ProgressNotPerfection
Forum Master
yes - exactly - ridiculous
Covid-19 NON DANCE debate
- Thread starter GGinrhinestones
- Start date
fineshrine
Active Member
And the worst thing is people will be taken in by this. People are already blaming dog walkers and their neighbours out for a jog and not the government who reacted slowly, allowed 250,000 people to attend Cheltenham and are promising thousand of ventilators and delivering 30... my list could go on.
I just don't think this is the kind of thing that can be left down to personal responsibility. You ask corporations to take personal responsibility and they will add fridges to their shops to allow them to stay open, you ask individuals to have personal responsibility and they think that constitutes phoning the police because they saw their neighbour out twice in one day. The government has to take responsibility. And they won't. And they will be allowed to get away with it. Boris Johnson's popularity has gone up despite fumbling this.
I wish it were more commonly understood that all behavior is the outcome of incentives, either intrinsic or extrinsic. People (and organizations) will do whatever the heck they want unless they are given incentives to do otherwise, either positive or negative. In contexts like these, where there are common behaviors you want folks to engage in you need to give them clear a reason to do it. Either a reward for complying, or a punishment for not. "Pretty please" cuts no ice.
ProgressNotPerfection
Forum Master
You’re preaching to the choir, here. I’m in the US and the news headlines make me SICK (and have done, for the last 41 months).
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
We both predicted this upthread, right? The NHS has protocols that even in normal times assume "a bunch of the people dying would have died anyway because they were old or had underlying health conditions" and denying care on that basis. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's the NHS way of doing things, and it's knitted into the fabric of UK society.
I do think there's some justification for the "with Covid-19" phrasing, as someone who has a heart attack, say, while ill with Covid-19 might well have had a heart attack anyway. On the other hand, once the medical system gets overloaded - or even when "elective" procedures are postponed merely in anticipation of the medical system getting loaded - the disease, or at least the reaction to it, is going to cause some deaths among people who don't have Covid-19 and aren't counted as Covid-19 deaths.
I also agree leaders not following the guidelines is pretty bad. They're setting an example that the population will follow, and not following their own guidelines sends the wrong message.
You're even more cynical than I am! I'd like to think that some people would, for example, wear masks in order to protect others, even if it didn't benefit them personally. Voluntary social distancing is similar: it only really works to "flatten the curve" if almost everyone does it, and it's in the individual interests of people not in elevated risk categories to skip it and be free riders on everyone else; yet by my observation the majority of people under 40 are not being free riders and are still keeping distance. I think social mass action can work, especially if leaders set a good example - which right now means they should all be wearing home made face masks.
If you're right, though, that would explain the shunning of dog walkers and joggers, rather than complaining about the UK government not acting earlier. It's too late now for the UK government to act earlier, but dog walkers and joggers are endangering other people, and it's not too late to get them to stop.
It is cynicism in the most literal sense, I suppose, although not in the common connotation of it. I value kindness, am relentlessly optimistic, and believe firmly that altruism and collectivism are good things. But when I engage in anti-cynical behavior, I'm ultimately doing it because it makes me feel good about myself when I feel like I'm "improving" the world around me. It's an example of intrinsic motivation. There are lots of folks who share similar belief systems, and their intrinsic motivations lead to exactly the collective good behavior you describe.
That said, I am extremely skeptical about the positive power of individuals' belief systems. While I expect the majority of people would facially agree with the beliefs I stated above, a far smaller group of them believe strongly enough in them that the intrinsic motivation to do the right thing outweighs the intrinsic motivation to do what benefits me. As the cost of the right thing goes up, the number of people willing to do it goes down. What's more, even the "best" people are susceptible to the phenomenon of Diffusion of Responsibility.
Taken together, it means that I have no faith at all that individuals will simply do the right thing for any community larger than Dunbar's number. They need to be given extrinsic motivations strong enough to overbalance the competing intrinsic motivations. I include myself in that, for what it's worth.
Last edited:
fineshrine
Active Member
The NHS is only that way right now because of vicious underfunding. We have an exceptionally weird relationship with the NHS as a nation where the whole country will clap for the NHS every week at the moment... but they don't seem to care about funding it adequately.
You don't hear loads of stories of people not getting care when they need it in non pandemic times. We still have care of the elderly wards... It's not normal for the press to be saying "well they would have died soon anyway." It's a defence worthy of Harold Shipman. People have a lot of love for the NHS over here. If we felt like they were denying care to our parents and grandparents there wouldn't be so much good will.
I think the phrasing is disingenuous. There will be times when the cause of death is not covid, but they are even reporting cases where it was a confirmed covid death as "died with covid." It's so weird.
I completely agree fiesta. It's got to be more than "please could you stay in
" there has to be tangible reasons for people to do it. It's completely anecdotal but I went shopping today and no one was social distancing properly, and our road has been a lot busier with cars. Worried people are getting complacent. There is also a stronger police presence but we're not used to here and I don't think people care that much.
You don't hear loads of stories of people not getting care when they need it in non pandemic times. We still have care of the elderly wards... It's not normal for the press to be saying "well they would have died soon anyway." It's a defence worthy of Harold Shipman. People have a lot of love for the NHS over here. If we felt like they were denying care to our parents and grandparents there wouldn't be so much good will.
I think the phrasing is disingenuous. There will be times when the cause of death is not covid, but they are even reporting cases where it was a confirmed covid death as "died with covid." It's so weird.
I completely agree fiesta. It's got to be more than "please could you stay in
" there has to be tangible reasons for people to do it. It's completely anecdotal but I went shopping today and no one was social distancing properly, and our road has been a lot busier with cars. Worried people are getting complacent. There is also a stronger police presence but we're not used to here and I don't think people care that much.
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
Were people there distancing properly before?
I'm hearing a lot more traffic tonight than I have been for a while. I'm not sure where they can be going to since everything is still closed except grocery stores and such.
Part of it is foot dragging on the mask issue. The message should have been, "social distancing isn't doing enough, so you need to wear masks too", to keep people scared. Because of disagreements at the top, it ended up being "hey, masks are optional". I think most people took the wrong lesson that things are getting better.
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
Massachusetts had a peak one day later than my city, on Saturday 03.28, at 1017 new cases, which dropped to 698 new cases the following day. That it was only one day later despite the statewide school closure being 5 days later was perhaps a reflection of how many school districts has closed earlier than the statewide order, and also 2 of the 5 days being weekend days.
Unfortunately, new cases did not subsequently fall; instead, they have been more like Lombardy, shifting to a slower but still exponential growth rate. For Massachusetts specifically, before 03.28, new cases were pretty reliably about 32% of existing cases each day. After 03.28, they were 16% of existing cases each day, and have since exceeded the 03.28 peak. Doing the math taking the South Korean results into account, this implies that the viral reproduction factor R fell from about 2.2 to about 1.1. So near, and yet so far!
In Massachusetts, absent additional action, what this means is that we're going to have to wait for about 10% of the population to get Covid-19 and resolve before R falls below 1.0 and new cases start falling. This should take about 2.5 weeks, at which point detected new cases will be running at about 27,000 per day, about 20 times what they are now. I hope the hospitals are ready for 5000 new hospitalizations per day.
Now, the business closures, which didn't happen in Massachusetts until 03.22, might have an effect that hasn't shown up in the statistics yet. If so, they'll show up within a few days. I'm not holding my breath, as there is little evidence that business closures have a significant effect on the spread of this epidemic.
What's really frustrating is that the examples of South Korea and Japan, and to a lesser extent Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, prove quite clearly that general use of face masks - not the N95 masks that the hospitals are short of, but surgical masks or homemade equivalents - would solve the problem neatly. Research shows that they reduce infections by a factor of 3.4, which would reduce R to about 0.4, causing new cases to drop off precipitously. There would still be a time delay, but peak cases would be cut by a factor of two and total cases and deaths by a factor of four. Unfortunately, for whatever reason - whether prejudice against oriental solutions, or the medical industry's financial incentive to have plenty of cases to deal with and make money on now that they've prepared for it, or something else - political leadership of all flavors seems highly resistant to this bottom up solution.
At any rate, it now looks like it will be a month before it's obvious that things will be getting better and we can consider dance studio and competition reopenings. If we're wise, we'll be using face masks by then. If we're really foolish, schools will reopen in the fall, which will likely cause a second epidemic wave as bad as the first.
The US as a whole also had a temporary peak on 03.28, though it was not as sharp as for Massachusetts. the growth rate in cases for the US was in the 20-30% range before that peak and about 14-15% afterward. I think most states that have closed businesses will be considering - but not necessarily doing - business reopenings some time in May. Southern states have more latitude here, since the disease spreads less easily with increasing temperature and humidity.
Joe
Forum Master
Sounds like the old joke about bobbies—"Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again!"I completely agree fiesta. It's got to be more than "please could you stay in
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
So what is your explanation for the fact that most people are conducting voluntary social distancing, at least the keeping a 6 foot distance most of the time? What is your explanation for almost everyone wearing masks in Asian countries, even though it is not enforced?
I think relevant to this discussion is the concept of superrationality:
Superrationality - Wikipedia
Superrationality dictates that when you know all other peoples' thought processes are the same as your own, then you know they will select the same strategy as you, in which case you should "cooperate" - in this case doing voluntary social distancing or mask wearing.
While these sources discuss the issue in terms of rational analysis, really all it requires is symmetric analysis to result in everyone doing the same thing. In my opinion humans are heavily hard wired to "cooperate" on issues like this, which is why people are heavily conformist in behavior. It doesn't actually require understanding or consciously using superrationality any more than "defecting" requires understanding of Nash equilibria.
Note that superrationality does not apply in most situations; only in basically symmetric, "tragedy of the commons" type situations like this one. I agree with you that under most circumstances, people will go with the "selfish" Nash equilibrium, in which case, enforcement would be required. This just doesn't happen to be one of those circumstances.
I can only speak to common American and Russian cultural values. I can't comment on Asia.
As for "most people" doing it. The picture I see in America, both personally and in data, is nuanced. For example, this. In my view, it seems like there are several factors at play:
- How personally endangered one feels
- How worried one is about vulnerable members of their closest community
- Interest in "doing the right thing"
- Availability and appeal of opportunities to congregate
This is why I'm so strongly in favor of the widespread mandatory closures. It doesn't take terribly many people behaving poorly to cause a massive outbreak, and while many (most?) people are doing the right thing, there remains a frighteningly large number that aren't. For those not sufficiently motivated by fear or the spirit of cooperation, public policy is all that remains as a lever. That 20-28% of adults who haven't significantly changed their behavior already will only do so if they are forced.
Last edited:
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
Wow. There's so much wrong with this I hardly know where to begin.
Let's start with what's I do agree with. I think we agree it doesn't make much difference whether people are motivated by fear or the spirit of cooperation. I would agree that the traffic outside is in the range of 20-28% of normal, if that's what you are saying, though I think that includes people on trips that aren't really a matter of choice, like weekly grocery shopping trips.
What's wrong:
1. It's not correct that the current level of defectors matters much. The Imperial College study assumed social distancing that would eliminate 75% of contacts. If people just cut their trips outside the home by 50%, that would be sufficient. You would make half as many trips, and each trip would result in half as many contacts of other people that were out, which would reduce the contacts to 25%, cutting the total by 75%. If people are also washing hands more and keeping better distance, then you don't have to cut trips as much.
If traffic is reduced to 20-28% of normal, that's better than what's being expected from social distancing, reducing contacts by 92-96%.
2. That's a good thing, because the "mandatory" closures - other than school closures - don't close very much. The most frequent destinations - grocery stores, drug stores, convenience stores - remain open. The "closures" in most states, certainly here in Massachusetts, have holes much bigger than 20-28%, more like 50%. And the number doesn't benefit from the squaring effect.
3. I'll speak to Asian cultural values. They're no different than typical American cultural values. Many people in Hong Kong thought masks looked silly and stupid until the SARS epidemic. But when there was a reason to wear them, and a critical mass of maybe 10% started wearing them and shunning people who didn't wear them, social conformity quickly caused most people to wear them. And since masks reduce the chance of infecting others by about 70%, it provides a similar benefit to social distancing at much less cost - and one that stacks with regular social distancing - once you get over thinking they look weird.
It seems like you are assuming that the goal is to reduce the viral reproduction rate to 0. It's not. It just has to be reduced below 1.0.
Last edited:
madmaximus
Forum Master
A genius statistician once told me three things:
- Statistics are the best liars of all.
- You cannot tell someone they’re right or wrong based on statistics that ASSUME things.
- Assumptions are judgements not facts. Opinions in other words.
Asian cultural values are no different than typical American values?
I think all this bluster about statistics loses sight of what this pandemic is really about.
At the end of the day, in my opinion, setting the goal to just reducing viral reproduction rate to JUST below 1.0 is unacceptable.
Because it means that someone can still DIE of the virus.
m
ProgressNotPerfection
Forum Master
And don’t forget that 79.4% of all statistics are invented right on the spot.