It seems impossible for some to imagine that people in general act in their own best interest, and when they do, in the end it’s generally in everybody’s best interest. Treating adults like children does not work, and it never was going to work. Government should cooperate with what society thinks is best, perhaps even asking them what they want (a concept that seems to have been forgotten) and maybe offering a little guidance from those who may have a little more insight than the average person. The reason “they don’t get it” is because “they” (meaning the average adult) generally don’t believe in the societal efficacy of what governments of the world are doing to them in this situation, and doing to them with their own money. I don’t think that is going to change, especially as in the real world its been proven stupidly ineffective, the kind of simplistic nonsense that only bureaucrats or communists could up with. Politics as Peter says is the art of the possible, and this was a leap too far on several different levels.
In the real world, whether dreamers can conceive of it or not, a lot of people’s calculus needs to based on money that invariably runs out without replenishment. I feel profoundly lucky that my work has not been interrupted, my wages this year will be about 15% higher than any previous year and that is allowing me to push still harder in investing for a future in which personal responsibility and personal resources will be increasingly important, given the need to divorce oneself from the unprincipled behavior of government as time goes on. Now is the time to be working and investing harder, not less, if you can because the opportunity may not last. My original risk strategy over 30 years ago was to maintain steady and increasing income over a long period, and invest a substantial proportion so that someday when necessary for whatever reason I could transition to a minimized need for income. I didn’t imagine then that the need would come from government killing a productive society and eventually itself going bankrupt, but whatever. It’s regardless worked out to be a reasonable strategy, as has anything either I or anybody else I’ve ever met has done personally in relation to CV 19. This year I’ve also paid more in taxes than ever before, which I suppose for the time being helps cover a little more of the outrageous amount spent by government to thrash around ineffectively, much of the rest of which was borrowed and will never be repaid.
Peter wrote:
Hmng – why do you think the govts are all, or nearly all, following the line which you say is wrong? Why is everyone, or almost everyone, not “getting it”?
IMO it doesn’t look like anyone is really “getting it”. Here in Norway, shops have been open all the time, malls, restaurants, we have never worn masks. Yet, we have some of the lowest death per 100k anywhere. As to why? One can only speculate. Right now it is on the rise like never before, but death rate is still close to zero.
@LeSving apparently the COVID viruses slowly attenuate their effect, it is not in their interests to kill the hosts, so the morbidity/mortality of this strain should reduce, but not to zero. Also the more vulnerable are shielding, and being shielded better. Spreading infection through nursing homes, is a mistake which is not being repeated.
Unfortunately some countries are not being too smart, and may suffer much higher population mortality, but may decide that is the way they want to deal with it. The US electorate is deciding right now.
Lots of reasons why Norway should do better… lots of money around removes most of the factors, and low population density is great too 
On a related topic, can anyone suggest which of these FFP3 masks is the best one PDF leaflet
hmng wrote:
Flu and pneumonia have continued to kill people at only a slight bit lower than average. In fact those deaths have stayed constant through lockdown, which raises interesting questions of why the flu continued to spread, but Covid deaths eventually fell. If you say that people did not follow the rules, when why did Covid almost stop. If the rules worked, why did flu continue to kill?
In Sweden, the influenza season ended very quickly after the semi-voluntary Covid-19 measures were introduced in Mars. Authorities report that the time span from the peak of the influenza until it was essentially gone was the shortest for at least 20 years. The same thing with the norovirus.
So certainly Covid-19 measures have had an effect on the flu. The interesting question is rather why there have been such large differences between different countries with lockdown.
Peter wrote:
Hmng – why do you think the govts are all, or nearly all, following the line which you say is wrong? Why is everyone, or almost everyone, not “getting it”?
Well of course I can tell you all about it, because I was on the secret meetings of the global conspiracy… nope, just kidding. I don’t actually believe that.
I’ll write some more, but I’m curious, what do you think? If you entertain the idea, for a while, that they are wrong, how would you explain it?
I am not sure.
It is clear that countrywide lockdowns were never right; they should always have been localised. That was not done partly due to a lack of knowledge about how it would spread and partly (later) for PC reasons: most of the serious infections in the first wave were in specific ethnic communities, and then BLM came right at the “perfect” moment which made any such idea doubly difficult; I don’t know about the current distribution in the UK.
Hospitals were accordingly mismanaged, with wards emptied for the onslaught which never came and many other procedures denied as a result, causing much suffering and deaths. Most of the UK’s hospitals had few CV19 cases, and remain so now. The whole issue was (and is now) quite focused geographically. But that’s a separate debate.
Beyond that, I don’t think the data is clear, and my Q was why the policymakers (I said “govts”) are in all cases not “getting it”. All countries are implementing various versions of the same thing.
Silvaire wrote:
It seems impossible for some to imagine that people in general act in their own best interest, and when they do, in the end it’s generally in everybody’s best interest. Treating adults like children does not work, and it never was going to work. Government should cooperate with what society thinks is best, perhaps even asking them what they want (a concept that seems to have been forgotten) and maybe offering a little guidance from those who may have a little more insight than the average person. The reason “they don’t get it” is because “they” (meaning the average adult) generally don’t believe in the societal efficacy of what governments of the world are doing to them in this situation, and doing to them with their own money. I don’t think that is going to change, especially as in the real world its been proven stupidly ineffective, the kind of simplistic nonsense that only bureaucrats or communists could up with. Politics as Peter says is the art of the possible, and this was a leap too far on several different levels.
Silvaire, we have never met but judging by your previous comments, I believe you are a very intelligent person and also sincere in what you write. I can imagine that if everyone had the same decision making skills as you do, society as you envision it could actually work, and this is not meant in a sarcastic or insolent way.
However, in the “real world”, to borrow one of your favourite phrases, things do not work that way. I believe you live in a social bubble of sorts and surround yourself with like minded people of similar status, who are probably all able to take care of themselves and their family, like you obviously are. This is natural: all people automatically tend to surround themselves with like-minded individuals.
As part of my work, I meet people of all walks of life, every day. And let me tell you that a frighteningly large number of them are not able to take care of themselves, much less make decisions that can effect a large number of people. That is why, “in the real world”, people cannot be left to their own devices and shape their own fortune, without interference (from government or others), as they would recklessly or stupidly endanger others all the time.
I am all for granting everyone the right to live as they see fit, and take the risks they want to take, that is my understanding of “freedom”. One person’s freedom ends where it infringes on another person’s freedom, however, so in the middle of a pandemic it is not just to behave however one likes, because you very easily endanger others by doing so. That is one of the key tasks of government: To ensure that citizens are protected from coming to harm from the actions of third parties (ensuring protection from coming to harm from your own actions is something different entirely)
Airborne_Again wrote:
The interesting question is rather why there have been such large differences between different countries with lockdown.
Just guessing, but possibly due to differences in how the lockdown was really obeyed / enforced?
Silvaire wrote:
It seems impossible for some to imagine that people in general act in their own best interest, and when they do, in the end it’s generally in everybody’s best interest.
Fortunately, it doesn’t require any imagination but just accepting facts to figure out this is wrong:
- More than 30k deaths of synthetic opioid overdoses in the US in 2018 clearly show that – for various reasons – people don’t act in their own interest. Opioid dependency is a big problem in the US and it is in nobody’s interest – at least not in the interest of the people who take them.
- Yes, we also have all read wealth of the nations – at least I assume so (yes, I know that the invisible hand was introduced in the theory of moral sentiments, but who has read that ?!?).
But in the roughly 250 years since it was published, I think it has been clearly disproved, that such an invisible hand exists. The concepts of Smith have been shown as what they are: A privileged view from the viewpoint of the upper middle class on justice for the population.
Even Smith later on never claimed that this invisible hand would really take care for equality for everyone. (He could not even imagine that e.g. slaves in the US and elsewhere at the time he lived in would be considered as being part of “everyone”).
So two times no: People do not always act in their best own interest and even if they did so it would not add up to everybody’s best interest.
I’m really not a socialist: I do, however, accept the fact that we need some kind of regulation to make sure that the stronger doesn’t just kill the weaker and we do not want to see people dying on the streets.
