Quo Vadis GOP?

[alfred russel]

Also Berkut, getting shit from you about covid is ridiculous.

YOU FUCKING GOT YOURSELF INFECTED, PARTICIPATING IN A TEAM SPORT!

[DGuller]

Firearms have been discharged!

[Berkut]

I think the poor guy has been triggered.

[alfred russel]

I think the poor guy has been triggered.

100%. You are a useless piece of shit. Keep it up and I'm going to start throwing some real mud your way.

[Berkut]

 


Starting throwing, because I am definitely not going to stop observing that Trump had a lot of help from useful idiots in getting a lot more people killed then needed to - if you think "Gosh, why....I totally fit that mold Berkut is talking about!" then I suspect that says more about you then it does about me and my uselessness.


Here is a hint for you though - I am not saying *anything* that everyone else isn't saying as well. So get your shovel ready, snowflake.

[The Minsky Moment]

At risk of walking into the crossfire . . .

When COVID first became publicly recognized in the early months of 2020, we didn't know a lot about it.  Other than the fact that it was a form of coronavirus, and thus probably would act something like other coronaviruses. But we lacked specific data about basic facts about transmission, spread, and mortality among many other things.

The question is - given that state of knowledge - what was the optimal course of action?  And what level of risk aversion should be adopted balancing the unclearly specified risks to health and life vs the risks to disruption to economic and leisure activity?

In evaluating the wisdom of decisions made back then - it isn't a proper argument from either side to focus on exclusively on endpoints. E.g. comparing the realized death rate of Georgia to say Canada. Not just because it is an apples to oranges geographically and not just because the concept of "Georgia" and state boundaries generally is not that helpful a concept in thinking about movement of a virus. But because it's like arguing that a 50-50 bet of rolling a 12 on a pair of dice was a smart move because hey look I rolled the dice it came up 12.

My own view then and now was to err on the side of caution.  COVID was pretty awful but it could have been a nothingburger on the level of a bad cold, or if could have been quite a lot worse in terms of deadliness and virulence.  There was no way to know for sure exactly where it would fall on that continuum ex ante. To my mind taking more stringent measures made sense until we could be sure they weren't needed.  It's possible that others who are less risk averse or more personally impacted by such measures could take a different view - that's perfectly legit.  But in thinking about that balance, we have to base it the knowledge known at the time.

But although there are an array of rational ex ante approaches, whatever view was taken, you can still evaluate policy based on the process. The criticisms of Trump are valid because regardless of the outcome good or bad, the processes he followed were utter shit. It was based on his view of the politics and his own crazy michegas.  And that's how you ended up with stuff like keeping healthy people on a boat full of infected people because allowing them entry would cause US case numbers to rise. Or informing the American people it would all go away magically by Easter.  Or that it would go away in summer because President Xi said so.  Or shilling for quack remedies on national TV. Etc. etc. etc..

[Berkut]

But because it's like arguing that a 50-50 bet of rolling a 12 on a pair of dice was a smart move because hey look I rolled the dice it came up 12.

Or in this case, it is like arguing that its a great bet because you rolled the dice 50 times, and it came up 12 twice, and you just kind of pretend the other 48 losing rolls (and all the money you lost on them) didn't happen.

It is, in fact, something that casinos absolutely count on - the ability of humans to simply ignore the parts that don't align with their preconceptions, while crowing about the parts that do align.

They still walk out of the casino broke in the end, much more often then not.

[crazy canuck]

When COVID first became publicly recognized in the early months of 2020, we didn't know a lot about it.  Other than the fact that it was a form of coronavirus, and thus probably would act something like other coronaviruses. But we lacked specific data about basic facts about transmission, spread, and mortality among many other things.

As an example think about the early days when people crowded into washrooms to carefully wash their hands...

[alfred russel]

At risk of walking into the crossfire . . .

When COVID first became publicly recognized in the early months of 2020, we didn't know a lot about it.  Other than the fact that it was a form of coronavirus, and thus probably would act something like other coronaviruses. But we lacked specific data about basic facts about transmission, spread, and mortality among many other things.

The question is - given that state of knowledge - what was the optimal course of action?  And what level of risk aversion should be adopted balancing the unclearly specified risks to health and life vs the risks to disruption to economic and leisure activity?

In evaluating the wisdom of decisions made back then - it isn't a proper argument from either side to focus on exclusively on endpoints. E.g. comparing the realized death rate of Georgia to say Canada. Not just because it is an apples to oranges geographically and not just because the concept of "Georgia" and state boundaries generally is not that helpful a concept in thinking about movement of a virus. But because it's like arguing that a 50-50 bet of rolling a 12 on a pair of dice was a smart move because hey look I rolled the dice it came up 12.

My own view then and now was to err on the side of caution.  COVID was pretty awful but it could have been a nothingburger on the level of a bad cold, or if could have been quite a lot worse in terms of deadliness and virulence.  There was no way to know for sure exactly where it would fall on that continuum ex ante. To my mind taking more stringent measures made sense until we could be sure they weren't needed.  It's possible that others who are less risk averse or more personally impacted by such measures could take a different view - that's perfectly legit.  But in thinking about that balance, we have to base it the knowledge known at the time.

But although there are an array of rational ex ante approaches, whatever view was taken, you can still evaluate policy based on the process. The criticisms of Trump are valid because regardless of the outcome good or bad, the processes he followed were utter shit. It was based on his view of the politics and his own crazy michegas.  And that's how you ended up with stuff like keeping healthy people on a boat full of infected people because allowing them entry would cause US case numbers to rise. Or informing the American people it would all go away magically by Easter.  Or that it would go away in summer because President Xi said so.  Or shilling for quack remedies on national TV. Etc. etc. etc..

You are arguing in circles. What started this was you asked Legbiter, "Isn't that the advice you gave us Yank posters when your guy Trump got elected?  Don't get your panties in a bunch, etc.

How did that turn out?"

And I responded:

"It didn't turn out so bad. Life went on."

In such a discussion you should look at things after the fact with hindsight. Playing Russian Roulette is extremely dumb, but if you play it and the gun doesn't fire, I will point out the obvious that it didn't turn out poorly and that life went on.

You may not like comparing a US state to a country--but we are a federal republic and the restrictions put in place in each state differed dramatically. After the fact it is exceedingly difficult to measure benefits from specific policies to outcomes. I was pointing out that even if we attribute significant portions of negative outcomes to laxer policies, it isn't at all clear those were not worth the incremental cost. I don't agree with Jacob's blanket initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US.

[alfred russel]

Starting throwing, because I am definitely not going to stop observing that Trump had a lot of help from useful idiots in getting a lot more people killed then needed to - if you think "Gosh, why....I totally fit that mold Berkut is talking about!" then I suspect that says more about you then it does about me and my uselessness.


Here is a hint for you though - I am not saying *anything* that everyone else isn't saying as well. So get your shovel ready, snowflake.

Why don't you explain to the group why you drop hints about having a sexual relationship with Meri? How is that gentlemanly behavior?

[Barrister]

I don't agree with Jacob's blanket initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US.

604,000 dead versus 26,000 makes me pretty easily disagree with you.

[Jacob]

604,000 dead versus 26,000 makes me pretty easily disagree with you.

Agreed.

[alfred russel]

I don't agree with Jacob's blanket initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US.

604,000 dead versus 26,000 makes me pretty easily disagree with you.

We have 10 times your population - but that aside I made my point above. Would you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened? (which I grant not all this country had, but the parts that did were in line with the national average)

[Jacob]

We have 10 times your population - but that aside I made my point above. Would you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened? (which I grant not all this country had, but the parts that did were in line with the national average)

10 times the population doesn't really justify 24 times the death rate.

And here's the thing - it's about the health of the population and the country as whole - not your individual "I'd take those odds."

[Syt]

Would you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened?

It's not just about you.