Thanks for this comment, this is much better than my post. I simply wanted to address a very common misunderstanding that is repeated over and over in TV by non specialists, in a simple way. Your comment is probably much better suited for the LW audience that is normally expecting a more detailed explanation.
Can you clarify what you mean or how do you think this should be explained? This in fact my domain of expertise. I don’t think any citations were needed in a short informal post.
That could be known looking at the death rate in regions of the world where treatments are not available. If there are not publications stating the opposite, I don’t see why I should suspect that the virus is less deadly now
Yes. And the inverse could occur if most infections were occuring in hospitals. I think to recall (but don’t quote me) that something like this happened at some point during the Spanish flu pandemic.
Yes, that would be my prediction too. I think that a fatality rate as low as 4% in all age groups would have had a massive impact on the behaviour of everyone
The point of a lockdown isn’t to end a pandemic, the point is to buy time.
I don’t think I said the opposite (in fact I mostly agree), but a lockdown can also be used to reduce the number of cases to effectively zero (see my post in Australia)
Viruses need their hosts, so most often pandemics “end” when viruses mutate to become less deadly.
I think this is a very common misconception, I just wrote a blog post to better respond to it
I don’t know what flawed logic you are using to lead you to believe that a more authoritarian lockdown could have ended the pandemic early.
In fact, I didn’t mention the lockdown explicitly in this blog post but the truth is that, if humans were capable of perfect coordination (and they are not), a lockdown would have ended the pandemic early. There have been countries that successfully managed to suppress the pandemic during long periods of time. Not all lockdowns have to last for months either, in Queensland some of the more effective lockdowns lasted for just a few days.
It’s also bad logic to assume a virus that targeted children would have been handled less divisively.
Yes, I am not sure about this in fact, that is why I was asking this question. It can be that you are totally right here
You seem to think the problem is that the people “in-charge” didn’t have enough power and authority.
I don’t think that a lack of power is the main problem. It is more a consequence of the system being inadequate at many levels. E.g. politicians are not chosen by their capacity to handle crises, nor do they have a strong incentive to take measures that are unpopular, etc.
Look at China, you would think their authoritarian system would actually be good in pandemic situations because they could just blockade entire cities in and whatnot… But China instead cared more about prestige and in the early days of Covid tried to make people believe the virus didn’t even exist.
This is a bit paradoxical because China is a clear example of a massively populated country that successfully managed to handle much better this crisis, at least in terms of dead people (and in case you are wondering, I lean much more towards libertarian than authoritarian). It is true that they tried to cover this up until they couldn’t do it anymore, but most Chinese have enjoyed mostly normal lives for the last two years, and I really doubt that most people in Europe/USA can say the same. In fact, I know that many Chinese people are horrified at what’s going on in the western world. In any case, if you don’t consider China an example of how a crisis of this type should be handled you can use democratic countries such as New Zealand or Australia.
You think giving more power to the people in charge would solve your problems ignoring the possibility that it isn’t the system that’s flawed but instead the components.
I never spoke about giving more power but I do think that both the system and its components are deeply flawed
I am personally very happy with the decision of not giving him a special treatment
Is it? I find it hilarious when scientists are depicted in movies
I was surprised too. Moreover, he is vaccinated, so I don’t really understand that response
Hi Alexander. I have exactly the same question myself, though I don’t think I would have been able to formulate it so clearly. I will be following the answers here very closely. Happy to have a chat one day if you fancy.
Could you clarify what you mean? I have read the book and I don’t see the connection
Isn’t this the main thesis of “The righteous mind”?
I really enjoyed the second one, strong upvoted it
I have the impression (reading the comments and seeing the number of votes/the score of the post) that the LW readers are roughly divided 50⁄50 on how they feel about this post. In my case, I am one of those feeling very strongly against it. My reasons are:
This post reads more like a political pamphlet than a typical post from LW. For instance, “People, including non-human people” seems to me a Shibboleth.
I don’t find any interesting insights here, simply an anecdote of someone (in my view) overreacting to a trivial experience that could have been avoided.
More at the object level: I am not vegan myself, not planning to become one, but I can see that many of the reasons why some people decide to do it are good reasons. After talking to many vegans, I realized that it is a good thing at least reduce the intake of meat. However, this behaviour displayed in this post creates in me (and I am probably not the only one) a very strong aversion to vegans.
Thanks, that was a really good review
That sounds really cool, but it would be even cooler if someone has the time to summarize the main results of the 69-page long paper and publish them in a post/comment here