Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Sheilbh]

I suppose the flipside of that - because I agree, I'm intensely relaxed about it on a personal level and know a few people who've had it from mild to unpleasant cases but notthing serious. But you know it's not about me it's about the risk I present to the vulnerable and society in general.

But the other way of looking at it is that's the IFR if you catch it and that's over a few weeks. So the actual risk isn't that you increase your risk of dying in a year by 50%. It's that you are packing the risk you normally have spread out over 6-12 months depending on your age group into a couple of weeks if you catch it. Isn't it?

[alfred russel]

So here is a thought experiment...you get a crystal ball and see that we won't be able to develop a vaccine or an effective treatment for covid19 and the virus won't get milder over the next 50 years. Immunity for people that have had the virus lasts about 12 months.

Does that mean we should just cancel movie theaters, church services, attendance at live sporting events and concerts, lectures, in person schools, gyms, conventions, etc.?

[Syt]

[Zanza]

When I leave my home, I also never wear a mask, but of course I wear it on public transport, in shops, in restaurants, in the office, in crowds etc. What exactly was the question in German? 

[Richard Hakluyt]

Same here, I put the mask on only when entering an indoor space.

[Zanza]

Does that mean we should just cancel movie theaters, church services, attendance at live sporting events and concerts, lectures, in person schools, gyms, conventions, etc.?

Just based on my current behaviour right now, I would likely just not go to cinemas, churches or conventions anymore. Not worth the risk. I think you can organize gyms in a hygienic way,  so the risk is low enough to be worth it. Schools I feel have such an outsized benefit that even with the virus around I think in person schooling is worth the risk. We should of course minimize it.

So going with your thought experiment,  I would miss some things, but not enough to risk them if I don't feel safe. I think that's the real reason for much of the economic malaise too and it will not go away by opening early as that just makes people like me feel unsafe and skip the activity.

After the lockdown, I was quite often in restaurants (mostly outside eating), visited museums again, went to an open air concert etc. But I don't feel safe in small bars and clubs or so. I guess those businesses are just fucked.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure I can explain this to you.

No shit.  Is there a person you can explain it to?  Give it a shot and I'll listen in.

You may be the only one who doesn't.  I see Sheilbh has tried another tact but you still don't seem to understand.  Do you really not understand that there are all sorts of laws and rules that a democratic state could not possibly enforce 100% and instead relies on high rates of compliance?

[DGuller]

You may be the only one who doesn't.  I see Sheilbh has tried another tact but you still don't seem to understand.  Do you really not understand that there are all sorts of laws and rules that a democratic state could not possibly enforce 100% and instead relies on high rates of compliance?

Starting arguments with "do you really not understand" is a pretty shitty way to have a discussion.  You don't have any grounds to assume the role of the lecturer here.

What I believe is that in a democratic society, laws are complied with because we have a rule of law.  Most people comply with the rules voluntarily, but at the same time they do it because they know that not complying will make them stick out and be subject to possible sanction.  Most people don't call the state's bluff, so the special few that do often get called.  If enough people at the same time realized that they could stop complying, then obviously there is nothing a state can do, in a democratic country or a dictatorship. 

What should happen when some rule is indeed massively disobeyed?  You unleash a massive campaign to force compliance, which is not sustainable in the long run, but hopefully sustainable for long enough to get people into the default mode of voluntarily complying.  You can't do that a lot, so that's why I said that you have to be very sparing with introducing rules that will be massively disobeyed.  The side effect of having a lot of rules that are not complied with is that the respect for the rule of law in general diminishes, such as that you will have lower voluntarily compliance on new rules going forward.

[crazy canuck]

You may be the only one who doesn't.  I see Sheilbh has tried another tact but you still don't seem to understand.  Do you really not understand that there are all sorts of laws and rules that a democratic state could not possibly enforce 100% and instead relies on high rates of compliance?

Starting arguments with "do you really not understand" is a pretty shitty way to have a discussion.  You don't have any grounds to assume the role of the lecturer here.

What I believe is that in a democratic society, laws are complied with because we have a rule of law.  Most people comply with the rules voluntarily, but at the same time they do it because they know that not complying will make them stick out and be subject to possible sanction.  Most people don't call the state's bluff, so the special few that do often get called.  If enough people at the same time realized that they could stop complying, then obviously there is nothing a state can do, in a democratic country or a dictatorship. 

What happens when some rule is indeed massively disobeyed?  You unleash a massive campaign to force compliance, which is not sustainable in the long run, but hopefully sustainable for long enough to get people into the default mode of voluntarily complying.  You can't do that a lot, so that's why I said that you have to be very sparing with introducing rules that will be massively disobeyed.  The side effect of having a lot of rules that are not complied with is that the respect for the rule of law in general diminishes, such as that you will have lower voluntarily compliance on new rules going forward.

That is not how the discussion started.  I explained the position.  You repeatedly said you and others didn't understand.  I give others more credit than that.  It is actually very easy to understand.

Your understanding of what creates high degrees of compliance is flawed.  High compliance is not created by deterrance.  High compliance is created by convincing the population that it is best thing to do.  That is one of the reasons we see low compliance in the US.  Your president continually undermines the public health officials putting out the guidelines causing his followers not to comply because they believe compliance is bad. 

As I said earlier, a world in which laws and rules are only created if they can be 100% enforced is a dystopic world.  It is either a libertarian hell hole because so few regulations can be put in place or a totalitarian hell hole because of the amount of power and control the state would require to ensure 100% compliance.

[The Minsky Moment]

Does that mean we should just cancel movie theaters, church services, attendance at live sporting events and concerts, lectures, in person schools, gyms, conventions, etc.?

We would do all those things but there would be modifications.

I.e. theaters and church pews spaced further apart and better air filitration and circulation system; masks required for patrons, temp checks, etc.

The US is screwed not because of the virus per se but because large masses of people won't cooperate with simple rules.

[DGuller]

You may be the only one who doesn't.  I see Sheilbh has tried another tact but you still don't seem to understand.  Do you really not understand that there are all sorts of laws and rules that a democratic state could not possibly enforce 100% and instead relies on high rates of compliance?

Starting arguments with "do you really not understand" is a pretty shitty way to have a discussion.  You don't have any grounds to assume the role of the lecturer here.

What I believe is that in a democratic society, laws are complied with because we have a rule of law.  Most people comply with the rules voluntarily, but at the same time they do it because they know that not complying will make them stick out and be subject to possible sanction.  Most people don't call the state's bluff, so the special few that do often get called.  If enough people at the same time realized that they could stop complying, then obviously there is nothing a state can do, in a democratic country or a dictatorship. 

What happens when some rule is indeed massively disobeyed?  You unleash a massive campaign to force compliance, which is not sustainable in the long run, but hopefully sustainable for long enough to get people into the default mode of voluntarily complying.  You can't do that a lot, so that's why I said that you have to be very sparing with introducing rules that will be massively disobeyed.  The side effect of having a lot of rules that are not complied with is that the respect for the rule of law in general diminishes, such as that you will have lower voluntarily compliance on new rules going forward.

That is not how the discussion started.  I explained the position.  You repeatedly said you and others didn't understand.  I give others more credit than that.  It is actually very easy to understand.

Your understanding of what creates high degrees of compliance is flawed.  High compliance is not created by deterrance.  High compliance is created by convincing the population that it is best thing to do.  That is one of the reasons we see low compliance in the US.  Your president continually undermines the public health officials putting out the guidelines causing his followers not to comply because they believe compliance is bad. 

As I said earlier, a world in which laws and rules are only created if they can be 100% enforced is a dystopic world.  It is either a libertarian hell hole because so few regulations can be put in place or a totalitarian hell hole because of the amount of power and control the state would require to ensure 100% compliance.

It's not one or the other.  Some people comply because it makes sense to them, some people comply out of general respect for all rules, some people comply grudgingly because they don't want to call the enforcers' bluff, and some are special cases that defy authority instinctively.  Making rules that are sensible in the first place is helpful for compliance, but so is making the grudgingly compliant remain compliant.

[The Minsky Moment]

There's always some asshole who decides that Aisle 9 at Walmart will be their great last stand for FREEEEDOM!

[Sheilbh]

It's not one or the other.  Some people comply because it makes sense to them, some people comply out of general respect for all rules, some people comply grudgingly because they don't want to call the enforcers' bluff, and some are special cases that defy authority instinctively.  Making rules that are sensible in the first place is helpful for compliance, but so is making the grudgingly compliant remain compliant.

Agreed it's not one or the other and that the police should enforce, I just don't think you can rely on enforcement and you should consider the message that's sending or how you communicate it. Because a lot of this is about comms and PR by government, because we need people to understand what they need to do and they probably want to understand why they should do it.

I think part of it is also social pressure and sort of societal norms. You know as an ex-smoker that pressure existed long before significant restrictive rules and I think there's probably a big element of that here too. That's at play here, I've seen people get very critical with their friends when someone went on an in-person date against the lockdown rules.

It's why I think the political stuff in the US makes it more difficult - because the comms is fucked up dreadfully and also different "tribes" have different social norms/pressures based on elite signals. But also I remember all of those studies about the US having a low level of social trust compared to (Northern) European countries. It's been argued that's one of the reasons that the US has a less developed welfare state. I also think it probably has a big impct on compliance with these sort of rules and guidance which are so sweeping and intrusive - especially when they can't be enforced. So to take Sweden where it's all voluntary if there's an assumption that most people are trustworthy, won't take advantage and will follow the rules that's more likely to make others follow the rules. If there's more of a society where you don't think people are trustworthy, think they will take advantage and think they will break the rules then you're more likely to break the rules.

[Malthus]

The term I've heard for why some rules that are not enforced by credible coercion are still followed (in some cases) is "compliance pull". You hear that a lot in the context of so-called "public international law", which is arguably not "law" at all in the sense there is no sovereign power capable of restraining every actor in the system.

The idea is that actors comply, not necessarily because they think the rule is in their best interests, and not because they think they will be punished if they don't, but purely for reputational reasons: because those who break the rule will be labelled as rule-breakers, which is seen as shameful.

In a society in which rule-breaking is seen as positively admirable, compliance pull cannot work, and so you need coercion or individual self-interest to support compliance: and in this particular case, individual self-interest is tricky, because there is generally a "tragedy of the commons"  aspect to following restrictions that only help society as a whole while inconveniencing you.

[crazy canuck]

You may be the only one who doesn't.  I see Sheilbh has tried another tact but you still don't seem to understand.  Do you really not understand that there are all sorts of laws and rules that a democratic state could not possibly enforce 100% and instead relies on high rates of compliance?

Starting arguments with "do you really not understand" is a pretty shitty way to have a discussion.  You don't have any grounds to assume the role of the lecturer here.

What I believe is that in a democratic society, laws are complied with because we have a rule of law.  Most people comply with the rules voluntarily, but at the same time they do it because they know that not complying will make them stick out and be subject to possible sanction.  Most people don't call the state's bluff, so the special few that do often get called.  If enough people at the same time realized that they could stop complying, then obviously there is nothing a state can do, in a democratic country or a dictatorship. 

What happens when some rule is indeed massively disobeyed?  You unleash a massive campaign to force compliance, which is not sustainable in the long run, but hopefully sustainable for long enough to get people into the default mode of voluntarily complying.  You can't do that a lot, so that's why I said that you have to be very sparing with introducing rules that will be massively disobeyed.  The side effect of having a lot of rules that are not complied with is that the respect for the rule of law in general diminishes, such as that you will have lower voluntarily compliance on new rules going forward.

That is not how the discussion started.  I explained the position.  You repeatedly said you and others didn't understand.  I give others more credit than that.  It is actually very easy to understand.

Your understanding of what creates high degrees of compliance is flawed.  High compliance is not created by deterrance.  High compliance is created by convincing the population that it is best thing to do.  That is one of the reasons we see low compliance in the US.  Your president continually undermines the public health officials putting out the guidelines causing his followers not to comply because they believe compliance is bad. 

As I said earlier, a world in which laws and rules are only created if they can be 100% enforced is a dystopic world.  It is either a libertarian hell hole because so few regulations can be put in place or a totalitarian hell hole because of the amount of power and control the state would require to ensure 100% compliance.

It's not one or the other.  Some people comply because it makes sense to them, some people comply out of general respect for all rules, some people comply grudgingly because they don't want to call the enforcers' bluff, and some are special cases that defy authority instinctively.  Making rules that are sensible in the first place is helpful for compliance, but so is making the grudgingly compliant remain compliant.

You are backtracking on your statement that rules should only be created if they can be enforced 100%.  You now recognize that there can be compliance not through enforcement alone (your 100% principle) but also simply by virtue of the fact that people will recognize that the rule makes good sense.  I am not sure why you were disagreeing with that point in the first place.

But if you insist on your proposition that only rules that can be 100% enforced should be created, where is middle ground between alternatives I suggested? 

Take a concrete example - Rule (everyone riding an elevator must use a mask while others are in the elevator).  Impossible for the state to enforce 100%.  Consider a group who believes wearing masks is worse than communism.  How is the state ever going to enforce that absent a police state of sorts.  But certainly a good rule that would likely have a high degree of compliance.  Following your proposition, since it cannot be 100% enforced it should not exist.  But if it does exist, despite the fact there will be idiots who disregard the rule, it will still provide very beneficial guidance and lives will be saved through the high rate of voluntary compliance.

The whole notion that rules should only exist if there is sufficient deterrence is overly simplistic and harmful.