We Will Not Comply | Ray Gillenwater

[Mark Le Comte]

It has worked nicely in New Zealand, South Korea, and others. They are now much better placed to get their economy going than countries who have not done this.

Living in New Zealand, I can say we pretty much shut down the COVID outbreak here with about 7 weeks of lockdown (5 1/2 weeks very strict, and 2 1/2 weeks still pretty strict). Remember also this was in a small country of about 5 million, with only one city of over 1 million. I think the official statistics have us at under 2000 total cases and 21 deaths (mostly from a retirement village) , with about 40 active cases remaining.

But what happens next? How long do we keep borders closed? Are we at risk of another outbreak (and shutdown) from importing cases? Could we have eased lockdown earlier (e.g. my region has not had a new case in about 4 weeks but we were still locked down with the rest of country)?

Even though our 'go hard, go early' approach worked well from a public health perspective, was it the right thing to after considering all economic (and potential legal) issues. I don't think anyone has the hard data to prove that for sure yet.

[grichens]

And he has not explained how testing and contact tracing stop the virus, as I asked him to do.

Well, what he initially said was "the only strategy that can control the virus and stop economic meltdown: widespread testing, contact tracing, and quarantine of the infected..."
So he did not actually promote anything to "stop the virus". But then he fell for your strawman - so points to you on that.

But what really concerns me is that in his editorial "We Will Not Comply", your boss puts up historical data without providing any evidence that average case morbidity in a population is constant and not affected by any factor that might influence the environmental concentration of the virus and the infecting dose that individuals receive.

[ltomo]

Living in New Zealand, I can say we pretty much shut down the COVID outbreak here with about 7 weeks of lockdown (5 1/2 weeks very strict, and 2 1/2 weeks still pretty strict). Remember also this was in a small country of about 5 million, with only one city of over 1 million. I think the official statistics have us at under 2000 total cases and 21 deaths (mostly from a retirement village) , with about 40 active cases remaining.

But what happens next? How long do we keep borders closed? Are we at risk of another outbreak (and shutdown) from importing cases? Could we have eased lockdown earlier (e.g. my region has not had a new case in about 4 weeks but we were still locked down with the rest of country)?

Even though our 'go hard, go early' approach worked well from a public health perspective, was it the right thing to after considering all economic (and potential legal) issues. I don't think anyone has the hard data to prove that for sure yet.

I have some relatives who were going to visit you guys this summer for a couple weeks. They obviously had to cancel, but they likely won't reschedule because of school, work, etc. Maybe next summer they'll make it, but who knows.

The bigger issue is that any areas that relied on tourism revenue are screwed.

As a former Michigan resident, I've been keeping a pretty close eye on how Fraulein Whittmer has handled this situation. If you aren't from Michigan you might not realize it, but a significant amount of that state's livelihood is based on people going up north to spend time at their cabins, go fishing, camping, etc. Last I checked, the lockdown is still in place through Memorial Day. I've seen plenty of places go out of business in Michigan for lack of snow and missed business from snowmobilers. I hate to think of what will happen if she tries to curb traffic on what's probably the biggest weekend of the year.

I've been running scenarios for places like New Zealand, the Carribbean, Hawaii, etc where tourism and travel are major industries. I don't see them making it through this thing without major pain.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Well, what he initially said was "the only strategy that can control the virus and stop economic meltdown: widespread testing, contact tracing, and quarantine of the infected..."
So he did not actually promote anything to "stop the virus". But then he fell for your strawman - so points to you on that.

Yay. I win.

But what really concerns me is that in his editorial "We Will Not Comply", your boss puts up historical data without providing any evidence that average case morbidity in a population is constant and not affected by any factor that might influence the environmental concentration of the virus and the infecting dose that individuals receive.

It is not an editorial, he is not my boss, and we don't care about the virus. I win again.

[Ray Gillenwater]

Grichens, i'm not clear on your position. Would you mind stating it clearly, along with how you came to that conclusion? I'm tempted to reply to your points about the data, but I want to understand your thinking first. Fill me in.

Rip is right in that the virus doesn't matter - the personal responsibility argument stands on its own. Controlling others means there is a class of people that get to decide how everyone else lives their lives. This is obviously not acceptable to any group of people that believes in individual freedom. If there is a life threatening risk, it is the individual's job to avoid it, not the group's to avoid it on that person's behalf. It's a strong argument and rooted in the founding principles of this country. Deviation from this principle reduces the treatment of people to the lowest common denominator. Since Type II diabetes is an avoidable disease, extra large sodas should be banned, right? Save us from ourselves, we can't be trusted to make our own decisions. This is tyranny of the majority and it's an awfully slippery slope, as the past several decades have clearly demonstrated.

However, that argument is controversial and it's not clear to a significant chunk of the population that societies function better when they are organized bottom up. The personal freedom maxim is best for the individual and, counter-intuitively, it's what's best for the group, since groups consist of individuals. Strong large groups consist of strong small groups. On the other hand, top down organization is a ruling class deciding how the lower class should behave. Governments that "know what's best for the people" eventually realize that it is so inefficient to attempt to centrally plan an economy, that doing so places them at a distinct disadvantage with the rest of the world and "the people" suffer needlessly. This argument is controversial because only a small percentage of the populous has any direct experience with these dynamics. This is why I focused my piece on the practical argument, which is: how do we reduce net harm? I don't think it's reasonable to try to change someone's world view in one article, but I do think an attempt at appealing to reason is worth the effort to potentially change their perspective on this specific topic. This approach is less effective than an emotional appeal, but if I was willing to be that unscrupulous I would run for office.

I believe I've made a complete case that outlines why the practical move to reduce net harm is to "allow" people make decisions for themselves, especially since there are two well-defined groups of people that are at risk of dying from this virus. You might argue that we should force them to stay home, but who am I to decide the fate of a stranger? If an 82-year old man with heart disease wants to spend the rest of his time on earth outside in the sun, around people, why would anyone try to force him to take a less life threatening approach? I believe this invalidates the "we must all stay home to stay safe" argument and "the government must decide whether of not we can operate our businesses" argument. If someone is worried about dying from COVID-19, they should take whatever measures they believe are necessary to avoid contracting the virus. This will vary per individual. This is the only solution that minimizes net harm, as I've outlined in detail. If you believe I'm wrong, please explain.

[JMajoris]

Your father can stay home and isolate, and you can too if you’re worried about infecting him. The rest of us have to get back to life though.

I don't know why its so hard for folks to grasp the common sense aspect of this...

[artgood]

So does Mark have a degree in virology and epidemiology? Asking for a friend. Also, its not about "you" its about protecting everyone else (like my Father with diabetes). Just because you are asymptomatic, doesn't mean my Father doesn't catch it and ends up dying from it.

I agree with your premise about caring for the collective good, but at some point the collective good in regards to people out of work and businesses that have been shuttered has to be taken into account as well.

Ultimately it is first your father's own responsibility to insure his health and well being by staying home if he has an underlying health condition. If he is concerned about contracting the virus he simply needs to shelter at home until the pandemic has ended. Secondly, it is certainly within your perogative to also care about your father's health and well being. You can shop for him, pick up medications for him, and take care of whatever he needs done to insure that he does not have to leave his home and put his health at risk. All that can be done while not infringing upon the rights of others to be employed and make a living to care for their families. People don't have to be out of work, lose their businesses, and face financial ruin so that your dad can be safe. You and he can make that happen.

Basically, you and your Dad have to be willing to make sacrifiecs for YOUR OWN health and well-being. I, and others, can only do so much before we also have to be concerned with ours, and our families, health and well-being in all areas.

If you're at a high risk of death by COVID-19, behave accordingly. The rest of the community needs to be productive or else the rest of the community will suffer.

Good point. Why is it that so many have the attitude of, "if I'm suffering then you have to suffer too?" I just don't get it. I'm ready to get on with life while the sick and elderly shelter at home.

[darrowdisciple]

We have agreed to the lockdown laws. They have been enacted so that the executive branch can use them quickly to protect life. Imagine the necessity of the legislative process, hearings, reports, etc. in addressing a pandemic that was discovered and spread in a matter of months. There was a playbook in the hands of the leaders in Washington when they took office. It appears they paid attention to it long enough to see the name on it, and threw it away.

I can assure you the Constitution contains no right or freedom to spread a deadly virus.

You have to scratch your head and wonder how much more obvious what you say has to be.

Why is government always "big" government? It seems whatever size it is right now, at least in Washington, it isn't doing anything to guide citizens through this crisis. Quite the opposite, actually. And who's eye is poked? The government's, or the person unfortunate enough to pick up the virus from one of those defiant gym-goers?

[Ray Gillenwater]

We have agreed to the lockdown laws.

Indefinitely? Where do you draw the line?

And who's eye is poked? The government's, or the person unfortunate enough to pick up the virus from one of those defiant gym-goers?

How did this at-risk person get infected? Shouldn't they have been at home avoiding contact with other people?

[ltomo]

I can assure you the Constitution contains no right or freedom to spread a deadly virus.

You have to scratch your head and wonder how much more obvious what you say has to be.

"No right or freedom to spread a deadly virus." What? My right to freely associate with others ends because I might spread a virus to someone? Why do the authorities have the right to presume I have the virus? I know that the propaganda you listen to is effective, but it is not "obvious" to me how any of this makes any sense at all.

The social contract holding society together is strained. If people are really playing this fast and lose with the Constutition of the United States, you are not going to like the results when the majority of Americans really start thinking of it as "just a piece of paper". The only reason there isn't open violence in the streets right now is because enough people have hope that the authorities might acknowledge their rights in the near future.

I'm done engaging with this kind of talk. A person who thinks like this is a lost cause. The only point of even acknowledging this comment is to hold it up for public ridicule.