Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Shanedorf]

26 minutes ago, theJ said:

You're not going to convince them that they should be worried by shaming them, and i think that's Mission's point.  A more subtle tactic should be taken if you actually want results.

Sorry dude, no sale
This is akin to saying we should let the drunks set policy on driving intoxicated. We don't bend public policy to suit the needs of the least informed and most self- centered demographic. We set public policy based on the greater good. And if they won't abide by it, the consequences should increase in severity until the message gets through. Suggesting we need to be more subtle is counter-productive, they need to be more accountable for their reckless behavior. Its long past time for coddling and its a fair guess that excessive coddling is how we got here in the first place.

Also, get off my lawn.

[theJ]

4 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

Imagine if we applied this logic to everything...

We could get more done?

[theJ]

2 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Sorry dude, no sale
This is akin to saying we should let the drunks set policy on driving intoxicated. We don't bend public policy to suit the needs of the least informed and most self- centered demographic. We set public policy based on the greater good. And if they won't abide by it, the consequences should increase in severity until the message gets through. Suggesting we need to be more subtle is counter-productive, they need to be more accountable for their reckless behavior. Its long past time for coddling and its a fair guess that excessive coddling is how we got here in the first place.

Also, get off my lawn.

Ok, but that doesn't work.

Instead of just telling them what's good and not good (which we know they won't listen to), you have to adjust the rules accordingly.  Mission's idea of closing the bars is a good start.  

This is called nudging, and it's proven to work.  You can't just tell people what to do, because they don't like that.  You have to nudge them in the right direction with smart and subtle policy changes.  Picture what you want the final solution to look like, and think outside of the box on how to get there.

[WizeGuy]

2 hours ago, mission27 said:

Young people are going to go back to living their lives.  It was never practical to expect young people would willingly give up a year or two of their lives for something that has no direct impact on them. 

The issue is policies that allow super spreading gatherings, like full capacity bars and restaurants, and discourage masks.  I’m not sure it’s all politics part of it is just learning as we go along but it’s a big challenge in places in the south where people spend the entire summer inside.  As much as it pains me to say it those of us in the northeast should be a little less smug because come October at the latest it’ll be our turn in the hot seat again. 

It's going to be interesting for sure. I have faith my county will be able to handle any spikes. Also, I'm really curious how technology advances. We saw some pretty crazy stuff with ventilators. I have to wonder if we can make cheaper air filters for AC units and heating units. If we can curb stomp the spread in public places with masks and high tech ventilation, then we may have a much less bloody fall. 

 

Cuomo is allowing malls to reopen in some areas of the state. There are guidelines for air filtration. They need to have an 11 MERV rating, which I assume is very high. 

From the article:

"The malls must also implement measures to improve ventilation, including increasing outdoor air flow, reducing air recirculation, running air systems for longer periods and checking on air filters frequently."

My dad worked in HVAC. He said these type of filters are 5 times the cost of a standard one, but theyre probably more now due to high demand. Apparently, they are the same size so no modifications have to be made to the actual units. 

Researching technology could go a long way in allowing us to control the spread until better treatment and/or a vaccine arrives. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by WizeGuy

[JDBrocks]

5 minutes ago, theJ said:

We could get more done?

Yeah, using the ends justify the means argument has never been problematic in the past.

[theJ]

For example: American's for the most part do recycle.  It's not because they were browbeaten into doing it.  There were smart and subtle policy choices made that encouraged people to do it.

https://time.com/4568234/history-origins-recycling/

Carrots work.  Sticks much less so (though in some cases they can be effective).

[mission27]

1 minute ago, Shanedorf said:

Sorry dude, no sale
This is akin to saying we should let the drunks set policy on driving intoxicated. We don't bend public policy to suit the needs of the least informed and most self- centered demographic. We set public policy based on the greater good. And if they won't abide by it, the consequences should increase in severity until the message gets through. Suggesting we need to be more subtle is counter-productive, they need to be more accountable for their reckless behavior. Its long past time for coddling and its a fair guess that excessive coddling is how we got here in the first place.

Also, get off my lawn.

There's a big difference between prohibiting behavior that the vast majority of society views as unacceptable (drunks driving drunk, murderers) and prohibiting behavior that a large portion of society wants to engage in (socializing with their friends and family) as shown through their actions if not necessarily their stated beliefs.  That's why prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. don't work.  Unfortunately a lot of people have never learned that lesson of history. 

Blaming people for wanting to live their lives isn't going to work.  At best it will make you feel better about your moral superiority.  If you focus on more realistic public policy solutions (limiting capacity for indoor dining and closing bars, for instance) and actually enforce these rules, you will have more success.  

[theJ]

Just now, JDBrocks said:

Yeah, using the ends justify the means argument has never been problematic in the past.

I'm not sure what you think i'm trying to say, but i can almost certainly guess you're missing my point.  

[theJ]

1 minute ago, mission27 said:

There's a big difference between prohibiting behavior that the vast majority of society views as unacceptable (drunks driving drunk, murderers) and prohibiting behavior that a large portion of society wants to engage in (socializing with their friends and family) as shown through their actions if not necessarily their stated beliefs.  That's why prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. don't work.  Unfortunately a lot of people have never learned that lesson of history. 

 

Exactly.  

We are social creatures.  Force people to sequester themselves, and they're going to break that rule, especially when they know there's no immediate consequence.  We all need some sort of human interaction, and most of it need it outside of our immediate household (ie your wife and kids aren't enough).  That's a recipe for making people crazy.

If you don't believe that, watch a season of Survivor.  Or better yet, Alone.  Those people go freaking nuts because they can't socialize outside of their immediate setting.

So we have to figure out how to allow it, safely.  Keep people outside as much as possible.  Get them to wear masks.

But the answer is not to tell them that they aren't allowed to see other people.  We know that won't actually accomplish the end goal of keep the spread and deaths down.

[JDBrocks]

6 minutes ago, theJ said:

I'm not sure what you think i'm trying to say, but i can almost certainly guess you're missing my point.  

What you actually said:

21 minutes ago, theJ said:

Who cares what the answer is, as long as it works?

What was the deeper meaning I was supposed to glean from this statement?

[theJ]

Just now, JDBrocks said:

What you actually said:

What was the deeper meaning I was supposed to glean from this statement?

You can read my other posts and figure it out i think.

[theJ]

53 minutes ago, theJ said:

I agree with both of you, honestly. 

This does affect 20 somethings, indirectly by family.  But at the same time, Mission is right in that there's a large section of that age range that isn't considering this a problem for them.  Whether it's true or not, they're not concerned.  You're not going to convince them that they should be worried by shaming them, and i think that's Mission's point.  A more subtle tactic should be taken if you actually want results.

 

2 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

What you actually said:

What was the deeper meaning I was supposed to glean from this statement?

The above was my first post.  I think you might have missed it, last post of page 597.

[JDBrocks]

Just now, theJ said:

You can read my other posts and figure it out i think.

OR, hear me out, you could say what you actually mean.

"Who cares as long as it works" is not a path that I want to go down, nor do I believe that anyone else does.

[mission27]

5 minutes ago, theJ said:

Exactly.  

We are social creatures.  Force people to sequester themselves, and they're going to break that rule, especially when they know there's no immediate consequence.  We all need some sort of human interaction, and most of it need it outside of our immediate household (ie your wife and kids aren't enough).  That's a recipe for making people crazy.

If you don't believe that, watch a season of Survivor.  Or better yet, Alone.  Those people go freaking nuts because they can't socialize outside of their immediate setting.

So we have to figure out how to allow it, safely.  Keep people outside as much as possible.  Get them to wear masks.

But the answer is not to tell them that they aren't allowed to see other people.  We know that won't actually accomplish the end goal of keep the spread and deaths down.

Exactly.  Its the same reason abstinence only sex ed doesn't work. 

Public policy that is based on unrealistic assumptions about how compliant people will be, in the face of basic social and biological urges telling them not to comply, will never be effective.  Lets try stuff that could actually work.

[theJ]

20 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Sorry dude, no sale
This is akin to saying we should let the drunks set policy on driving intoxicated. We don't bend public policy to suit the needs of the least informed and most self- centered demographic. We set public policy based on the greater good. And if they won't abide by it, the consequences should increase in severity until the message gets through. Suggesting we need to be more subtle is counter-productive, they need to be more accountable for their reckless behavior. Its long past time for coddling and its a fair guess that excessive coddling is how we got here in the first place.

Also, get off my lawn.

Also, i never said that the 20 somethings are going to like the solutions.  But the current solution is not working, and so it should change.  Not a complete lockdown, but something different and smarter.