Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[alfred russel]

Its not about you.

You should read the posts above from BB and Sheilbh...apparently to them, at least in part, it is.

[alfred russel]

Umm, yes?  Of course?

We make all kinds of risk assessments for people.  That's why we mandate seatbelts, regulate food and drugs, have speeding limits, etc.

This is an incredibly powerful argument to ignore the rules.

I don't know about other jurisdictions, but to single out seatbelts and speeding limits, those only apply to public infrastructure / areas for the general public. Nothing prevents me from driving on my own property without a seatbelt and as fast as I want. Nothing stops me from drinking unpasteurized milk from my own cow.

Even if it was analogous, it is on the merits irrational to not wear a seatbelt. In this case, I laid out a clear scenario where a course of action was rational, and you ignored it with a statement of government authority.

[Grey Fox]

So, you do understand.

[Barrister]

Umm, yes?  Of course?

We make all kinds of risk assessments for people.  That's why we mandate seatbelts, regulate food and drugs, have speeding limits, etc.

This is an incredibly powerful argument to ignore the rules.

I don't know about other jurisdictions, but to single out seatbelts and speeding limits, those only apply to public infrastructure / areas for the general public. Nothing prevents me from driving on my own property without a seatbelt and as fast as I want. Nothing stops me from drinking unpasteurized milk from my own cow.

Even if it was analogous, it is on the merits irrational to not wear a seatbelt. In this case, I laid out a clear scenario where a course of action was rational, and you ignored it with a statement of government authority.

If you want to argue the law... seat belt laws in Alberta are not restricted to public highways.  They say you shall not operate a motor vehicle without wearing a seatbelt, full stop.  Obviously there's a question of enforcement, but that's the law.

But anyways, public health orders are part of a government's emergency powers provisions.  There's no question their legality.

And no - risking your life on a 1 in 500 chance (and, by the way, the risk you get severely sick but don't die is much higher than that) just so you can go do fun recreational activities is not rational.

[Eddie Teach]

A lot of people have jobs more dangerous than that.

[Barrister]

A lot of people have jobs more dangerous than that.

No there aren't.

A quick google suggests the most dangerous job in Canada is in fishing, with a death rate of 52 fatalities per 100,000 workers.  That's a death rate of 1 in 1900 workers.

Plus, of course, taking a slightly higher risk in order to earn money to feed your family is a lot different than to do it for recreational activities.

[Eddie Teach]

What's the fatality rate for mob hitmen? Or Somali pirates? 

[Sheilbh]

This maybe because I'm listening to the Talking Politics - History of Ideas podcast but AR's points mainly just make me think a lot of Hobbes right now

Looks like the UK and Australia who were both developing centralised apps are looking at decentralised apps. The issue is Google and Apple not letting centralised apps run in the background which makes them impractical. As the French Minister said I'm not sure why, instead of our public health authorities deciding the best approach for a track-and-trace app two big American tech companies get to decide.

Edit: The conclusion to the Hobbes episode:

And then the other deep division that Hobbes leaves us with is for the rest of us, those of us who aren't the sovereign in that sense, who aren't the government, the ruler, the decision maker, the absolute power, the rest of us are living in this state because we understand that, actually, it's the only way to rescue us from political conflict. There is at the heart of the Hobbesian account of politics a kind of paradox which is this, as it looks to us, extreme version of politics, this extreme form of power, is the only thing that can save us from politics. And if this state runs well, increasingly, we should have to think less and less about politics. The laws will be there in the background. As long as we don't disobey them, we can get on with our lives and do the thing that is most profitable for ourselves. We can carry on running down that hill, chasing that cheese, and some of us might catch the cheese. Some of us might share the cheese. Some of us might do something else with our time. All of us will do something else with our time because we are at peace at some level. Our state protects us. It keeps us safe and so we don't have to worry about it so much. This is fear to rescue us from fear. But we will be leading under this form of politics a divided life because we never know when the fear is going to come back, and we know that the power to bring the fear back, to take the life and death decisions, does not reside with us. We have authorized someone else to take that decision, which means in the heart of every subject who thinks of themselves under much more modern conceptions, as a citizen of a modern state, is a kind of division that never goes away, and if you nag away at it, it could keep you awake at night, which is, the thing that rescues us from politics is this form of politics, which means that we're never rescued from politics. And that puzzle, that dilemma, that fear and then the attempt to make that fear go away, that's a big part of the story I'm going to go on and tell.

He then went on to note that a few weeks or months ago the idea that us going outside and living our lives would constitute a threat would be bizarre. But now we are again seeing the coercive power of the state. And it is fascinating that the modern and post-modern niceties of our state has sort of been stripped by this threat: a virus.

[alfred russel]

And no - risking your life on a 1 in 500 chance (and, by the way, the risk you get severely sick but don't die is much higher than that) just so you can go do fun recreational activities is not rational.

It isn't just about fun recreational activities...it is about doing stuff with friends...not staring at a fucking screen indoors while you rot away.

It is tough to quantify some of this stuff, but there are climbing objectives that may have a 1-500 death rate.

[Valmy]

Climbing doesn't endanger non-climbers around you though

Your right to risk your life goes away once it involves endangering others' against their will does it not?

[alfred russel]

Climbing doesn't endanger non-climbers around you though

Your right to risk your life goes away once it involves endangering others' against their will does it not?

AGREE! (up to a point)

You guys told me that when this first started...but the hospitals aren't overwhelmed and never have been.

[DGuller]

Climbing doesn't endanger non-climbers around you though

Your right to risk your life goes away once it involves endangering others' against their will does it not?

AGREE! (up to a point)

You guys told me that when this first started...but the hospitals aren't overwhelmed and never have been.

They've been pretty overwhelmed in NYC for a while.

[alfred russel]

They've been pretty overwhelmed in NYC for a while.

I'm not in NYC in any event, but they aren't. See them dismantling temporary hospital space and sailing the hospital ship back to Virginia.

[DGuller]

They've been pretty overwhelmed in NYC for a while.

I'm not in NYC in any event, but they aren't. See them dismantling temporary hospital space and sailing the hospital ship back to Virginia.

Hospitals are not just about beds, it's also about doctors and nurses.  The doctors and nurses were definitely overwhelmed, and I wouldn't be surprised if that seriously affected the mortality numbers.

[Valmy]

AGREE! (up to a point)

You guys told me that when this first started...but the hospitals aren't overwhelmed and never have been.

Ah well I don't know about that but hopefully, if true, that state of affairs continues.