Quo Vadis GOP?

[Berkut]

I am confident that if you actually do not understand my point such that you could confuse it with that strawman, nothing I can say can illuminate it better for you.

Also...I think you understand the point perfectly well.

[alfred russel]

I am confident that if you actually do not understand my point such that you could confuse it with that strawman, nothing I can say can illuminate it better for you.

Also...I think you understand the point perfectly well.

If I understand your point, that wasn't a strawman. You actually were bringing up attitudes in WWII regarding coastal blackouts as an argument in support of the migration restrictions that were being discussed upthread.

[crazy canuck]

You didn't. Increased volume just scales the cost/benefit ratio, it doesn't fundamentally alter it.

Oh well.

EDIT: okay, maybe that's a bit dismissive, but I'm really not interested in trying to convince anyone here.

Basically it's not about cost/benefit, it's about overall risk - that is, absolute numbers. Increased volume increases the risk straight up. Letting, say, 25 people in tightly controlled circumstances is unlikely to be disastrous even if it goes wrong. Letting 250,000 people in means the circumstances are going to be much less tight, and if it goes wrong it's more likely to be disastrous. So yes, increased volume absolutely does alter the risk factor.

Secondly, the profile of people travelling from the US to Denmark is going to be different than the potentially travellers between the US and Canada, which again alters the risk profile.

I could be reading Canada's policy wrong, but I don't think their issue is US specific. It seems they don't offer tourists a chance to demonstrate they are not a risk while Denmark does (unless they are from a country designated as at particular risk).

It seems they really do have significantly different policies.

Since the vast majority of our tourism comes from the US, it just makes good sense to fashion a policy regarding tourism with the US primarily in mind.  I am not sure what sort of numbers Denmark has to deal with, but we have the largest undefended border in the world with many more crossing points than Denmark could ever have.  It does not makes sense for us to create a system that is administratively burdensome and particularly when the percentage of people who are fully vaccinated varies a great deal from state to state within your country, including the states which border our country.

One of the things that will make the prospect of opening the border more likely is an agreement as to what form of proof a person will be required to present that they have been fully vaccinated. 

As Jacob has already explained, it is not yet worth the risk to open the border.  But it might happen soon.

[alfred russel]

As Jacob has already explained, it is not yet worth the risk to open the border.  But it might happen soon.

Lots of countries have already figured this out, I don't know of a single case of transmission globally from someone who presented a negative covid result and vaccine certificate on arrival.

Anyway, on the topic of this thread, Herschel Walker announced he is running for the senate in Georgia with Trump's endorsement. He actually lives in Texas and has for a while so he will have to move, but he will be the front runner for the GOP nomination. He was a football star at UGA, and I would say he was the most pivotable person in putting together the Dallas Cowboys dynasty in the early to mid 90s. In the republican primary that may be enough to overcome his lack of any relevant experience, history of mental illness, and domestic violence. The domestic violence problem will be partially offset by the fact by the accusations involving holding a gun to his wife's head, which establishes pro gun bona fides.

[crazy canuck]

As Jacob has already explained, it is not yet worth the risk to open the border.  But it might happen soon.

Lots of countries have already figured this out, I don't know of a single case of transmission globally from someone who presented a negative covid result and vaccine certificate on arrival.

Anyway, on the topic of this thread, Herschel Walker announced he is running for the senate in Georgia with Trump's endorsement. He actually lives in Texas and has for a while so he will have to move, but he will be the front runner for the GOP nomination. He was a football star at UGA, and I would say he was the most pivotable person in putting together the Dallas Cowboys dynasty in the early to mid 90s. In the republican primary that may be enough to overcome his lack of any relevant experience, history of mental illness, and domestic violence. The domestic violence problem will be partially offset by the fact by the accusations involving holding a gun to his wife's head, which establishes pro gun bona fides.

You cut out all the reasons for why we are doing what we are doing.  Also, I have no comfort that your knowledge of what is happening or not should be determinative.  You might want to go back and re-read JR's post.

[The Minsky Moment]

I would say he was the most pivotable person in putting together the Dallas Cowboys dynasty in the early to mid 90s.

I see what you did there.

[Razgovory]

Okay, you guys need to stop arguing with AR on this or argue in a more entertaining manner.

[Berkut]

I am curious AR.

You are saying, as an example, that you think Canada should open their border with the US.

But that is not really what you are saying, what you are really saying is "Those officials responsible for making this determination are wrong, and I am right. I know more, or am smarter, or something along those lines, then those who have the actual responsibility, and they are wrong."

I wonder....if this is so obvious to you, WHY are they incapable of seeing what you see, that this is not just the right thing to do, but it is the blindingly obviously right thing to do such that you are absolutely certain you are right, and there is no possible information or consideration they might be operating under that could even possibly, even theoretically, suggest that perhaps they might be doing the right thing? You have not even acknowledged that they MIGHT possibly be correct.

So given that...are they just morons? Do they hate freedom and this is their way to, I don't know....just lash out against people in general by not letting them cross the border?

Personally, I can understand their reluctance - not so much because I am some kind of expert, as you clearly are, but simply because I operate under the presumption that by and large they are likely smart, reasonable people doing their best in tough times to make tough decisions. They might be right, they might be wrong, but I am quite certain that the only way to determine that conclusively will be with hindsight. They don't get to make decisions with hindsight however, they have to make decisions only with the knowledge they have now.

The distinction here is important - I am not sitting here saying the US-Canada border should be closed. Or that it should be open. MY position (and the position, I suspect, of Jake and others) is that it's not anything simple or obvious, the decision is complex and about a lot more then just "does some person claim to be vaccinated or not?", and that those who are tasked with making that decision are likely doing so in good faith, and we are going to accept it whatever it might be. We might be wrong, and maybe they open the border tomorrow, and Canada gets nailed with a new wave of Delta Covid that they could have avoided, and everyone will say "Damnit, you guys fucked up!" But we don't claim to simply know the answer RIGHT NOW....you do.

The irony is that you have been arguing in most every single case that the restrictions are too much, that the danger is over stated, that the problems of lockdown are understated given the danger. With hindsight, we look back at nearly twice as many dead Americans as were lost in 4 years of the worst war the world has ever seen, and IN HINDSIGHT, even after the results of what actions was taken is you crowing about how right you were, and the demand that we all acknowledge that in fact had we listened to you, if the world had put YOU in charge, why, there would only have been....a couple hundred thousand more dead Americans? Ten thousand more?....and that would have been ok? A small price to pay to not have the economic disruption we actually saw?

That is what I don't get - WITH hindsight, most of us look at the results and are horrified that we fucked this up so very, very badly. You look at the results with hindsight of more than half a million dead Americans and actually conclude that we should have done LESS to prevent those deaths, and are so certain of your own intelligence and brilliance in contrast to the experts that you confidently state that not only were they wrong before, you are sure they are wrong right now. Absolutely, positively, no possibility of even doubt, certain that you know best. The hindsight you have, the lesson you learned, was that you really do know better then everyone else - that is what you get out of 600,000 dead Americans. And then you actually show up and crow "SEE!!!! I TOLD YOU SO!!!!" It's macabre.

[alfred russel]

Berkut--the real reason I brought up the border stuff was that I figured Jacob would take Canada's side versus mine, and then I'd bring up that Denmark has the opposite policy, which would force him to choose between two sets of authority that he seems to want to defer to.

But: covid isn't going away. Variants aren't going away and will likely multiply. Vaccines are going to lose their effectiveness over time and lots of experts think booster shots will start to be needed in a matter of months. Unfortunately it seems the international community decided we aren't going to have a vaccine standard for international travel like we do with yellow fever.

In short there is no wonderful future that is going to appear anytime soon that is going to really change the risk profile for people coming into Canada. They are going to have to relax the border controls at some point and when they do the situation will probably look a lot like it does now. And honestly: if you check vaccine records, and require a covid test, while it is likely in the nonstandardized world some people will fake them, most people won't and the risks are pretty low.

[grumbler]

AR, you are STILL missing the point that everyone here has repeatedly made, and you have repeatedly ignored:  what gives you superior knowledge to those making the decisions about border opening in Canada?  You claim that you know better than they do, but you haven't explained the source of this information (which must be a source they don't have, or else they'd agree with you)?

Or is this just another manifestation of your bizarre "smartest guy in the room" delusion?

[The Minsky Moment]

AR, you are STILL missing the point that everyone here has repeatedly made, and you have repeatedly ignored:  what gives you superior knowledge to those making the decisions about border opening in Canada?  You claim that you know better than they do, but you haven't explained the source of this information (which must be a source they don't have, or else they'd agree with you)?

His answer above is that he wasn't claiming superior knowledge but attempting to present Jacob with the paradox of the apparently conflicting authority of the Canadian and Danish health authorities. 

Which raises the question of why he wouldn't anticipate the move of pointing out the contextual differences between Canada and Denmark but that is another, different question.

[Berkut]

Berkut--the real reason I brought up the border stuff was that I figured Jacob would take Canada's side versus mine, and then I'd bring up that Denmark has the opposite policy, which would force him to choose between two sets of authority that he seems to want to defer to.

You think this is some kind of "Gotcha!" moment. It is not.

The difference is that Jake doesn't feel any need to take the side of either sets of authority. He is fine (and excuse me if I am speaking for you incorrectly Jacob) with accepting that they both made decisions based on different circumstances, different priorities, and he can accept that for Denmark it might make sense for them to open up, while for Canada it does not. He probably even feels that while either of them might be wrong about either decision, he is probably not in any position to claim some kind of clearly superior knowledge such that he could reasonably even determine for himself that one is right and the other wrong.

Because he isn't invested in some kind of determinative outcome, like you are.

I think we could have all predicted before you said a word that you think Denmark is right, and Canada is wrong. Not because you carefully and objectively considered all the information in both cases, and thoughtfully weighed their differing concerns, differing populations, and differing criteria and soberly concluded that Denmark, in balance, got it right, and Canada was wrong.

No...I think we are all completely confident that the extent of your analysis of the *data* was completely driven by the conclusions. Denmark does not have the restriction, so they are right. Canada does, so they are wrong.

[Sheilbh]

Although there is a really important about how decisions are made - because by definition there's normally not an easy answer.

We should be listening to epidemiologists and public health specialists (who, in the UK, disagreed about the initial response) - but they will look at the issue through their expertise. That's why they have a really valuable contribution but it is limited. So it won't include impact on people's jobs and livelihoods, or the ability of police to enforce measures, or even basic stuff like how to do it legally and in a way that interferes with people's rights in a proportionate way. I don't think it's necessarily about knowledge - I think it's about how you balance those risks, the different advice and the interest of different groups of people through society.

I don't think experts or the smartest guys in the room will necessarily speak with one voice. That's why I think the appropriate decision maker should be political and, in a democracy, accountable.

Now, ironically, the country that does give tremendous authority to the expert is Sweden which is probably closest to AR's preferred response - while it's countries where politicians made decisions who have gone through various lockdowns or restricitons.

His answer above is that he wasn't claiming superior knowledge but attempting to present Jacob with the paradox of the apparently conflicting authority of the Canadian and Danish health authorities.

Which raises the question of why he wouldn't anticipate the move of pointing out the contextual differences between Canada and Denmark but that is another, different question.

Part of it is also that I think we'll probably end up with an international standard on this of mutual recognition of each other's vaccine certificates. I believe that's in place between the EU and US - not sure about Canada.

[alfred russel]

AR, you are STILL missing the point that everyone here has repeatedly made, and you have repeatedly ignored:  what gives you superior knowledge to those making the decisions about border opening in Canada?  You claim that you know better than they do, but you haven't explained the source of this information (which must be a source they don't have, or else they'd agree with you)?

Or is this just another manifestation of your bizarre "smartest guy in the room" delusion?

Border policy is not a scientific policy. Like the bulk of measures regarding covid, they are political decisions that weigh a multitude of competing interests.

My default assumption is that borders are open between countries like the US and Canada. In the absence of evidence of vaccinated travelers spreading covid in international travel between other countries, it seems like the political decision of Canada is counterproductive.

I would guess that in the early days of covid there were lots of opinions shared here on travel bans or non bans. I don't think it is a crazy topic to have an opinion regarding.

[Berkut]

It's actually very similar to his proud "Gotcha!" of pointing out what a hypocrite I was because I got Covid at a game I was officiating (we can ignore for the moment his inability to actually recall what sport it was, that I was an official and not a player).

Again, he imagines that this is some kind of astounding get, the realization that I am some kind of terrible person for officiating basketball, after I had argued that college sports was not wrong to cancel games the year earlier.

In this incredible moment of internet pwning, he seemed to be hanging his entire moment of intense self congratulations on the idea that I somehow put myself at risk based on MY judgement of whether or not sports should be happening, but at some other entirely different moment in time. Like if one ever argued that the decision to cancel sports was the right decision, they would then have to conclude that there never ought to be sports ever again.

But of course, that was never my evaluation. I didn't support the cancelling of his school sports based on my own vast knowledge of epidemiology and transmission risks. I just felt that the decisions of others, who presumably have much better access to information then I have, was  reasonably sound, and it was my part as a functioning member of society in a crisis to accept those restrictions because in the aggregate, they are almost certain to help.

They decided to have a limited basketball season once they felt they had a good handle on things, and they could reasonably manage the risk. They asked if people would be willing to help student athletes and officiate games, knowing that the risk was not zero, but hopefully much lower. I agreed to do so. I knew that this did not mean there was no chance of it being a vector for infection, but was ok accepting the reduced risk that still existed.

I got sick, and while it was likely from that basketball game, it is by no means certain. Even if it was though....that doesn't change my evaluation. To use Minsky's example, I looked at the odds, and thought "Well, there is a low chance of this having a bad outcome, and I accept that risk" and then proceeded to roll double sixes on the dice. Just like winning at low odds doesn't make the decision smart, losing at low odds doesn't make the decision wrong. Shit happens.

I was really kind of non-plussed that he saw that as some kind of vindication, especially since his entire argument all along was that such games should never have been cancelled to begin with!