Because the elderly don't shop where you do and everybody is aware of any comorbidities they might have? I get it, statistically you personally pose a very insignifant risk. But how many people need to think like you that those insignificant risks taken together become significant?

The only way you can get it publicly is through your mucus membranes (mouth, nose, and eyes). If you cover those, you can't get it. — Hanover

It might provide some protection. It's more important to wash hands and don't touch your face. If wearing the mask causes a person to fuss with their face, the mask is making things worse.

Mask wearing is also part of the study I'm enrolled in.

Do you think the worry people have is primarily for their own safety? — Hanover

Yes. I think that's the main reason Americans accepted lockdown. They thought it was protection for themselves. Mostly, it wasn't.

If that is true, then you're saying we're all selfish and that those unconcerned just don't accept the virus will have a significant impact on them or feel they can endure it. — Hanover

Or just accept that death comes when it comes.

Really? Saturated how?

So you do get that. Cool. — frank

The qualification is "at the very least". If China and NZ etc end up with 60% infected or any way near that ever, I'll eat your hat and if they don't, you can eat mine.

There does seem to be a correlation between political ideology and concern, with the right caring far less than the left. I don't believe that comes from leadership, but I think it comes from worldview. — Hanover

According to moral foundation theory, out of the spectrum of moral intuitions liberals primarily value care/harm and fairness, whereas conservatives are balanced.

Interesting. For (everyone's) perspective, the areas are: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression.

The qualification is "at the very least". If China and NZ etc end up with 60% infected or any way near that ever, I'll eat your hat and if they don't, you can eat mine — Baden

It's said that based on reports from Wuhan, China isn't giving out accurate data, but it doesnt look like it has spread to other parts of China, which us amazing. It's a testament to the effectiveness of an authoritarian state.

I suspected you were that guy on the Lucky Charms box. Now I know.

Because the elderly don't shop where you do and everybody is aware of any comorbidities they might have? I get it, statistically you personally pose a very insignifant risk. But how many people need to think like you that those insignificant risks taken together become significant? — Benkei

I maintain social distancing in public, and I abide by all the rules, but certainly not above and beyond and maybe I ignore the spirit of them. I fully expect to get through this thing having been infected exactly 0 times and having infected exactly 0 people. So, if we all did what I did (using your Kantian ethical standard), we'd all infect nobody. If I do find myself infected, I'm not sure it will be due to some great recklessness on my part, but probably just due to being sneezed on by some guy as we both make our way for that last lonely roll of toilet paper on the grocery store shelf.

From a utilitarian point of view, if everyone thought like me, the world would be a utopia for reasons too many to count.

I fully expect to get through this thing having been infected exactly 0 times and having infected exactly 0 people. — Hanover

That will be highly unlikely considering this is now endemic.

From a utilitarian point of view, if everyone thought like me, the world would be a utopia for reasons too many to count. — Hanover

More proof utilitarianism is a stupid ethical system then! :razz:

There was also a very authoritarian/anti-authoritarian dichotomy. The ease with which so many people in nearly every country accepted authoritarianism surprised me. It is now the prevailing orthodoxy.

You make decisions based on the best information available to you at the time. — Baden

The comment I took issue with was declaring New Zealand's strict approach to be an indicator of the right course of action, without caveats. "The lesson is that if you lockdown early and lockdown hard, less people die. And you don't fuck up your economy as much." There's absolutely no need to learn lessons using the best information available to you at the time. We learn lessons using as much good quality data as possible, and where we know data is missing or inadequate we repair that problem before declaring what the lessons are.

The best information available has been that in the absence of the type of voluntary cultural reaction (due to experience of previous pandemics) and track and trace mechanisms (not to mention the highly focused outbreak) that applied, for example, to South Korea, locking down hard and early is the most effective option available to save lives in, at the very least, the short term. — Baden

Where's this coming from? Which expert (or group of experts) has declared that 'the best' explanation for Sweden's similarity to other harsher lockdown is its cultural response? Which have said that 'the best' explanation for South Korea is the focus of the outbreak? I've heard these suggestions being discussed. I haven't heard anyone declaring them 'the best' explanation.

I've got an open mind on it, but I think it's right to bat for the most likely approach to save lives rather than dither in the pursuit of an answer that isn't yet there — Baden

Again, the comment I took issue with was about lessons learnt, not justification of responses made in real time.

faced with arguments void of reason from extremes of the opposing side. — Baden

I've been arguing consistently for a less panicky response. I'm not counting, but I'd be surprised if less than half my comments contain papers or direct quotes from experts in their field. The arguments opposing aspects of the approach from my position have not been 'void of reason'. Just because a bunch of gun-toting rednecks want to defy lockdown it doesn't make all arguments in that direction void by association.

While other nations announced lockdowns to deal with existing crises, Vietnam enacted one to prevent one. — Baden

So as to avoid any potential for accusations of being 'void of reason', I'll leave this one directly in the hands of the experts...

the current figures are not at all directly comparable between countries, currently we have a huge bias in the numbers coming from different countries – therefore the data are not directly comparable.... What we need to really have valid and comparable numbers would be a defined and systematic way to choose a representative sampling frame

- my bold. Dietrich Rothenbacher, director of the Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry at the University of Ulm in Germany.

Spike mutation pipeline reveals the emergence of a more transmissible form of SARS-CoV-2

Great

"There was, however, no significant correlation found between D614G status and hospitalization status; although the G614 mutation was slightly enriched among the ICU subjects, this was not statistically significant (Fig. 5C)."

I trust expert opinion and I'm optimistic there's currently no cause for alarm. Mutation is par for the course.

yup. Especially for double stranded rna.

I've been arguing consistently for a less panicky response — Isaac

The response I've suggested has zero to with panic or @NOS4A2's bogeyman authoritarianism and everything to do with being effective. I don't remember what your specific position is except you raised some interesting points here and there. So, yes, add as many caveats as you want.

The policies you advocate are authoritarian. But I don’t think they are effective because they are unsustainable.

Huh? They're not supposed to be sustained, silly.

What happens if the infections continue? I suspect it is unlikely we will get a vaccine.

We talked about this. Part of the idea of the lockdown is to gain time to put more effective measures in place to deal with new infections e.g. track and trace, to train the population in social distancing, to stock up on PPE, to speed up and increase volume of testing etc. The "dance" part of the hammer and the dance.

Right, the “hammer” is the initial lockdown, the “dance” is what we do afterwords to mitigate. You have told me about this, and it might very well be sustainable. Unfortunately that’s not a world I want to live in.

You're already living in it, I presume. Where are you located?

There was also a very authoritarian/anti-authoritarian dichotomy. The ease with which so many people in nearly every country accepted authoritarianism surprised me. It is now the prevailing orthodoxy. — NOS4A2

But to say this already assumes a more lackadaisical attitude towards the virus. If this were the black plague killing everyone in its path, then I think even the most staunchly anti-authoritarian people would balk and would adhere to whatever demands were placed upon them and they'd be just as vocal in their criticism against others who weren't doing their share to limit the disease.

The point being, you don't think this virus is all that dangerous, so you therefore don't think it deserving of a response as if it were the black plague. I truly don't think those who are taking this virus so seriously are just mindless sheep, willing to cede all authority to their leaders, but they think this virus is much more akin to the plague than you do. And, from what I'm discerning from listening, they are at a complete loss how you (and I) can callously just let people die (as if that's what we're advocating).

There's a guy in my office who wears a mask every day, he wipes down everything in his path with Lysol wipes, he closes his office door, and he walks the other way when you approach him in the hall. It's taken some real convincing some here that he's not being passive aggressive and just trying to look holier than thou, but that he's really terrified of the virus.

When I asked about the psychological differences between those like him and those like me, I really was curious. I don't think it comes down to authority versus non-authority types, but perhaps a "don't worry, be happy" attitude, which might just be how some deal with chaos and the unknown.

Are people who wear seatbelts "terrified" of crashing their cars and people who don't just all relaxed and cool. You can take precautions because it's the rational thing to do without feeling much about it one way or the other and you can refuse to take precautions simply because you're ignorant. You realize that, right?

I live in the capital of British Columbia, Canada. The rules here are not as hard elsewhere in the country.

Are people who wear seatbelts "terrified" of crashing their cars and people who don't just all relaxed and cool. You can take precautions because it's the rational thing to do without feeling much about it one way or the other and you can refuse to take precautions simply because you're ignorant. You realize that, right? — Baden

I didn't actually generalize the terrified comment to all who are concerned about the virus, but only stated it applied to the guy in my office.

But regardless, I'll accuse you now of what I just accused NOS of, which is a misreading of behavior based upon a preconceived notion. I said to him that those doing as their leaders say are not mindless sheep, but they truly believe in the extreme danger of the virus (emphasis on "extreme"). Because it's extreme, the precautions taken are reasonable.

Your analogy of these precautions to wearing a seatbelt is to minimize what many believe are extreme measures to thwart a not as serious threat. That is, when NOS says you're crazy to worry about this like you are, you're responding in kind to say I'm crazy not to just do a few reasonable things to reduce the threat.

You think this threat is greater than I do, and I think the restrictions are more significant than you do.

I live in the capital of British Columbia, Canada. — NOS4A2

Vancouver, such a lovely city.

Wasn't referring to you specifically but making the point that what's important is what a rational response is not what's 'authoritarian', 'panicky', 'being terrified' etc. These are efforts in my view to skew the debate.

Wasn't referring to you specifically but making the point that what's important is what a rational response is not what's 'authoritarian', 'panicky', 'being terrified' etc. These are efforts in my vote to skew the debate — Baden

I see hyperbole as just a way to make a point and not so much as an effort to mischaracterize and mislead.

But to say this already assumes a more lackadaisical attitude towards the virus. If this were the black plague killing everyone in its path, then I think even the most staunchly anti-authoritarian people would balk and would adhere to whatever demands were placed upon them and they'd be just as vocal in their criticism against others who weren't doing their share to limit the disease.

The point being, you don't think this virus is all that dangerous, so you therefore don't think it deserving of a response as if it were the black plague. I truly don't think those who are taking this virus so seriously are just mindless sheep, willing to cede all authority to their leaders, but they think this virus is much more akin to the plague than you do. And, from what I'm discerning from listening, they are at a complete loss how you (and me) can callously just let people die (as if that's what we're advocating).

There's a guy in my office who wears a mask every day, he wipes down everything in his path with Lysol wipes, he closes his office door, and he walks the other way when you approach him in the hall. It's taken some real convincing some here that he's not being passive aggressive and just trying to look holier than thou, but that he's really terrified of the virus.

When I asked about the psychological differences between those like him and those like me, I really was curious. I don't think it comes down to authority versus non-authority types, but perhaps a "don't worry, be happy" attitude, which might just be how some deal with chaos and the unknown.

Yea, that makes sense. It’s true, I do not think the virus is such a threat that it warrants these sorts of lockdowns. I’m of the mind that life is a risk anyways. People die all the time. People get sick. I don’t think we should set our lives to one side in an attempt to save them all. I conform to the rules to make others feel better, not necessarily to avoid contracting the virus, which I think we will all get anyways.

Vancouver, such a lovely city.

Victoria is the capital. Even lovelier place. Less crowded.