Coronavirus pandemic

[kphoger]

Well, not to me as I am far away from you. Those closer to you may have a different opinion. And the same thing, you (and me) may take some risks personally and accept some risks from others (my neighbor LOVES fireworks. I occasionally find burnt leftovers on my wooden deck) - but there are limits to what I am willing to tolerate in terms of MY idea of how big that threat is.

People closer to me don't seem to have any problem with folks not wearing masks.  Most people in Wichita, in my experience, don't wear them, and nobody gets upset by that.  Meanwhile, people on the other side of the country on this forum–people I'll probably never even meet in real life–seem to have a problem with my not wearing a mask.

What he's trying to do is contruct an argument, no matter how absurd, that defends his decision not to wear a mask even when it is not required. 

What I'm trying to do is point out that nothing I wear or don't wear is a direct threat to someone hundreds of miles away.

[SEWIGuy]

Yes, exactly.  Willingness to bend the knee to the government is hailed as our duty in the context of and in the name of stopping COVID, while such willingness is derided in other contexts.  The willingness to follow government directives in one area of life and the unwillingness in other areas of life–especially by the same individuals–is perplexing to me.

Is it really?  We have a pandemic that has killed over 120,000 Americans, and we have a way to slow the spread of that pandemic, and you wonder why people think a government recommendation should be followed?

I mean, in three months this disease has killed about four times as many people who die in OWI accidents in a year.  Do you question why people "bend the knee to the government" and follow drunk driving laws?

[kalvado]

Well, not to me as I am far away from you. Those closer to you may have a different opinion. And the same thing, you (and me) may take some risks personally and accept some risks from others (my neighbor LOVES fireworks. I occasionally find burnt leftovers on my wooden deck) - but there are limits to what I am willing to tolerate in terms of MY idea of how big that threat is.

People closer to me don't seem to have any problem with folks not wearing masks.  Most people in Wichita, in my experience, don't wear them, and nobody gets upset by that.  Meanwhile, people on the other side of the country on this forum–people I'll probably never even meet in real life–seem to have a problem with my not wearing a mask.

Fair enough. Your personal threat to me personally (as opposed to figurative meaning of "you and me")  is 0.
Some of us may feel you're "nearby" due to the way we communicate. Or it may be assuming that the world is small, and someone else on a different forum tells similar things to my neighbour.

[kphoger]

Yes, exactly.  Willingness to bend the knee to the government is hailed as our duty in the context of and in the name of stopping COVID, while such willingness is derided in other contexts.  The willingness to follow government directives in one area of life and the unwillingness in other areas of life–especially by the same individuals–is perplexing to me.

Is it really?  We have a pandemic that has killed over 120,000 Americans, and we have a way to slow the spread of that pandemic, and you wonder why people think a government recommendation should be followed?

I mean, in three months this disease has killed about four times as many people who die in OWI accidents in a year.  Do you question why people "bend the knee to the government" and follow drunk driving laws?

People's cow-like willingness to follow directives started long before the death toll rose this far.  When shutdowns first started becoming widespread, the US death toll was under 300, yet a huge number of Americans were unquestioningly in agreement.  That's what's so perplexing.

Four possibilities on masks:
1. Government is right on masks and you wear a mask - you have helped stopped the spread of disease
2. Government is right on masks and you do not wear a mask - you have willfully endangered other people
3. Government is wrong on masks and you wear a mask - you've been somewhat inconvenienced for no reason
4. Government is wrong on masks and you don't wear a mask - no effect one way or another

The worst case downside for wearing a mask is that you're doing something that is somewhat annoying for no reason and are inconvenienced by that. This is not a significant sacrifice.

The best case upside for wearing a mask is that you're actively saving lives.

Based on that game theory, it makes sense to wear a mask.
--

Four possibilities on protests:
1. There is a systemic racism problem that leads to people dying and you support protests to resolve - you have raised awareness of an issue and have helped to save lives
2. There is a systemic racism problem that leads to people dying and you do not support protests to resolve - you are a racist
3. There is no systemic racism problem that leads to people dying and you support protests to resolve - there is some unnecessary graffiti/property damage
4. There is no systemic racism problem that leads to people dying and you do not support protests to resolve - no effect

The worst case scenario for protesting is that we end up with some property damage that can be repaired.
The best case scenario for protesting is that you're actively saving lives.

Based on that game theory, it makes sense to support protests.

--

At least to me, that's why willfully disregarding government to protest perceived racism is a far more noble pursuit than willfully disregarding government to protest perceived inconvenience(?) for having to wear a mask.

This seems to suggest two things:

(1)  People should always wear masks, forever until the end of their days.  The best case scenario will always be saving lives, and the worst case scenario will always be slight inconvenience–even if the government and scientists aren't declaring an active emergency.

(2)  People should always protest racism in every context, whether there is evidence of it or not.  The best and worse case scenarios will remain the same, so what's the harm?

I find neither suggestion palatable.

[SEWIGuy]

Yes, exactly.  Willingness to bend the knee to the government is hailed as our duty in the context of and in the name of stopping COVID, while such willingness is derided in other contexts.  The willingness to follow government directives in one area of life and the unwillingness in other areas of life–especially by the same individuals–is perplexing to me.

Is it really?  We have a pandemic that has killed over 120,000 Americans, and we have a way to slow the spread of that pandemic, and you wonder why people think a government recommendation should be followed?

I mean, in three months this disease has killed about four times as many people who die in OWI accidents in a year.  Do you question why people "bend the knee to the government" and follow drunk driving laws?

People's cow-like willingness to follow directives started long before the death toll rose this far.  When shutdowns first started becoming widespread, the US death toll was under 300, yet a huge number of Americans were unquestioningly in agreement.  That's what's so perplexing.

Not really.  They saw what was happening in Europe and didn't want that to happen here.

And you know what?  Europeans, who trust their governments more than we do, have done a much better job in dealing with this virus than we have.  It's not a coincidence.

[formulanone]

People closer to me don't seem to have any problem with folks not wearing masks.  Most people in Wichita, in my experience, don't wear them, and nobody gets upset by that.  Meanwhile, people on the other side of the country on this forum–people I'll probably never even meet in real life–seem to have a problem with my not wearing a mask.

Most people will rarely interact in public with others with entirely different opinions, anyhow. It's considered rude...whatever tone is set by the public generally keeps things civil. Besides, there's always the threat it works against the agitator. There's other stuff to do than try to turn around everyone's view points when you're buying groceries or trying to repair your toilet. So you don't know if someone is or isn't judging you for not wearing a mask, nor cares one way nor another.

That's why we lambast each other on the internet.

Sports team fanaticism is kind of the mysterious exception: someone will be rude pretty much anywhere on earth in which silence is not required nor expected.

[kphoger]

Not really.  They saw what was happening in Europe and didn't want that to happen here.

And you know what?  Europeans, who trust their governments more than we do, have done a much better job in dealing with this virus than we have.  It's not a coincidence.

Then, back to HB's point:  Why isn't everyone encouraging people to "trust their government" in other aspects of life right now?

[NWI_Irish96]

Not really.  They saw what was happening in Europe and didn't want that to happen here.

And you know what?  Europeans, who trust their governments more than we do, have done a much better job in dealing with this virus than we have.  It's not a coincidence.

Then, back to HB's point:  Why isn't everyone encouraging people to "trust their government" in other aspects of life right now?

I think people have a hard time distinguishing between political and non-political functions of government. Health, scientific and statistical functions of government are non-political (no matter how much any one person might try to make it so) and should not be met with the level of skepticism that is rightly leveled against political functions.

[kalvado]

Not really.  They saw what was happening in Europe and didn't want that to happen here.

And you know what?  Europeans, who trust their governments more than we do, have done a much better job in dealing with this virus than we have.  It's not a coincidence.

Then, back to HB's point:  Why isn't everyone encouraging people to "trust their government" in other aspects of life right now?

Because there are different reasons to believe in things. I trust government that I better pay the taxes because the government has some nice ways to encourage me doing the right thing.  I trust the government that my car needs to go through that recall because I somewhat trust professionals, namely manufacturer's engineers who discovered and fixed the problem  - and the government is just a messenger here. I trust  government when they say that drunk driving is bad because of those two reasons combined. 
There may be other reasons to trust; but plainly being elected official is NOT on the list.
I trust the government when they say that drunk driving is bad because of those two seasons combined. 
I don't really trust the government that maximum speed on the road to work is 65 MPH, though,  despite them trying to convince me using some nice cars with beautiful flashes.

In the case of masks, I don't trust government per se, I trust professional opinion which coincides with my understanding of things. 

[kphoger]

I think people have a hard time distinguishing between political and non-political functions of government. Health, scientific and statistical functions of government are non-political (no matter how much any one person might try to make it so) and should not be met with the level of skepticism that is rightly leveled against political functions.

Couldn't it also be argued that the police is a non-political function of the government?

[kalvado]

Not really.  They saw what was happening in Europe and didn't want that to happen here.

And you know what?  Europeans, who trust their governments more than we do, have done a much better job in dealing with this virus than we have.  It's not a coincidence.

Then, back to HB's point:  Why isn't everyone encouraging people to "trust their government" in other aspects of life right now?

I think people have a hard time distinguishing between political and non-political functions of government. Health, scientific and statistical functions of government are non-political (no matter how much any one person might try to make it so) and should not be met with the level of skepticism that is rightly leveled against political functions.

Well, as in the example above - speed limits are supposed to be a non-political function, but people tend not to trust those numbers...

[NWI_Irish96]

I think people have a hard time distinguishing between political and non-political functions of government. Health, scientific and statistical functions of government are non-political (no matter how much any one person might try to make it so) and should not be met with the level of skepticism that is rightly leveled against political functions.

Couldn't it also be argued that the police is a non-political function of the government?

In theory it should be, but it clearly isn't. Police unions spend millions of dollars lobbying politicians. There are no statistician unions doing anything similar.

[corco]

This seems to suggest two things:

(1)  People should always wear masks, forever until the end of their days.  The best case scenario will always be saving lives, and the worst case scenario will always be slight inconvenience—even if the government and scientists aren't declaring an active emergency.

(2)  People should always protest racism in every context, whether there is evidence of it or not.  The best and worse case scenarios will remain the same, so what's the harm?

I find neither suggestion palatable.

That's the ol' slippery slope fallacy - to look at this as something that will always be valid is to again ignore context.

All but the fringiest parts of society are in alignment on two things right now:
1. We're in a pandemic. While there may be wildly varying ideas perspectives on how to handle the pandemic (ranging from total lockdown to "accept the deaths and have business as usual"), I think the one thing pretty much everybody agrees on is that we are in a pandemic.

2. The way George Floyd died was both well documented and unnecessary. Regardless of if you think there's systemic racism or it was just one bad incident or whatever, I don't think it's in dispute that he didn't commit a capital offense and therefore did not deserve to die the way he did.

--

The question then becomes "okay so what do we do about it," which makes the conversations about protests and masks valid. If we weren't in the middle of a pandemic the argument to wear a mask probably does get into the situation where the potential cost/benefit of the inconvenience outweighs any negligible life savings and the conversation shifts entirely. Society quantifies the value of human life all the time - otherwise we wouldn't have cars, for instance, so it's not like "the safest action always wins" or something.

The racism/protest one does admittedly get a lot more complicated and I'm not even really sure it's my place to address that.

[kphoger]

The racism/protest one does admittedly get a lot more complicated and I'm not even really sure it's my place to address that.

It's best left out of this thread anyway.

Society quantifies the value of human life all the time - otherwise we wouldn't have cars, for instance, so it's not like "the safest action always wins" or something.

And "society" isn't quantifying COVID-related things uniformly either.  I think no ill of people who evaluate the situation and choose to wear a mask every time they go out, nor people who only wear one in certain specific circumstances, nor people who haven't worn a mask a single time since this whole thing began.  I tend toward choosing to afford each person the decency of making his or her own decisions in life.  Each person's values, experiences, outlook, and background are unique to that person.

[LM117]

Phase 3 of VA's reopening plan begins July 1.

https://www.wdbj7.com/2020/06/23/governor-set-to-speak-as-va-coronavirus-cases/

[Scott5114]

The problem is that in this case your decision can negatively–and potentially fatally–impact people you don't know.

Consider the following as given for the purposes of a scenario:
1. Bob has COVID-19 and is currently highly contagious, but asymptomatic. Because Bob is asymptomatic, he has no reason to believe that he will test positive for the virus, so he has not sought a test.
2. Bob has access to a theoretical face mask that traps 100% of outgoing coronaviruses. Bob cannot infect anyone else when wearing this mask.
3. Bob needs to go to the grocery store, which contains several other customers of varying risk levels of death from COVID-19.

How could we possibly afford Bob the luxury of making his own choice on whether to wear the mask or not? And what benefit does that give us as a society? "Mildred ended up dead because of Bob's choice, but her death is worth it because it means Bob got to make his own decision?"

I cannot subscribe to such rubbish.

[ftballfan]

I saw on the news that an official in Los Angeles said that the George Floyd protests might be tied to a rise in COVID cases in southern California.

Michigan has been averaging around 200 new cases a day for the last couple of weeks, and that's with them administering around 10,000 (or more) tests per day. In early April, Michigan was third in the number of total cases (behind only New York and New Jersey). Now, Michigan is ninth (if you count probable cases, which some sources use) or 11th (if counting just confirmed cases).

[Scott5114]

I saw on the news that an official in Los Angeles said that the George Floyd protests might be tied to a rise in COVID cases in southern California.

The problem is that the timing of the Floyd protests coincided with the opening of businesses in a lot of places, so people can argue for political purposes that it's the protests causing it, rather than the easing of lockdown restrictions.

Oklahoma opened early, on May 1, and R_t crossed 1.0 on May 13.

[Roadgeekteen]

The problem is that in this case your decision can negatively–and potentially fatally–impact people you don't know.

Consider the following as given for the purposes of a scenario:
1. Bob has COVID-19 and is currently highly contagious, but asymptomatic. Because Bob is asymptomatic, he has no reason to believe that he will test positive for the virus, so he has not sought a test.
2. Bob has access to a theoretical face mask that traps 100% of outgoing coronaviruses. Bob cannot infect anyone else when wearing this mask.
3. Bob needs to go to the grocery store, which contains several other customers of varying risk levels of death from COVID-19.

How could we possibly afford Bob the luxury of making his own choice on whether to wear the mask or not? And what benefit does that give us as a society? "Mildred ended up dead because of Bob's choice, but her death is worth it because it means Bob got to make his own decision?"

I cannot subscribe to such rubbish.

Not really.  They saw what was happening in Europe and didn't want that to happen here.

And you know what?  Europeans, who trust their governments more than we do, have done a much better job in dealing with this virus than we have.  It's not a coincidence.

Then, back to HB's point:  Why isn't everyone encouraging people to "trust their government" in other aspects of life right now?

Imagine if you were Bob?

[webny99]

To me the question really comes down to "Do you believe that public health officials are acting in good faith to make their communities a better place or do you believe that public health officials have some nefarious secondary agenda?" I choose to believe the former.

As a patriotic American, I care about my country, and so I'm always going to be more sympathetic to those who are trying to collectively improve their community than those who are trying to avoid individual inconvenience.

Well put and not only do I agree wholeheartedly, I think it's a nice bow on the past 2-3 pages of discussion that increasingly seems to be going in circles.

[Bruce]

One lesson from the pandemic: We do need a "nanny state" because we're a bunch of children who  can't follow basic suggestions.

Washington is starting a mandatory mask order on Friday because cases are spiking again, mostly in conservative areas, and the risk of spreading it to the rest of the state is very high.

[Max Rockatansky]

Personally I don't think if I wasn't one of the people was put in charge of Virus response at work then I don't think that I really would been paying much mind to COVID.  It felt that in my situation I was more or less just trying to stop people from panicking when there wasn't any answers.  To that end I really don't know if I was successful but I thought if I showed panic or fear people would pick up on that.  Now things kind of feel normal aside from some stuff like the massive amounts of cleaning and masks. 

In my day to day life I can really only control what I do (and to some degree my immediate family).  In that regard I have followed the rules proscribed to me through out the pandemic, even the ones I absolutely hated.  The gyms closing and not being able to go most of my favorite outdoor locales got to me the most by far.  I guess things like this really are relative to the individual but I felt like was pretty easily able to mildly adjust and move on with life in a couple weeks.  Generally I've usually kept to myself anyways and really that hasn't been altered at all through out the Coronavirus response. 

As this all wears on I don't find myself as compelled to get worked up over what is in the news or what others might/might not be doing.  I've started to tune out all the back and forth as just background noise.  Not even news stories these days are really offering anything enlightening about the Coronavirus anymore.  It's been a couple weeks in fact since I've even looked at local case statistics.  I guess that I don't really feel there is a lot of value in debates anymore or trying to convince people to see things a certain way.  It might be something of Sunnydale syndrome on my part but I guess that's where I'm at on what others are doing. 

[Roadgeekteen]

One lesson from the pandemic: We do need a "nanny state" because we're a bunch of children who  can't follow basic suggestions.

Washington is starting a mandatory mask order on Friday because cases are spiking again, mostly in conservative areas, and the risk of spreading it to the rest of the state is very high.

You don't magically become mature when you turn 18.

[webny99]

You don't magically become mature when you turn 18.

Well, you figured that out before turning 18, so that's a step in the right direction!! 

[Roadgeekteen]

You don't magically become mature when you turn 18.

Well, you figured that out before turning 18, so that's a step in the right direction!! 

I know adults