrictions to be lifted any time soon and more than likely most restrictions will stay until the end of the year at least.
@ayque Well, culture plays its part. The UK has more of a social tradition of deference to authority and that will certainly have a part to play.By contrast, already in the United States there have been protests in 38 of the 50 states demanding a weakening of, or the elimination of, the lockdowns. 8 states never had full lockdowns and three states have begun opening up.At this stage, public opinion tilts toward full lockdowns, but the large lines at food pantries as the record number of bankruptcies are starting to change that. Suffice to say, a nation born in a revolution is apt to have less of a tradition of deference to authority.So culture will play a part - and do not make the assumption that things will stay as they are. The first lesson of history being that things were not always as they are now will they remain as they have been.
People here seem to be accepting they’ll have to live with the current state for a long time.
@ayque Yes, you said that already. See my comment above for at least some of the cultural origins of such deference to authority and circumstance.
If anything, in the UK, it will more likely be pressures from large business leaders and within government and the Conservative party which will eventually shift the direction.
@ayque Probabl the business community - which after all is going bankrupt. Less likely from the Conservative party. Not least because it started with a less restrictive approach and moved - particularly after the hospitalization of Prime Minister Johnson - to a tighter approach.The Tories have a stake in the current restrictive model - throw in the hysteria in the tabloid press - in the status quo. They will not likely change until the broader national mood beyond the business community begins to change.
Interesting. I think what might shift public opinion is seeing relaxation of lockdowns and effects in other countries. The U. K. does have a habit though of wanting to be different from the rest of Europe so I don’t know how that will play into the mix.
@ayque The actions of neighboring states in Europe. likely will play a part in changing public opinion. That, and as noted, as the costs of the cure begin to be perceived as worst than the disease. Their will be a multiplicity of factors and it is somewhat idle to speculate what will change the mood.When asked by a reporter what kept him up at nights, the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan - later Lord Stockton - replied, "Events dear boy. Events." Just so.
Seems more and more countries are talking about a phased reopening now after passing the peak whilst keeping the transmission rate below 1.
@ayque Not sure of what point you are trying to make. It will vary country by country according to culture and circumstance. Suffice to say, as noted, already some American states never bothered, two others are now starting to relax restrictions, as well as several localities, and 38 states have experienced protests demanding that things be opened up. That is just in the US. At this point, it is sort of beating a dead horse. As one country opens up, the pressure on others to do so will increase. Not least because those that remain closed will be at a competitive disadvantage in relations to those that open up.A certain dynamic brought matters to lockdown, and a changing dynamic will open it. Pretty much par for the course.
I thought they’re all just following the original strategy of lockdown until the peak has passed then gradually lift restrictions.
@ayque No, some countries never had a full lockdown - or much of one at all. Some - like China - imposed one far more brutal than anything that would be tolerated in a Western democracy. Some - either out of custom or, as in the USA, out of constitutional necessity, apply more of a matrix.You seemed determined to find some kind of universal approach. There has not been one nor is there likely to be one. Albeit that Western democracies, sharing similar cultural traditions and political structures, are apt to bear some greater similarity than say, with China or Singapore.
I speak of the UK, where it’s just been announced that lockdown will continue until we know there won’t be a risk of a second peak. The PM said lifting the restrictions too soon will be even more detrimental to the economy as it would mean reimposing a second lockdown.
European Countries are saying that Even when lockdowns are eventually lifted social distancing will be the new norm for a very long time.
@ayque Very likely it will be - and given the nature of European cultures it is likely that many will observe it.Indeed, even in the United States there is some expectation that it will continue. Hence the reason why the restaurant industry is in such trouble. Henceforward there will be fewer tables, meaning fewer customers, meaning fewer employees to serve them. Again, nothing without its costs.By the same token, let us not overstate matters. Santa Barbara, California, you may have seen, last weekend opened its beaches but still required social distancing. That flopped.People streamed to the beaches, blissfully ignoring the rules and packing in like sardines. The beaches were overrun. The city - after the weekend was over - said that it would more strictly enforce the rules. Stay tuned on that. Bottom line, take predictions of social distancing going on indefinitely with a grain of salt. Human behavior and habit will as likely drive policy as the other way around.
I hope at least one day there will come a time again when we can hug people and sit with our friends and family in restaurants and fly on planes.
@ayque There will be. The hysteria of the moment will pass. As it did in 1919. As it did after the now long forgotten 1957 "Hong Kong" flu pandemic. If you watch the media you will be caught up in the hysterics of the moment. If you look over the long sweep of history, you realize that there is more resilience to human nature and habit than the immediate headlines suggest. Albeit not without bumpiness along the way.
will we learn something or advance in some way significant?
@ayque It's a strange question. Some things we will learn quickly. Other things will take generations to learn. Other things we will make mistakes and change course. Human being are imperfect and imperfectible. Progress is not assured and civilization is the story of ups and downs. Of rises and falls. So too will the lessons learned here. Not every conclusion will be right, and not every conclusion will be agreed upon across the world and across generations. Such is the way of the world and man. Beyond that, it is difficult, from this vantage point, to draw too many conclusions.Already some lessons are being learned. The second guessing about total lockdowns being a small example. Again, the validity of those lessons - right or wrong - will only be known with time and further experience.
And maybe a second wave?
@ayque It could happen, but the wisest advice would be not to spend your time fretting about it. Take everything in its stride and recall Kipling, "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing their's my son, then you will be a man."
When I tell a few people working on the frontline that the economy would eventually have to be gradually reopened and that people can’t be kept in quarantine for years, they say that I’m being selfish and don’t care about people’s lives. Or yes, it’s hard but you have to keep going to save lives.
@ayque Well, we have been up and down these discussions already. However, two things to add.1) Do not assume that the people you talk to are exemplary of the range of opinions out there. Not to mention that those opinions will not change over time.2) Know an emotional argument when you hear one. The person accusing you of caring more about money than lives, for example, is confusing an ad hominem with a reasoned argument. It accordingly deserves less credence and should be taken less seriously.Again, as to the rest, we have discussed these issues already. Best to re-read what we have already discussed rather than re-tread old ground.
You are wise.
@ayque Thank you. You are exceedingly kind to say so.
It’s interesting though if not stressful at the same time. In the UK, I see old divides becoming stronger. The rich/poor, frontline workers/office staff. These are the lines in which I see agreements/disagreements about continuing lockdown as long as possible. Frontline workers seem to have gained some sort of superiority complex (although they get highly offended when this is mentioned) for all their work which of course is highly appreciated and I understand their concerns, sacrifices and thoughts but they’re not experiencing what those of us at home are experiencing since they are out doing what they always do lockdown or not. And I find it funny how a few of the politicians and frontline workers I’ve seen don’t seem to be adhering to the 2m distancing rules even when it’s clearly possible to do it. With rich/poor, the rich have larger houses and gardens and also will be able to sustain themselves financially for longer. The legitimacy of this came into question when it was said that it’s easy for someone with a big garden to say they’re not allowed to sit in a park on their own even if there’s plenty of space to do so. Although I also understand that this could cause overcrowding in parks if too many do it.
Of course I’m generalising a bit as not everything I said applies to everyone.
@ayque Yes, you are generalizing. In fact, in some cases you are simply stereotyping based on vague biases. For example, how do you know the "essential workers" feel superior? It is just as likely that they would rather be home safe with their family and friends.The list goes on. There will be economic impacts, some long lasting, some temporary. Social consequences to follow. Some long lasting, some not so much. The cure will cause as many - if not more - problems then the disease. (Total lockdowns, in terms of their economic impacts, will tend to widen the gap between rich and poor.) Bottom line, life is imperfect. There is no way "to make straight the crooked timber of humanity." So there it is. To sit in your home and fret about it will accomplish not very much. So go on about your life, pursue your hobbies and interests to the extent you can. Read a book, call your friends.Life will go on. Man has been around for several hundred thousand years, this will not change that. You - and man generally - then will be judged on how wisely and how well you handle it.
Clearly not well in my case. I just generalised and yes, many essential workers would rather be home with their families.
@ayque Yes, clearly not well and my suggestion would be to call family and friends. Engage yourself with distractions and interests. I wish I could be of more service, but I do not know you and it would be fruitless - and my guess is eventually frustrating to both of us - to try to alleviate your anxieties. Best to go to those who know and love you - or perhaps, in extremis, to therapists. The latter not being anything to be ashamed of any more than you would be to go to the dentist for a toothache.
Does that make me a bad person? maybe continuing the lockdown for longer will turn out to be the right answer. No one knows what the answer is. Time will tell as you say.
@ayque Who said it made you a bad person? You said that you were not handling this situation well. I suggested ways that you might take better care of yourself.On the point of the lockdown, I think you are mistaken for all sorts of reasons. (Example, food production is down by 35%. How much starvation are you willing to tolerate to limit the spread of the disease?) There is plenty that you are not considering, in my view.However, I see no point is discussing that as we have been down that road ad infinitum and - increasingly - ad nauseum.
Actually I want to learn and understand your view better.
@ayque Well, here are a slew of responses that I have written on the same topic going back to when this all started. Perhaps that will help if what we have already discussed has not been sufficient.Are current "shelter in place policies" unconstitutional because they violate our right to assembly and protest? ↗What do you think of Tucker Carlson’s view on coronavirus and how it should be managed? ↗ Are you worried about the coronavirus? ↗What is wrong with this guy? ? ↗How can Spain, France, Italy and California enforce the lockdown order? ↗Do you guys agree with Trump when he called the Coronavirus the “China Virus”? ↗What do you think of the young people partying in large gatherings during the COVID19 outbreak? ↗Do you thik that China is to blame for the coronavirus? ↗Do you think the countries of the world will finally stand up to China, or will they continue to be fearful of them and kiss their asses? ↗How is COVID-19 affecting your life? ↗CONT.
Why is the death rate for coronavirus so low in places like South Korea, and so high in Italy? ↗Do you think the USA is judging President Trump a little too harshly in this time? ↗In the future, what should be done to ensure less deaths from virus out breaks? ↗Do you think corona virus was made to eliminate excess population? ↗Americans who do you trust more right now: President Trump or Dr Anthony Fauci? ↗What do you think would be different if the outbreak killed 25 percent of all people in the world? ↗
Who do you think in the end Americans will blame for the Coronovirus? ↗The LEFT is taking advantage of this crisis by enacting their radical agenda, and stripping away our civil rights one by one. Your thoughts? ↗With global cases quickly rising towards 1 million, do you still believe Coronavirus is still Media overhype and mass hysteria? ↗Who do you blame for the whole pandemic situation and its economic consequences? ↗Will a 10 week lockdown period leave the US economy in ruins? ↗
@ayque You are quite welcome, and believe me, there are plenty more where those came from.
Well I’m sure there will be more. Pandemic questions are endless on here these days and the debate goes on and on.
I see all of your points. But I think society has moved on since 1918 to have a lower tolerance to death and higher expectation of care for those who need it.
@ayque Well, then you have to ask yourself. Will society be MORE tolerant of a rise in deaths by suicide, by child abuse, by starvation - the food chain is collapsing and production is down 37% - then by virus?Sometimes you have choices between good and bad, sometimes between good and good - and then sometimes bad and bad. This, whatever the society's expectations.
Would I be generalising if I said today’s society would probably not be tolerant to those things either but would blame it on those in power?
I don’t think today’s society accepts any bad at all.
@ayque Either way they will blame those in power. That is why the politicians are being driven to the science. It allows them to say that they did all that they could to contain the virus.Public opinion is fickle, however, and has - you are right - a low threshold for pain. Also, a high level of self-pity and self-regard. So whatever happens, the one group the public is not apt to say is that it takes the blame. Indeed, the problem being that as not all problems have solutions but are rather just difficulties to be managed, the idea that there IS blame to be had in the ultimate sense is problematic. To be sure the policymakers - arguably - went too far in their obeisance to abstract science. However, they had every incentive to do so as they were obliged to chase the public's chimera of a perfect solution.
A bi-product of technological and scientific advancement. Society now looks to technology and science for all the answers.
But one could argue a society like that also has advantages in that it can help it to excel further in scientific and technological advancements.
Do you think it’s a viable strategy to relax lockdown slightly and combine with mass testing and contact tracing so that you get cases close to 0? Or would your argument there still be that it would go on for an indeterminate length of time and only a slight lockdown relaxation would still have a detrimental effect on the economy?
I also don’t know if I’m just being optimistic but I think businesses and economies will bounce back stronger than ever. I think disasters can act as Refreshing reboots for the economy.
@ayque On the first point, it is not clear to me what mass testing will to do to add or subtract from the viability of current policy. Testing, first of all, is variable. Those who have minimal or no symptoms will not know to be tested. testing those with symptoms will only increase awareness of that which we already knew. The problem is not who has the disease? Rather, who does the disease impact?As to the economy bouncing back, that is highly unlikely. What business owner wants to take the liability of opening too soon? What consumer will be the first into a restaurant? What company can survive the shutdown to rehire its employees? And on and on and on...The fallacy here is that the economy is a machine that can be turned on and off like a light switch. It is not. Rather it is a complex organism that has a million intermixing parts. The notion that a good mood and good intentions can reverse the damage that has been done is - quite simply - wishful thinking.
I’m sure it does. But I think it will still recover quicker than people think. People will still want to do all the things they did before. And that demand will drive business surely.
@ayque There will be no demand if people have no jobs to get paid for doing. Trust me, next phase in this "crisis" will be what we do about a shattered economy. The virus will have been a forgotten memory.
The vast majority of the young I know here in the UK have more money than usual. Either they’re still in work or the Government is paying their wages.
@ayque Well, that's good that you know them. However, in one month - to cite one example - more than 10 years of job creation has been wiped out in the United States. Bankruptcies are at a 30 year high. (That means companies that will never come back.)Moreover, if people are uncertain about the future, they will save all that money and not spend it. Thus, more growth lost. Put simply, if you think you can wipe out 10 years of job growth and then snap your fingers and make it all better, you really need to brush up on your basic economics.
Oh, by the way, pure dumb luck - I happened to stumble on this article: www.marketwatch.com/.../why-the-us-economys-recovery-from-the-coronavirus-is-likely-to-be-long-and-painful-2020-04-22
So then I checked on the UK and found this: www.theguardian.com/.../uk-economy-will-take-three-years-to-recover-from-coronavirus-ey
3 years isn’t too bad. For the ones who are lucky enough not to have lost money, they would still spend money.
So I collected a few other opinions and they largely Seem to agree with you. They say public health experts in most countries know exactly what’s happening and they will give the best possible advice and options based on that. But most governments will also take into consideration public views which is at the same time being misinformed by a media wanting to be sensationalist. Would you agree with that?
Or political pressure might be a better description than views of the public.
@ayque Two points.On your second, yes. The politics of fear drove policymakers to impose the most draconian lockdowns. It was the politics of that time. Now, as I have repeatedly said, as fear subsides and the economy becomes uppermost, the policy will change - and is indeed changing. As to your point about three years not being too bad. There is a pitiless abstractness and disrespect for life in your attitude. Sure, three years is not bad if you are not the one living through it. On the other hand, if you are the one spending the next three years looking for a way to feed your family and keep a roof over their heads, you might think differently. You sound like someone who has not had to worry too much. Good for you. I guess people who have not been as lucky will just have to live with your comfort level.This economic shutdown was needless and optional. To be sure, there were always going to be job losses, these set against losses to the disease. That was inevitable.However, because more prudent minds failed to prevail, the policy went to extremes. Lives were still lost to the disease, but now to that you will add at least an additional three years of misery.Not the optimum solution, at the very least.
But as we discovered there was always a trade off to be made. Without a lockdown, even more lives would have been lost. You are also making assumptions, I am well aware of what people go through, I've always volunteered in my community to help those less fortunate.
But I have clearly caused offence and I apologise.
@ayque No, you have not caused offense and none was taken. However, you need to examine more closely the pedigree and implications of your own ideas. Feeling is not a substitute for thought - as the current situation amply demonstrates. Where that becomes a real problem is where you allow your wishes to become the father to your thoughts.There are whole countries filled to the brim making the same mistake you are making - and it is not cost free to do so.
Opinions will always differ though.
@ayque Yes, and the sun will rise and set. The rain will fall. All nice cliches.The point is not that there will always be opinions, but the issues are which opinions have more merit than others. This based on how well they conform to grounded principles and the facts of the case.
And people will have different approaches to the facts.
There are also facts based on assumptions. Much of both the economic and virus science is based on assumptions.
Every country is running a social, economic and epidemiological experiment.
@ayque Again, all nice cliches. We will now see the consequences of the ideas that have been guiding our actions. 3 years of hunger and misery being an irreducible part of that.
That may well be so. We will see at the conclusion of the experiment.
@ayque Yes, because of course humans are just organisms in a petri dish, to be manipulated and experimented on.Hence, my point to you about the pitiless abstractness and disrespect for life inherent in your argument.
They are not. But you and I both have our biases and will priorities different things.
@ayque The difference is that my argument recognizes the limitations of science and knowledge and chose to mitigate the worst effects of a disease over which human control will never be absolute. Your argument went to an extreme without regard to the unintended consequences of an experiment that could never fully succeed. Which nevertheless you were willing to attempt because the law of unintended consequences and their negative effects did not bother you so much as the abstract perfection of your experiment enticed you. Everyone else to take the hindmost.
I’m not going to carry on this argument but let me ask you this - Are you always right when it comes to political matters making people who don’t agree with you wrong?
You should also know that I agree with you on the whole. I just believe in challenging ideas to improve them.
@ayque The question is peculiar. Would I be making my argument if I thought I was wrong? Would you be making yours if you thought you were wrong?The point is that we make an argument based on the best understanding of the facts and principles as we have. What I have been doing is making mine and pointing to the logical and philosophical inconsistencies in yours. This is where debate is merited and validated. It is how imperfect beings come closest to discerning the truth. Which is absolute and objective, but which imperfect beings can only ever imperfectly glimpse.For your part, you have fallen into cliche - well, everyone will have a different opinion. Yes, but one must be closer to the truth than the other. One is not as good as another. Also, you have fallen into an error common to certain strands of Western thought. The idea that we have the knowledge, wisdom and tools to engineer society. This thereby reducing human being to mere animals to be experimented on. This on the profoundly mistaken idea that society can be pulled apart and reassembled at will.Also, you keep saying that you will not argue further - and then you keep arguing.
Yes I agree with you. But it seems to me like you are also making assumptions about me based on what I’m saying.
@ayque No, I make no judgment on you. I don't know you. Rather I am characterizing the nature of the flaws in your argument.You seem like a fine person making flawed arguments. No sin in that.
Yes, you’re passing judgement based on assumptions to some degree. As you say, you don’t know me so you would make assumptions based on what I say, it’s only human. And I will do the same to you because I am also an imperfect human in search of the truth.
@ayque Pray tell, what judgment am I passing on you?Grant, that I do not think that you are especially well informed on some of the issues on which you pronounce. That is pretty normal on the planet. I having an advantage in that I have an academic background in political philosophy and 30 years in politics and public policy.Nope. I suspect that you are less well educated/experienced on these issues than I am. I suspect - NOW - that you are inclined to read more emotion into this discussion than it warrants. A bit defensive, perhaps. Beyond that, I don't know you enough to think anything more about you. Now I suppose I could start every response to you with, "Now, I know that you are a good and loving person but here is where you are wrong..."That might soothe you. However, give the 2,000 character limit to these answers, I prefer to address the issue and leave the rest to be assumed. Alternatively, no one is putting a gun to your head and demanding that you keep writing. Just stop responding and the issue will solve itself that way.
Back on the subject, on top of the economic consequences, I can also see other hidden long term impacts such as mental health consequences for all, social development issues in babies and young children, lack of community support for new And expectant mothers, the list goes on. And it’s all most likely to affect the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies.
@ayque No argument here. The world decided, in a fit of panic, to shut the global economy down. No thought was give to the limits and consequences of that approach. Now thought will have to be given to it one way or the other. The difference being that many will suffer who might not have needed to had more thought been brought to bear at the start rather than after the fact.
Also my apologies, I misread your previous message. I thought you said you are passing judgement, that was my mistake. And yes you suspect based on assumptions since you do not know me. Actually, I don’t like beating around the bush. And I make no comment regarding your long career in politics.
@ayque Fine not to beat around the bush. Just recall as Sir Francis Bacon said, "Be calm in arguing. For fierceness makes truth an affront and error unpardonable."
Yes, I agree. We are less different that one may think - I’m making big assumptions here of course.
According to the UK media, SAGE (the U. K. governments scientific advisory group) have just realised they don’t have all the necessary expertise to get us through the situation. They put out a call for epidemiologists, emergency planner and logistics specialists to work with the team.
@ayque Well, that;s interesting. Not sure why you thought it worth relaying to me.Suffice to say that it illustrates the limits of human fallibility, even among those with experience and education in such matters. To repeat, not every problem has a solution, and you cannot expect perfection from imperfect beings. Policy then being formed in that light. Rather than on the supposition that we can fix the problem and that we have the appropriate tools for doing so.
Well I agree all countries should now be looking to reopening but I also find it difficult to agree with the do nothing and let it rip through - we should have done nothing at all. Many countries have still cut the rate of transmission and kept within the healthcare capacity.
In the UK anyway. I don’t think there’s a one size fits all solution for every country. At the root of it, it’s balancing economy and other social factors with virus cases.
@ayque You have said all this before and to the best of my knowledge no one is advocating a "do nothing and let it rip through - we should have done nothing at all..." approach. At least no one in public office.In that, you are pushing on an open door.
No politicians are. Some people are though.
@ayque Which means not very much. In any random sample of human beings you will get a wide array of opinions. Some of great merit, others not. That really proves not much. The merit being judged on the data and philosophic principles, not on the basis of who or how many are saying it.
So I had a look at the 2 arguments carefully (lockdown vs Sweden approach) and it seems that the only real difference between the 2 approaches is the assumptions made about the number of patients requiring hospitalisation and characteristics of the virus and subsequently the measures needed to keep within the healthcare capacity. With these factors in mind, the end result is the same if 1- you can’t eradicate this virus completely within your borders (very difficult I think in Europe and the US), 2 - there’s no vaccine or other way to dramatically increase the rate at which the infection numbers decline, 3 - your healthcare capacity is not exceeded. So really Sweden’s approach is reliant on the healthcare capacity not being exceeded and the lockdown approach is reliant on there being an intervention which dramatically increases the rate of decline towards 0. The lockdowns have worked in terms of keeping below healthcare capacity And Sweden’s approach may or may not work also, we shall see. Of course what these models don’t consider is the economic and social impact and where society decides the trade off is in what is as we’ve established, a problem with no perfect solution.
@ayque You did see that the WHO just Thursday announced that Sweden's is the optimal approach. This after previously having put in a good word for China to this time.Not sure of the point you are making. Healthcare capacity being a function of economics. The Swedes adopted a system that balanced competing needs and interests. THAT is the point.This unlike the total lockdown approach that prioritized one thing above all others - with all the effects, intended or not, the follow. You appear to have missed the point. One approach sought an unattainable goal. The other managed an inherently unsolvable problem.
The WHO pointed it out as a model solution going forwards. At this point, we’re at a different point in the pandemic which the previous modela I speak of don’t consider.
@ayque So? Given where they had been, could the WHO have said anything else?Again, is perfect security attainable? Have the costs of increased suicides, increased hunger, increased drug/alcohol abuse, increased traffic accidents - it turns out that people are driving more recklessly because there are fewer people on the roads - being weighed against the lives saved from the virus.You keep beating the same horse over and over and over and over. Life is not about absolutes. It is about trade-offs. It is about weighing costs and benefits. The total lockdown tallied up one benefit while ignoring the corresponding costs.
No. Actually I’m completely agreeing with what you’re saying. This article is where I’m coming from - unherd.com/.../
@ayque That's very nice and I am flattered. However, I am not quite clear on why you feel the need. From my perspective, at the very least, we appear to have exhausted this topic.
Except for not needing a lockdown at all. The only bit we disagree on is what’s worse - a short lockdown to get past the peak and subsequently adopting a More Sweden like approach or whether any lockdown (even a short one) would cause more death than am exceeded healthcare capacity.
@ayque Never said that we don't need any lockdown. My whole point was one that focused on vulnerable populations.In terms of an absolute lockdown of any duration, once in place, its costs were bound to mount quickly. Think of this - in one month ten years of job growth have been wiped out.
Most countries have failed in shielding the vulnerable population. Care home deaths are very high. And yes, I see your point too. But what causes more deaths in a developed country is unclear to me. A collapsed healthcare system or economic downturn caused by a month of total lockdown.
@ayque Well, m I guess that depends on what deaths matter more to you - death by suicide or death by virus.Sorry, I am not sufficiently expert to decide which matters more. Suffice to add that the poorer a society becomes, the less its capacity to take care of its vulnerable populations. Thus at best, you buy short term gain for long term pain.
Well yes thats a societal question. And also which ones easier to manage.
And which there will be more of. Not easy questions.
@ayque Well that's all very cliche - and it would make more sense if you had not just said you were basically in agreement with me not two or three postings ago.Seriously, I think you have pretty much exhausted this line of inquiry.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
1. What is the point of this comment? To demonstrate how dumb you are? It worked. 2. No. WRONG. Logic is how you make decisions properly. Science is not. Logic can make is/ought destinctions though philosophical discouse. Science simply shows what "is". 3. False equvalency. Science does not make "predictions" science is the method, not the person making FALSE predictions. If a scientist makes a false prediction the SCIENTIST is WRONG. The method might not be wrong, the person using it is. You STUPIDLY used "science" and "scientists" interchangeably. Scientists are WRONG when they make bullshit claims. Oh i get it, if a scientist claims (without using the scientific method) that leprechauns shot out of your ass, he's not wrong. Got it. Scientific theory can ALSO be wrong. You know as much about science as your 44 cats.
Oh I remember you now.Yes, you're an idiot.
Yes, It can't possibly be more than one person who demontrates your stupidity. Also, not an argument.
Putin's Long War Against American Sciencewww.nytimes.com/.../...ion-health-coronavirus.html
The problem is scientific realism is no where even close to be proven. In fact scientits can't even solve the problem of scientific demarcation. Plus no serious acedemic scientist thinks we will EVER demonstrate ANY absolute, objective truth value. The problem? You can't even get off the ground to even BEGIN to claim scientific realism unless you have at least 1.
I don't think you know how to read. I said scientists, not science.
I know exactly what you wrote and I mean what I wrote - you sound like you don't understand what SCIENCE is.
I also bet you're so smart you think scientific realism has been "proven".
I don't know, since you don't understand science you probably also have a flawed definition of what "scientific realism" means. So I guess no, I don't believe what you believe it to be to have been proven.
I know what you wrote what you meant and I meant what I wrote. You don't know how to read. I have evidence you can't read. You don't have evidence I don't understand science. You lose.😅
So far the only thing you've proven is that you don't understand how science works and that you're motived and biased by some agenda.
Yet another claim spouted without evidence.I believe in claims with evidence, you should try it. How about you quote me a single time where i made a scientific claim and not a scientist claim. Go ahead. Ill wait. Haaaa
The evidence is everything you've been writing here. Your responses to me, to other users, and your question. Especially in your response @abc3643 you're demonstrating undoubtly that you don't understand how science works.
You said i dont understand "science".I said the word SCIENTIST. Proof you can't read. Oh ill bet you'll stupidly claim otherwise.But this response is not for you.
But I'll play along for a second. Do you believe the scientific method is the most accurate method we have in trying to explain things?
Again - I know you said scientists and not science. And I never said you don't understand scientists, I said you don't understand science. And I said that because of what you say about scientists and what you further said about science. Plain and simple.
And now you've demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. Which is also just further evidence for your flawed understanding of science. Kinda funny. 😊
I assume that last reply was not for me. At least it didn't seem to adress anything in our conversation.Alright, since I've managed to expose your ignorance about science to everyone even further than you've done yourself already, my job is done here. I'm muting this thread now.Bye dummy. 😉
You claim i dont understand the difference between evidence and proof. Again, without evidence. Again, i know you said science but i said scientist. Which PROVES you can't read. It would only prove it if the evidence pointed in that direction. Shame it doesn't. Youve provided ZERO demonstration of that.
Yep youve exposed me. The person who made assertions without ANY specificity. Who stupidly strawmanned my position by attacking a position that i was talking about science vs "SCIENTISTS". Science is the system that builds and organizes data in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Scientists are flawed human beings that sometimes make predictions that are wrong. Not the same thing.
You also don't have proof
Suppose i agreed that science is never wrong that the method actually is the best way towards truth. Would that mean that i understood science? NO.NO IT WOULD NOT. Suppose i disagreed. Would THAT prove I didn't understand science. Would it even show EVIDENCE that i didn't understand it? Nope.Perhaps i PERSONALLY thought farting in the wind was a better method to the truth. But i KNEW the what the scientic claims were. A person does not have to accept ANY dogmatic view of any sort in order to understand it. The fact that he even asked this question exposes how truly stupid he is.
What a tard. 😆😅😆😆😆😆😆😆😅😅😅😅
Yeah, for a lot of things it only theory