Ray Gillenwater: We Will Not Comply

[Dillon Spencer]

Why would we say “this is really dangerous” when that statement doesn’t apply to everyone? Isn’t it clear that this should be emphasized to the people that it’s actually dangerous to?

Yes, there are tens of millions of elderly people in this country and they need to decide for themselves what level of exposure they’re willing to tolerate. Unless you think that Newsom or Cuomo is more qualified to decide on their behalf?

I realize plenty of people under 25 come into contact with the elderly. Whose responsibility is it to mitigate this risk? Why do you want strangers to decide for these at risk people? You do acknowledge that every set of circumstances is different and forcing one solution upon an entire population causes unnecessary harm, correct?

Hey Ray,

First of all I want to say how much I appreciate your contributions on this topic, both in articles and discussions. You're both eloquent and respectful, which particularly in the main COVID thread, are qualities that are often lacking. I wouldn't say I'm 100% aligned with you politically, but in reading your writings I often find myself in agreement with you on many points, and even when I'm not quite all the way there with you, I enjoy considering your positions.

In that spirit, I just wanted to point out one thing from your last couple of posts that I feel complicates the issue of individual responsibility a bit. Specifically, the section I've quoted and this article you posted earlier.

I totally agree that the vast majority of adults are at low risk, as evidence by 1.7% of the population accounting for 53% of the deaths, and capable of managing their own risk. Unfortunately, that 1.7% of the population represents 5.7 million Americans that are in long term medical care facilities specifically because they are no longer physically or mentally able to care for themselves in such a way. I trust my 70 year old parents to make the decisions that are best for them, but not my 93 year old grandma, or my grandpa before he died of Alzheimer's. Both of them are/were in homes, and are/were dependant on others to care and make decisions for them. Others that are out in the community, and who, despite all precautions they may or may not choose to take, are still going to be put at risk by the choices the rest of the community may or may not make, and who in turn may inadvertently expose my grandma.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that any of what I've said justifies shutting down the entire economy, or that it's possible to reduce risk to 0% with measures like social distancing or mandatory PPE. I'm just pointing out that for that 1.7% to which your posted article refers (which sounds small but is still 5.7 million Americans) who are most at risk, the issue of individual responsibility is a bit more complicated.

[Ray Gillenwater]

Hey Ray,

First of all I want to say how much I appreciate your contributions on this topic, both in articles and discussions. You're both eloquent and respectful, which particularly in the main COVID thread, are qualities that are often lacking. I wouldn't say I'm 100% aligned with you politically, but in reading your writings I often find myself in agreement with you on many points, and even when I'm not quite all the way there with you, I enjoy considering your positions.

Much appreciated.

Unfortunately, that 1.7% of the population represents 5.7 million Americans that are in long term medical care facilities specifically because they are no longer physically or mentally able to care for themselves in such a way. I trust my 70 year old parents to make the decisions that are best for them, but not my 93 year old grandma, or my grandpa before he died of Alzheimer's. Both of them are/were in homes, and are/were dependant on others to care and make decisions for them. Others that are out in the community, and who, despite all precautions they may or may not choose to take, are still going to be put at risk by the choices the rest of the community may or may not make, and who in turn may inadvertently expose my grandma.

I agree with you. The elderly can become dependent. Moving into an assisted living facility is the action that indicates [at least some] lack of independence.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that any of what I've said justifies shutting down the entire economy, or that it's possible to reduce risk to 0% with measures like social distancing or mandatory PPE. I'm just pointing out that for that 1.7% to which your posted article refers (which sounds small but is still 5.7 million Americans) who are most at risk, the issue of individual responsibility is a bit more complicated.

Reasonable. 1.7% is a small percentage, but a huge absolute number of vulnerable people. If government functioned correctly, there would be a sober assessment of the data followed by disproportionate action focused on specific populations instead of the entire population. What he have instead are government bureaucracies trying to solve problems and making them worse. Here's a piece that Stef shared with me from Forbes that outlines some of these missteps. 70% of deaths in Ohio are from end of life care facilities. Nearly 1 in 10 people that live in one of these facilities in the state of NJ has died. "New York, New Jersey, Michigan forced nursing homes to accept infected patients."

We agree that advocating for a shut down of the economy is not the solution to this problem. We agree that it's impossible to eliminate the COVID risk. We agree that 1.7% is a huge absolute number of people that need to be cared for. You mention that the issue of personal responsibility becomes more complicated and I agree with you there too, since these people are incapable of being 100% responsible for themselves and have entered into a contract with a company to fulfill those needs on their behalf. This means that the facilities are liable for their health and wellness. The government is responsible for ensuring that these facilities aren't malicious and/or negligent. If the government over-steps and intervenes in the operation of these facilities, like they have, who is responsible when someone dies? If the governor of NJ kills my grandmother with a poorly thought-out policy decision, what recourse do I have? Politicians have no skin in the game. There is no downside to their actions, just potentially a limit to their upside. This is the underlying reason why they cannot be responsible for our health and safety - the incentive structure that they are beholden to does not have our individual best interests in mind. This is the same reason why they can't be responsible for my business - if it fails, I absorb the losses, while Gavin Newsom sleeps in his Governor's mansion.

More broadly, I believe the following concepts are critical for policymakers (and the people that elect/appoint them) to internalize:

1. Not every problem can be solved
2. Not every problem should be solved
3. Sometimes when you attempt to solve a problem, you make it worse
4. Sometimes when you solve a problem, the unintended consequences are worse than the problem itself
5. If solving a problem involves controlling other people's behavior, re-read the above list

[Yngvi]

More broadly, I believe the following concepts are critical for policymakers (and the people that elect/appoint them) to internalize:

1. Not every problem can be solved
2. Not every problem should be solved
3. Sometimes when you attempt to solve a problem, you make it worse
4. Sometimes when you solve a problem, the unintended consequences are worse than the problem itself
5. If solving a problem involves controlling other people's behavior, re-read the above list

I feel like this one should be made into an infographic or a poster

[Dillon Spencer]

I agree with pretty much every word of that. I work with special needs children and adults, who also lack a certain level rational decision making capability, so that aspect just resonated with me. As I've been following all these discussions there's been a lot of binary argument between pro masks/lockdowns and unfettered individual liberty for all. I just felt it was important to remind folks (not just you), that there are a pretty huge number of people who, for one reason or another, have a compromised ability to make their own choices, and we accept that someone, somewhere is going to make at least some of their decisions for them. In the case of that 1.7%, they happen to be among the most vulnerable to the virus. Among my students, a significant number of them have comorbidities that might make them more vulnerable than a typical teen or young adult.

The who and how of that decision making is beyond the point I wanted to make, which is basically exactly what you said about small percentages of the population representing huge absolute numbers of vulnerable people, and that for a lot of those it's a bit more complicated than we often think.

As always, I appreciated reading your thoughts on the matter!

[Mark Le Comte]

I feel like this one should be made into an infographic or a poster

Agree, great list as a reminder about public policy limitations.

[muntz]

I agree with pretty much every word of that. I work with special needs children and adults, who also lack a certain level rational decision making capability, so that aspect just resonated with me. As I've been following all these discussions there's been a lot of binary argument between pro masks/lockdowns and unfettered individual liberty for all. I just felt it was important to remind folks (not just you), that there are a pretty huge number of people who, for one reason or another, have a compromised ability to make their own choices, and we accept that someone, somewhere is going to make at least some of their decisions for them. In the case of that 1.7%, they happen to be among the most vulnerable to the virus. Among my students, a significant number of them have comorbidities that might make them more vulnerable than a typical teen or young adult.

The who and how of that decision making is beyond the point I wanted to make, which is basically exactly what you said about small percentages of the population representing huge absolute numbers of vulnerable people, and that for a lot of those it's a bit more complicated than we often think.

As always, I appreciated reading your thoughts on the matter!

Dillon, I think you are helping me to elaborate on my point. My main point is the disease is a serious situation and the risks should not be minimized.
Maybe masks work or dont. I'm not a sheep for wearing them. And they may be helping.
Shutting down the economy seems completely insane. What is the right thing to do to slow the spread? I think Ray is on to something here, I wish he'd EMPHASIZE all the healthy aspects of SS gyms, rather than distract with politics and minimization of the risk.

[Rob Waskis]

What is the right thing to do to slow the spread?

It depends. Are you asking what is the right thing for the government to do, or what is the right thing for citizens to do independent of government mandates?

For the government, this is pretty good.

[ryand]

You do realize that the United States is one of the only counties on the planet encouraging and/or requiring otherwise healthy people to wear masks in public?

This is not true. There are many countries that require wearing a mask in public.

[muntz]

It depends. Are you asking what is the right thing for the government to do, or what is the right thing for citizens to do independent of government mandates?

For the government, this is pretty good.

Its a real question. I assume you are familiar with the Typhoid Mary story. She was a cook who was an asymptotic carrier of Typhus. She ended up infected several households, where 50 or so got sick and 3 died. She would change her name and get new jobs after her employer figured out it was she who infected them. Since she refused to self-quarantine (or for economic reasons was unable to), the govt ended up locking her up for decades and ended up dying in custody.

I'm not really comfortable with that solution. But? what else could they have done? Make her wear a sign? No sarcasm here. Genuine question.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Our data on Mary Mallon is not any better than the data we have on COVID-19. Yet, you continue to prove yourself a fool.