I’m reasonably sure. I like arguing and I want to do it well. I’ve changed my mind about large issues before and I listen in particular to people who argue intelligently. The philosopher Graham Oppy has interesting things to say about the nature of arguments and his lead is one I follow in my approach to them.

But as I’ve recently posted elsewhere, in my experience almost everyone does this:

1. They say things
2. They become upset when asked to defend what they say
3. They beg the question
4. And ultimately pretend that no argument against their position has been made

If or when I do those things I’d actually like to hear it, because I don’t want to be that way. On my terms if you routinely argue in that way and can’t change that then you can’t think.

The acknowledgment of their harms is appreciated. However, I do find the view that they were entirely unnecessary compelling. The initial scare was a product of Neil Ferguson/Imperial College’s prediction that there would be half a million deaths in the UK and millions in the US if we did nothing. Neil Ferguson has a history of grossly inaccurate predictions. Lockdown began in the UK on the 23rd of March but deaths began decreasing very soon afterwards, suggesting that the important changes had come before the lockdown had actually begun, i.e. people were taking care around the vulnerable, hand washing etc.

I haven’t kept up to date with things, but the last time I was there hadn’t been any cogent demonstrations of the effectiveness of lockdowns.

I haven’t kept up to date with things, but the last time I was there hadn’t been any cogent demonstrations of the effectiveness of lockdowns. — AJJ

Well it's not like you can do controlled trials; we'll only ever have so-called "natural experiments". I don't know what the overall evidence is either, though I recall the general opinion that the absolute lockdown that was possible in Wuhan (because totalitarianism) was widely considered effective.

On the other hand, I think epidemiologists warned from the beginning, as they did with border closings, that lockdowns are inherently leaky. They just buy you time, time that we in the US famously squandered.

It's no answer to a pandemic. It has to be part of a larger strategy and it has to be well executed and over quickly because it is not something the modern world is designed for. Where I work, we ended up laying off good people, some of whom had been with us for more than a decade. That was not a good outcome, and not what anyone -- management consultants aside -- wanted.

You can look also at the way the virus behaved in different contexts. The Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta said some time ago that despite differing degrees of lockdown between countries the virus came and went in the same fashion, indicating natural immunity was the governing force in this and not the varying lockdowns. Can it even be shown that they bought us anything at all that a request that people take care wouldn’t have? And I’d say it’s better not to trust or emulate what comes out of a regime like China’s.

I think Neil Ferguson managed to scare the world into reacting insensibly, and what we’ve seen since is justification by doubling down on the initial mistake. Fairly normal human behaviour on a tragic scale.

You just have to find a way to say that without sounding like this:

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks. — General Buck Turgidson

You can argue that lockdowns were a mistake because they don't work. But I wouldn't try arguing that we didn't need to do lockdowns because far fewer people have died than in some of the early speculative projections. That "smaller" number was is still horrifying.

Oh, and that number was with various countermeasures taken.

So we’re seeing numbers 2 and 3 from you now, from my post about poor argument. You’re beginning to get upset (accusing me of being cavalier about millions of deaths) and question begging (it hasn’t been demonstrated that lockdowns caused fewer deaths, I’ve shared a couple of things that suggest they don’t, and pointed out that the early estimates were by someone with a history of making grossly inaccurate predications).

You’re beginning to get upset — AJJ

Not at all. I was not accusing you of being cavalier, but suggesting that you could be taken that way if you weren't pretty careful about how you compared death tolls, and how you relied on different death tolls in arguing. (I didn't say you were Buck Turgidson, just that you don't want to sound like him.)

I was also not question-begging: by "countermeasures" I meant not only lockdowns, but masking, social distancing, plexi sneezeguards everywhere overnight, all that. I've read arguments that there was never much point to constantly sanitizing everything that could be sanitized, but that was done, here and there anyway, and maybe those arguments are wrong and even that helped. I don't know.

I don't know how much a contribution lockdown made, but I've dealt directly with a lot of people who refused to wear a face mask and I've seen a lot of people be pretty cavalier (here I am saying it) about social distancing. Having most places be less crowded is a pretty good fallback if you acknowledge that some people won't take the other precautions.

Again, that's very broad strokes. I don't know what the real evidence about lockdowns is, in part because some of the most infamous super-spreader events involve people following none of the standard public health recommendations. Is it possible that, with social distancing and masking, you could have a huge wedding and be fine? I honestly don't know. Early on we thought it was spread through droplets only, not aerosols, but that was probably wrong. So just being with a lot of people at once starts to look pretty sketchy unless you have really kick-ass ventilation. Limits on the number of people in one place at a time are, in effect, partial lockdowns.

Anyway, I'm absolutely open to your argument and I think we all want to be because this is not the last time. It will happen again and next time we need to know what worked this time and what, conceivably, did more harm than good.

Not at all. I was not accusing you of being cavalier, but suggesting that you could be taken that way if you weren't pretty careful about how you compared death tolls, and how you relied on different death tolls in arguing. (I didn't say you were Buck Turgidson, just that you don't want to sound like him.) — Srap Tasmaner

If you weren’t taking what I said that way then don’t say anything. If someone else does they can tell me, and I’ll tell them they’re arguing poorly.

But I wouldn't try arguing that we didn't need to do lockdowns because far fewer people have died than in some of the early speculative projections. — Srap Tasmaner

This is the question begging bit. There’s little cause to think the lockdowns had anything to do with the smaller death toll compared to the predictions if you’re not assuming it.

I expect we’ll keep doing the same things regardless, or including further restrictions. To lessen the response would be to admit the others were overdone and governments can’t do that without holding themselves accountable for the destruction caused by the measures.

:100:

I misunderstood what you said (the “question begging bit”). I didn’t argue that though.

The dubious predictions weren’t a reason not to lockdown, but they also weren’t a good reason *to* lockdown.

This is the question begging bit. — AJJ

Oh, I see. I thought it was the other thing. But, no, I was not trying to suggest that lockdowns were the reason the eventual death toll was lower. You seem certain that they weren't; I suspect they helped. It should be an empirical question, but it's a very difficult one, for me anyway.

I misunderstood what you said. But even so, I didn’t argue that. — AJJ

We're all good, I think. The only reason I made the point about how your point "might sound" -- and you're right, it's kinda none of my business -- is that I wanted to see questions about lockdowns discussed seriously, and that means keeping people who raise the issue from being dismissed as loonies.

You seem certain that they weren't; I suspect they helped. It should be an empirical question, but it's a very difficult one, for me anyway. — Srap Tasmaner

Not certain, no. But from what I’ve seen, from an empirical perspective the argument against lockdowns is very strong: known to be incredibly destructive with little to show they work.

The only reason I made the point about how your point "might sound" -- and you're right, it's kinda none of my business -- is that I wanted to see questions about lockdowns discussed seriously, and that means keeping people who raise the issue from being dismissed as loonies. — Srap Tasmaner

Fair enough. But then those who are inclined to dismiss their opposition as “loonies” like to do so regardless.

Always consider the possibility that if one is unable to convince others with rational arguments, one's arguments might not be as rational and objective as one thinks. — Tzeentch

Always consider the possibility that if you are unable to be convinced by rational arguments that you might not be as rational and objective as you think you are.

Virtually everyone is immune to facts/reason on many or most topics. — Yohan

So you have encountered "virtually everyone" have you?

But as I’ve recently posted elsewhere, in my experience almost everyone does this: — AJJ

So, you have experienced "almost everyone"?

Expressions like “virtually everyone” and “almost everyone” are rhetorical, not technical.

Expressions like “virtually everyone” and “almost everyone” are rhetorical, not technical. — AJJ

So, you are presenting rhetoric not reasoned argument?

But from what I’ve seen, from an empirical perspective the argument against lockdowns is very strong — AJJ

Share some links if you have any handy.

Since we’re not writing for academic journals I consider it fine to use rhetoric in argument.

So is it a waste if time to engage you?
— frank

For you, yes it is. Feel free not to. — Xtrix

Ok.

Here’s the interview with Sunetra Gupta I referred to: https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

Here’s an article referring among other things to the UK death rate falling too soon for lockdown to be the cause: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-the-nhs-was-not-overrun-by-covid-during-lockdow

Here’s the initial Imperial College/Neil Ferguson report (I think the final paragraph is worth drawing your attention to): https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

And here’s an article listing Neil Ferguson’s past predictions: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-questions-that-neil-ferguson-should-be-asked

Why should the standard be any different? To state that most people are X or Y is simply a facile claim that carries no rational force.

To be honest, I don’t even know that rhetoric isn’t used in academic writing. The rhetorical expression “almost everyone” means “of those who I have encountered, directly or indirectly, many/most/the vast majority are/do/are like this...”

The point though is, that you, like anyone else, have only encountered the tiniest portion of humanity, so such generalizations are without empirical or rational basis.

I don’t find it too egregious. I’ve encountered lots of people, some of whom have the same opinion as me and they too have encountered lots of people. I see no reason why a sample this large couldn’t be fairly representative of people in at least the Western world.

there hadn’t been any cogent demonstrations of the effectiveness of lockdowns — AJJ

At an earlier stage of the pandemic (before vaccines were ready) the primary purpose of lockdowns (at least as I understood them) was to reduce the number of cases, some of which would be severe enough to require hospitalization. This was critical because the capacity of hospital ICUs is always very limited--both in terms of staffing and facilities. Of necessity its a low volume specialty.

Lockdown = slowdown. The fewer people mixing, the fewer new cases. The fewer new cases, the fewer severe cases. With luck, fewer severe cases means everyone who needs ICU will get it. Lockdowns and mask-wearing when public contact couldn't be avoided, distancing, and hand-washing all helped.

True enough, no one knew what to expect. If one compares C-19 to the 1918-1919 influenza epidemic, clearly 1918-19 was worse--at least 675,000 dead out of a population of 105 million. We now have about the same number of US C-19 deaths, but the population is 3 times as large --330 million. While there have been around 4 1/2 million C-19 deaths in the world, in 1918-19 there were between 25 and 50 million deaths from influenza out of a population of less than 2 billion.

There were difficulties coping with influenza a century ago. People were not always cooperative; hospital over-flow wards were swamped, never mind the hospitals proper. Far fewer effective medications for anything were available--not even sulfa drugs. Public health services were anemic or missing in action in some states.

I'm just old enough to remember polio. I had influenza in 1969 and I was very sick. There was also a 1976 outbreak of hepatitis B (which made me intensely sick), and then AIDS came along. Older gay men have certainly not forgotten how bad AIDS was -- hundreds of cases in a very small community in the Midwest, thousands of cases in larger communities on the Coasts. Years of severe sickness and then death. Now, of course, AIDS is treatable (not curable).

So, it seems like Covid 19 hasn't been the worst thing that has come along, though plenty bad enough for those who had serious to severe cases.

Thanks!

I find it baseless to say that almost everyone who is interested in thinking about things critically are (because they are the people under consideration)

... does this:

1. They say things
2. They become upset when asked to defend what they say
3. They beg the question
4. And ultimately pretend that no argument against their position has been made — AJJ

It is a gross generalization without any cogent basis, since neither you nor the combination of you and those you have spoken to about this could have any hope of having encountered more than a tiny percentage of those people who are interested in thinking about things critically.

It is a gross generalization and a facile attempt to bolster your own baseless position regarding those subjects you have no expertise in. Even if it were true that most people do the things you say and you are simply just doing what most others do, that in no way excuses it.

From the Times:

“Social media and news reports are full of stories about Covid deniers dying in hospitals. Many of those stories seem to be in good faith. It is as if they are trying to force us to marshal empathy for people who were led astray by nefarious disinformation campaigns to their own peril. The stories have all the makings of an emotional “feel good” cinematic morality play. The dying are humanized through their social roles — a dad, a mom, a veteran — all wishing in their final hours that they had done something differently.

Like many people, I am finding it hard to muster the empathy these stories try to elicit because other images are so fresh in my mind. The maskless rallies, the red-faced anti-maskers screaming at grocery store workers, the protesters hurling invectives at the schoolteachers who are begging for masks so that schoolchildren can return to school — those images fill me and crowd out my empathy.“

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/covid-empathy-grief.html

Good to know I’m not alone in my empathy fatigue.