There is a related phenomenon—acting like an extremist on one direction if you believe that too many people are wrong in the opposite direction. Eg. Arguing like a libertarian if you think people aren’t libertarian enough, or arguing against libertarianism among crowds that you think are too libertarian. Or rating something 0 stars to drag down its rating even if you thought it was okay. The goal is not to be “correct” but to shift people towards the position you think is correct. (I don’t know whether this strategy works)
Presumably Cochran thinks people dismiss quarantines too much so he is arguing way in the opposite extreme.
Bravery debater: “We live in an era in which suggestions of quarantines are vigorously opposed despite their benefits but I am not afraid to defend them despite the oppressive status quo”
Person acting as an extremist: “Quarantines are really beneficial, and we should do more of them for X,Y and Z reasons” (conveniently not mentioning the negative effects)
Except people normally don’t dismiss quarantines. They just did it for this particular disease.
Is that the case? We’re happy to quarantine highly-transmittable diseases, but HIV isn’t—it takes significantly more than shaking a hand or coughing to transmit. Indeed, even with easily transmitted conditions like tuberculosis, we go for involuntary quarantine only during emergencies or as a last resort. Most carriers are only required to wear masks and avoid certain types of work.
There is a related phenomenon—acting like an extremist on one direction if you believe that too many people are wrong in the opposite direction. Eg. Arguing like a libertarian if you think people aren’t libertarian enough, or arguing against libertarianism among crowds that you think are too libertarian. Or rating something 0 stars to drag down its rating even if you thought it was okay. The goal is not to be “correct” but to shift people towards the position you think is correct. (I don’t know whether this strategy works)
Presumably Cochran thinks people dismiss quarantines too much so he is arguing way in the opposite extreme.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/
I don’t think this is the same phenomenon.
Bravery debater: “We live in an era in which suggestions of quarantines are vigorously opposed despite their benefits but I am not afraid to defend them despite the oppressive status quo”
Person acting as an extremist: “Quarantines are really beneficial, and we should do more of them for X,Y and Z reasons” (conveniently not mentioning the negative effects)
Except people normally don’t dismiss quarantines. They just did it for this particular disease.
As Ron Pavellas commented even the things routinely done for other STDs weren’t done with AIDS.
Is that the case? We’re happy to quarantine highly-transmittable diseases, but HIV isn’t—it takes significantly more than shaking a hand or coughing to transmit. Indeed, even with easily transmitted conditions like tuberculosis, we go for involuntary quarantine only during emergencies or as a last resort. Most carriers are only required to wear masks and avoid certain types of work.
Indeed, ebola is even less transmittable than HIV, so we shouldn’t coercively quarantine it either.