Was the response driven by epidemiology, though? I'd argue it wasn't.
They threw out actual consensus science on pandemics, as well as the appropriate response to one. The 6' rule was reached by haggling. Masks aren't effective. The CDC knew early on this was airborne, yet everywhere the official message was mask-mask-mask instead of urging the vulnerable to absolutely isolate. The non-vulnerable - at least half the public - didn't need to isolate at all.
I think it's a mistake to say we focused only on science. We did no such thing.
I have not read Blindsight is 2020 so forgive me if I'm making points that have been already been addressed.
When it comes to the initial lock downs (March 2020), I believe we did the right thing in being a little over cautious. At that time, as far as I can tell, I think it's fair to say we didn't know much about the virus or what the worst case scenario might be. It seems prudent to err on the side of caution, given that if the worst case scenario is as bad as it theoretically can be for a highly transmissible influenza, we would be in deep trouble.
I am in full agreement that public debates and honest discussions should have been going during this time, allowing us to fully weigh the costs and benefits of continuing to extend lock down. That said, one of the initial reasons I recall for the lock downs in the first place was to "flatten the curve" to avoid overwhelming our healthcare system. As someone with dozens of friends and acquaintances working as doctors, nurses and in healthcare IT, it seems they had their hands full even with the lock downs in place. If the healthcare system collapses, we all lose.
I guess my questions for Gabrielle are, do you think it's fair that we weighed the opinions of public health officials more? And perhaps more broadly, when it comes to tackling problems at this scale, how do we decide which voices that should be amplified (if at all)? Lastly, I'd be interested to hear your take on if and how the information landscape made this whole problem worse?
Actually, the correct response to COVID was no response at all. First, modern medicine & hygiene etc ensure that viruses are NOT going to kill us all - they haven't managed to do so before & there's even less chance of viruses killing us all now, so we shouldn't be so worried about this largely imaginary problem. Second, no one could possibly know what to do, so diversification beats managed portfolios always. Third, any "good" solution has "bad" consequences, but how to distribute those consequences? Generally, the powerful consider a "good" solution to be one that hurts the powerless, even if the total cost to society is larger than the benefits or the alternatives'. Long and short, we cannot rationally respond to pandemics anyway, so we shouldn't try. The government should have published truthful information, encouraged & facilitated research into successful responses, but nothing else. There are no specialties or combination of specialties that can do anything about such problems for the same reasons & in the same way that specialists can't cure recessions.
The information required to manage pandemics does not exist, could not be processed if it did exist, & couldn't be processed in time if it could be processed. It's just a fool's errand that always & everywhere results in disaster (or succeeds purely by chance).
If there's a killer virus out there, we should each respond as best we can given our knowledge & circumstances - no management req'd because such management cannot work.
How would breakdown resistance to Covid policies? It seems there were some people who were bound to oppose any and all restrictions from the outset due to personality and basic psychological reactance. But others seemed to have various breaking points throughout the pandemic. Do you agree? How would you categorize these people and the forces that caused them to break?
Was the response driven by epidemiology, though? I'd argue it wasn't.
They threw out actual consensus science on pandemics, as well as the appropriate response to one. The 6' rule was reached by haggling. Masks aren't effective. The CDC knew early on this was airborne, yet everywhere the official message was mask-mask-mask instead of urging the vulnerable to absolutely isolate. The non-vulnerable - at least half the public - didn't need to isolate at all.
I think it's a mistake to say we focused only on science. We did no such thing.
I have not read Blindsight is 2020 so forgive me if I'm making points that have been already been addressed.
When it comes to the initial lock downs (March 2020), I believe we did the right thing in being a little over cautious. At that time, as far as I can tell, I think it's fair to say we didn't know much about the virus or what the worst case scenario might be. It seems prudent to err on the side of caution, given that if the worst case scenario is as bad as it theoretically can be for a highly transmissible influenza, we would be in deep trouble.
I am in full agreement that public debates and honest discussions should have been going during this time, allowing us to fully weigh the costs and benefits of continuing to extend lock down. That said, one of the initial reasons I recall for the lock downs in the first place was to "flatten the curve" to avoid overwhelming our healthcare system. As someone with dozens of friends and acquaintances working as doctors, nurses and in healthcare IT, it seems they had their hands full even with the lock downs in place. If the healthcare system collapses, we all lose.
I guess my questions for Gabrielle are, do you think it's fair that we weighed the opinions of public health officials more? And perhaps more broadly, when it comes to tackling problems at this scale, how do we decide which voices that should be amplified (if at all)? Lastly, I'd be interested to hear your take on if and how the information landscape made this whole problem worse?
Thank you!
Eskild
Most "mental health experts" are "experts" but not experts:
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/the-experts/
Actually, the correct response to COVID was no response at all. First, modern medicine & hygiene etc ensure that viruses are NOT going to kill us all - they haven't managed to do so before & there's even less chance of viruses killing us all now, so we shouldn't be so worried about this largely imaginary problem. Second, no one could possibly know what to do, so diversification beats managed portfolios always. Third, any "good" solution has "bad" consequences, but how to distribute those consequences? Generally, the powerful consider a "good" solution to be one that hurts the powerless, even if the total cost to society is larger than the benefits or the alternatives'. Long and short, we cannot rationally respond to pandemics anyway, so we shouldn't try. The government should have published truthful information, encouraged & facilitated research into successful responses, but nothing else. There are no specialties or combination of specialties that can do anything about such problems for the same reasons & in the same way that specialists can't cure recessions.
The information required to manage pandemics does not exist, could not be processed if it did exist, & couldn't be processed in time if it could be processed. It's just a fool's errand that always & everywhere results in disaster (or succeeds purely by chance).
If there's a killer virus out there, we should each respond as best we can given our knowledge & circumstances - no management req'd because such management cannot work.
Why didn't Team Reality have more influence on Covid19 policies? Why was it captured by Team Apocalypse?
Gabrielle,
How would breakdown resistance to Covid policies? It seems there were some people who were bound to oppose any and all restrictions from the outset due to personality and basic psychological reactance. But others seemed to have various breaking points throughout the pandemic. Do you agree? How would you categorize these people and the forces that caused them to break?
*sold*
Please make an audio version. It's the only way I consume books these days.
Instead of constantly trying to simply bait liberals to please your audience, I'd be interested in giving space to people like Michael Lewis: https://www.amazon.com/Premonition-Pandemic-Story-Michael-Lewis/dp/0393881555/ref=asc_df_0393881555/
Is the title of this book a subtle D&D joke?