Opinion
!opinion
help-circle
rss
The CDC
99% invisible recently released a good documentary about the CDC. It shows the CDC to be (at least in some parts of its remit) incompetent. It's about the data-collection work the CDC was doing (or not doing) in 2020. It reminds me of an article the CDC wrote in 2020, and my criticism of it at the time, for a different aspect of its work. So I post all three here together. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/pandemic-tracking-and-the-future-of-data/ https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html > The hairdressers anecdote. This is a dangerous study. There is no control group, so the results are 100% meaningless. That the CDC is taking this kind of story as evidence is damaging for its credibility. > That said, there is evidence that hairdressers should wear masks. It comes from the Wells curve and all the follow up research over many decades. *If* you are standing over someone, within 50cm-ish, *then* masks are an appropriate barrier measure. > That's the thing. People like CDC experts want to believe that the world is simple - mask usage is either good or bad. But the world is full of complexity, different types of situation where different behaviours are appropriate. They reject a complicated truth over a simple fiction. > (TBH even if there was a control group, you might need more info before you consider using that anecdote as evidence for anything - for example cloth face coverings and surgical masks are not the same thing! you'd need to categorise by how much time they are wearing each one, and other factors, then do some statistics ... *then* you know if the result is meaningful) > It's knowing the difference between a study and an anecdote/case-study. > I try not to be too dismissive. But in this case ... this is really disappointing. The CDC should do better than this, given its importance in global policy making. I, a total layman, can instantly find serious mistakes. > ...and it's not just a mistake. it's a lack of curiosity. it's not being interested in what is true or false, as long as it supports your preconception. it's not being analytical at all, just following a dogma. > The CDC is revealing itself to be grossly incompetent in its role. > ...even though its point about mask-wearing hairdressers is actually correct!
4

Rule of law vs firemen
Under the rule of law, how can breaking the law be justified? Firemen are allowed break any law (destroying property, traffic laws, tresspassing, even setting off bombs) in their line of work. But firemen have no special legal powers. So how can they do that, and why can't I? Under the rule of law, the same law applies to everyone. In some countries the police are above the law (France), in others it is a monarch (UK), in others there is different law for different ethnicities (Israel). They do not have rule of law. Under the rule of law, there are no automatic punishments handed out by robots or algorithms, extra-judicial punishments, or punishments without a crime (UK, UK, and UK). No ASBOs, fixed-penalties, or internment. When somebody commits a crime, he is called before a judge, who applies a punishment, in accordance with a written (unlike the UK) non-secret (unlike the USA) set of laws. So one day a fireman gets called out to an emergency, and he breaks some laws. He could get called before a judge for that. But the judge will always excuse crimes reasonably done to tackle an emergency. If the fireman does the same thing when there is no emergency, he will be sentenced. If somebody calls me to help with a fire, I can do the same. The crucial and only difference between him and me, is that I'm unlikely to ever be called out to a fire. So firemen (and police, organ-transplant drivers, gas pipeline repairmen, etc) must all obey the law outside of an emergency or some other great exceptional need. Even with emergencies, they can expect to get called to court occasionally to justify their actions. And if I need to break a window or a traffic light in my rush rush to get to a doctor (or even a fire) I can do that without fear of punishment. This also means that police and airport staff have no need for special legal powers. For example in the UK, anybody an make an arrest. But non-police rarely do so, except in exceptional situations. It's nearly always better to call the police instead, not least because you'll later have to explain your actions in court. This is the example which should be made more general. This is the only reasonable way for the law to be organised.

I love 15.ai videos too much.
They're hilarious! I can't stop watching them over and over, even though I need to work on late school work. I saw TF2 sound mods that used 15.ai; but there's not enough of them. There needs to be more! * I made some [random lines with 15.ai](https://github.com/WhyIsEvery4thYearAlwaysBad/mahstuff/tree/master/15.ai%20Stuff/) * I also tried to make [TF2 voicelines of characters making actual competitive calls.](https://github.com/WhyIsEvery4thYearAlwaysBad/mahstuff/tree/master/15.ai%20Stuff/TF2). * I even tried to make a Japanese Dub of TF2; but I gave up because I lost interest. I want to make more; but I feel cringe for doing so.

I wish critical thinking is more politically supported.
I don't like seeing people being swindled in politics. Regardless if the propaganda is capitalist, communist, socialist, distributist, left-wing, right-wing, LGBT+, Ableist, etc. I feel empathy for the persuaded crowd and want to help them; but humanity is not always logical. It seems like few people support *proper* critical thinking (as in, giving every political belief a fair education). I wish more people advocated for education of proper critical thinking. (Maybe I should make a political flag for critical thinking.)

A long list of retail reforms
There are several changes that need to be made to retail law, to stop predatory practices. Firstly there is one thing that legislators usually do wrong: The trick is in making law is to make the rules general and mild. For example a law banning cafés from giving away plastic toys is a defective law. The toy manufacturer will just sell them to a different type of business to be given away for free. And it says nothing about other kinds of plastic wastage (or non plastic wastage). And what if there is a good reason to be giving away toys, like birthday party - it should still be possible. A good version of this law would be a general tax (not a ban) on plastic. So it becomes expensive to give away plastic toys, but also to do other wasteful things with plastic. Only when there is a real utility to using the plastic will businesses be willing to pay the tax. *** Here are the changes needed right now. Sneaky price changes/inflation (Targeted mostly at airlines) The seller must post a sign on the item one week before to one week after the price change. Just having to inform customers should dissuade sellers from most frivolous increases. Price changes cannot be more than 10% per week. Different customers cannot be charged different prices for the same thing on the same day. This also discourages charging very high prices for new products, because it will be difficult to reduce the price later. Sales tax is a function of the weight of packaging in each material, per weight of product. Very high tax rates for non-recyclable packaging. Most territories already have variable VAT rates for different categories of items, so there's no technical challenge here. Tax on the production or import of bad things like plastics, coal, wild animals, non-managed wood. Encourage repairability Targeted at dishwashers, cars. Each package has a parts list. For each part, is it replaceable, are replacements currently being made by more than one manufacturer (not patented)? Anything sold without a guarantee suffers a higher VAT. The rate reduces in function of the lifespan of the thing. So disposable and bad quality things become expensive. The wholesale price must also be available. Markup of >100% not allowed. Not only does it let people see which things are over-priced by the retailer, but it lets retailers see what other ones are paying the wholesaler. So it has a deflationary effect on both the retail and wholesale markets. Things sold in units of 1, 2 or 5 only. So 1000g bags of flour are permitted. But selling a 950g bag will incur a charge. These odd quantities are nearly always scams. There's not normally a good reason to sell 190g or 480g or something. It's important to have a mechanism for people to report non-compliance, and for the fines on businesses to be public. As always when raising a tax, it increases the cost of living, so something else must be changed to compensate, like UBI, the dole and minimum wage, income tax, the general VAT rate. This is another thing legislators usually neglect. Each of these has negative consequences, but all of them can be easily fixed. But this post is already long enough.

People who condemn Russia for invading Ukraine are hypocrites
...unless they also condemn the USA for invading Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Most European territories serve the USA's geopolitical goals. Sanctions against Russia right now are part of that. There's nothing moral about it. It's simply a service to the USA for being in its sphere of influence. There is nothing, not a single shred of integrity in that. If you find a territory which sanctions Russia for its crime, and also the USA for its crimes, you can recognise it as a real principled act.

The best strategic move for Ukraine is to surrender
The best strategic move for Ukraine is to surrender. Many Ukrainian lives are lost and cities destroyed, in the service of this ancient USA vs Russia proxy war. The USA is sending them weapons so that Russians and Ukrainians can kill each other, and eventually weaken the Russian army. It's stupid. If Ukraine surrenders, the USA will be forced to send in its own troops to fight back Russia. The USA will not allow Russia to gain Ukraine. It's too strategically important. Their aircraft will appear over Ukrainian skies within hours of the surrender, and will decimate Russia. Don't be used as pawns in someone else's war.

The Irish famine of1845 was not a genocide - it was a pump and dump
Here is my idea. During the famine grain was being hoarded my several estates, shipfulls of grain were being exported from Ireland. This exacerbated the famine. But look at it this way - there was a bad harvest, which by itself would have caused an increase in grain prices. But it precipitated and attack on commodity prices by a coordinated group of investors. They bought grain and withheld it from the market, pumping prices. Then they sold small amounts at inflated prices. The actions of Westminster, where they decided year after year not to intervene, is said to be because they didn't want to provoke shocks in food prices in England. If you take them at their word, it was a genocide - they worsened (or created) a famine (and consciously killed millions) for local political reasons. But looked at the new way, they were facilitating an investment scheme by important wealthy businesses. By withholding food from Ireland (food which was mostly produced in Ireland) they were allowing the scheme to run for longer. This is typical in modern England, that the bankers' interest is the highest priority for government. Understanding that is key to understanding why the UK behaves as it does. And the famine lasted several years, only because of Westminster's actions. Makes sense?

Some thoughts on abortion
The abortion debate is probably one of the most contentious of all. It affects people on a very personal level, so most people have very strong opinions on it. I'm not here to debate this, more to share a way of thinking which might help people. If it doesn't help you, then ignore it. The world does not need another circular intractable abortion debate. In fact most people (in my experience) fall into one of two extremist polarised camps. 1. Abortion should be freely available to all, up to a certain date (usually in the months). If one parent (usually the mother but not always) desires it, nobody else shall interfere. 2. Abortion should be banned except in a medical emergency, feotal non-viability, or to save the mother's life. These are both extremist views, and they are mutually exclusive. So the abortion debate is about winning and losing. Both of these policies are disastrous for vast numbers of people. Whichever side wins, vast numbers of lives and entire families will be ruined. But put it another way. These are the things people really care about: 1. Nobody should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world 2. Living things (especially human) should not be killed except under dire need. 3. People should be able to have sex without consequences. They are not exclusive. Everybody wants the same three things. And society can have all of those things, at the same time. Let's put the issues in the third and final arrangement: * Three weeks. Three weeks is a long enough time to visit a doctor or pharmacist under any circumstances. There is no reason for anyone to wait longer than that between sex and thinking about (panicking about) pregnancy. So the issue is access to contraception and to information about contraception. People know about condoms and pills and patches. Everybody knows that 100% effective contraception does not exist. But that is only true is you want it to be - if people are taught ineffective contraception methods. Most people have never heard about ovulation testing or tube ligation. But they both **are** effective. They need to be as accessible and publicised. Depending on condoms is a method designed to fail. * Day 21. Before this the fetus has no organs. No heart, no brain. Although it is technically a living, metabolising, growing human, there's not such a big ethical problem killing somebody with no heart or brain. Access to effective contraception obviates the need for abortion for the vast majority of cases/people. But you can imagine failure cases. So this is the safety net. Abortion up to 21 days. And abortions must be as rare as possible, because they do destroy families. There is no good answer to a lot of the problems with abortion - who needs to be informed, consulted or give authorisation, how do you measure 21 days... * 24 hours. In a medical crisis, like sepsis, a patient can be dead in 24 hours. There are many circumstances unorthadox medical treatment is necessary. There are too many to list or legislate for. The law should never allow a doctor to believe that he can allow a patient (or two) to die, just because of a political/legal issue. He doesn't have time to consult a lawyer and he shouldn't ever need to. Part of the motivation here is to bring human medicine up to the standards of vet medicine. Vets do not normally perform abortions. They perform sterilisations. They do this because this is the ethical way. In the past, people used to drown kittens, now they spay kittens. Let's be like the kittens.

Donation model vs investment model
Today many artists and inventors and businessmen rely on donations. But a system where the donation is rewarded with shares would be better. Then, if the business eventually becomes successful, they will get back dividends. It's a much more inviting concept. Having shares in something really makes people loyal, in a way that being a donor does not. It would generate much more money IMO. Patreon (or the ethical alternative whose name I forget) could add this option without much difficulty. The new relationship would be a powerful improvement. It would lead to more and better-funded independent projects everywhere.

Change my view: The 'freedom convoy' has been the most successful social movement in Canada in at least the past 15 years
The BLM and climate protests were getting much less coverage and only lasted like 2 days each. Successful = causing social disruption
fedilink

Another idea for stopping covid
It's been obvious for a while that governments worldwide are not able to design effective strategies to stop covid. So I've been trying to think of initiatives that bypass government. One example is the decision whether to leave pubs open or closed, despite different pubs having very different infectiousness. One pub might be 100x safer than another, so it's improper to paint them all with the same brush. It leads to the worst of both worlds, with high contagion and high restrictions on peoples lives, at the same time. It's possible to categorise public spaces by their infectiousness. For example somewhere with bad ventillation, high density of people, who stay there for a long time; is more infectious than for example an outdoor space. So privately owned public spaces (shops, pubs, cafés schools, stations, etc) can ask for an evaluation by an expert. The expert can do a calculation based on the properties of the space and its usage, using transparent criteria. The space will get a result. Not a safe/unsafe one, or a stay open / stay closed one, but something like this: * max 5 people at a time. max 15 min stay. masks required. This result can be posted on the door, as an advertisement that the space is taking covid seriously, and a helpful guide to concerned customers. This is easy to understand and obey, and helps people control their risks, but it never stops people from doing business somewhere. Nowhere will get a 0 min rating, exuivalent to being temporarily shut down, because that doesn't make epidemiological sense. One pub might get a 30min rating and another a 90min rating. So the first one won't go out of business (like it would under a lockdown) but there is a strong incentive to improve its ventillation to get a longer rating. This is the ideal situation. It solves all the weaknesses with most governments' policies in one go. It's a shame governments don't have the sense to implement it, but any non-profit could. The sign on the door is also an advertisement for the scheme, to get more businesses to sign up. People will choose to go to the shop with the bright covid rating sign in the door, over the one with no information on how infectious it is. The abstaining shops will be conspicuous and lose business.

A pro-fascist argument WRT covid
You've heard about 'fragility' WRT covid policy. If we are all following the same centrally determined rules set by government, then those rules have to be perfectly thought-out. If they make policy mistakes (as they frequently do) then everybody in the territory suffers the consequences. These decrees from government are always (necessarily) rigid. It is well known that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level, so they can be flexible enough. But I've realised there is a possible counter-argument. It's 'perverse incentives'. Imagine people are well-informed, because a government has been providing appropriate information. Imagine there is a covid outbreak one day in December. Most people will decide (depending on their personal risk-factors) to stay away from the butchers. But if there is one 'bad actor' who goes in anyway, he will get his pick of the turkeys. The man who does bad is rewarded. For any policy to work, breaking the policy must not be rewarded. And if one man is breaking the rules and benefiting from it, then everyone must do the same. To be clear, this is not about people who must interact with society despite the epidemic - they have to do some business or work, or for the young people the work they need to do is socialising. Pro-lockdown people would say stop all of that irrespective of its importance. This is a weak argument, but it's not the pertinent one. This is about people who are compelled to do business against their own best interests, because they know other people will do so. So (although I've never heard it from anywhere else) there is an argument for centrally dictated covid policy. Do you think it's a strong argument, despite all the problems with government-set covid policy?

Support FOSS, then closed/capitalist alternative then the main closed/capitalist thing
Ex: Support (play): 1. [tuxemon](https://github.com/Tuxemon/Tuxemon), (foss) if not then 2. [temtem](https://peervideo.ru/w/tqmt5R4UXXt7saMEHtppdd) (closed source alternative i think) only then should someone support 3. pokemon
fedilink

Easy and Difficult things in life
if someone tells you that something should be easy for you if someone tells you that something should be easy for you, and then when you try something, something is easy, that was good advice in the end, but if someone tells you that something should be easy for you, and then you try something, and something is difficult for you, it doesn't seem to me that it is easy for someone to judge what is easy for you, let alone give you advice.... as someone told you something should be easy for you, then you try it, then it is hard, and then someone doesn't know what that someone is talking about. If that someone knew what that someone was talking about, then the specific thing someone told you should be easy for you, when you try it, then it has to be easy for you, or someone misjudged... ...regarding you, when you judge something is easy for you, something is easy for you... ...when you judge something is difficult for you, something is difficult for you... ...and when something other than the above two happens to you, you have misjudged what is easy and difficult for you for the specific occasion. People who excel at difficult things In order for people to have a good life, they need to have fun in a way that is fun for their own selves , or else they are not having fun, and the universe can't do anything to change that for them if they don't change their way, that they notice, is not fun for them. Regarding people who excel at difficult things, either... The things those people excel at, are not difficult for them up to the point they excel...or... The things those people excel at, are difficult for them up to the point they excel, ...and then .... People who excel at things, that are difficult for them up to the point they excel, make it more difficult for anyone else to excel, as they already know that there are some for who it is easy to excel up to the point they excel, if they don't add some extra hurdles on the way for other to excel...so that...they can excel instead... Do these people make sense in general? No, they don't in general. And in specific, they make things difficult for others... Shamed for doing something difficult Some people find things which the majority find easy to do, difficult to do, and they are shamed for this. Some people find things which the majority find easy to do, difficult to do, and they are not shamed for this. Whether they are shamed for doing something or not, depends on the consequences something has in reality, on whether the rest like something in reality, and in the end on whether the rest people think it is sensible for them to try to be kind to others for the specific occasion, and... sometimes it is sensible to be kind to another, and sometimes you are not being sensible with yourself, spending time and effort with another, and regardless of how kind you want to be to another, in the end justice is blind, since the beginning of humans, and you are not being sensible with yourself, when you ignore that. things that are easy are easy for those who understand how to do them, and things that are hard are no different than the things that are easy for those who don't understand how to do them... Humans who have a different definition of easy than other humans, should remember: Something is easy for me, if it is not hard for me to do in reality. Something is easy for some people, if it is not hard for some people to do in reality. Something is easy for most people , if it is not hard for most people to do in reality. And what I mean by this is If something is easy for most people or some people, but it is not easy for one, then whether something is easy doesn't become hard for everyone because of one, does it? Clarifications if people in groups or societies, don't have a common way to judge which things are easy or difficult, it seems to me things get more difficult for that group or society as time passes , or do you think this is not the case? And what is that way, which is common in a group of people to judge which things are easy or difficult, you may wonder?.. In short it is what I initially wrote down. If you want me to write more... You have a group of people, or society, people do things, and for the things they do, those things can be easy or difficult for them, on average, and that is because of the following... When people in the group or society, want to judge other people in the same group or society doing things, they do that using their own personal view, but... regardless of their personal view, the common view people in the group or society have, is the view that most people have... commonly, that is the view that makes common sense for that group of people or society. Because within a group of people, the common view people in the group or society have, is the view that most people have, the common view people in the group or society have, better for that group or society be a sensible one, or else things get more difficult for the group or society, as time passes... as the human senses work to support humans to have fun in their lives and stay alive up until they die, when humans follow their senses... and they warn them when they are not really having fun... So how people in a group or society built a common view, happens in a funny way... people exchange views, some are really thinking while doing that, some are really just choosing the views expressed in the group or society, that they would want the universe to impose to the rest of the group, as if the humans sense don't have common elements among humans... But regardless of peoples' personal views, the way that that human senses work is in a funny way for the conscious being inside the human body, because otherwise, it wouldn't be funny for the conscious being inside the human body, and this is because this is the best the universe could do for the conscious being inside the human body, both for the easy and the difficult times, as reality in the end is something else than anything you can imagine, because it really seems to be happening on its own without you really having to imagine reality, for reality to happen. But to cut a long story short, so that I can hope that you at least have some reason to read my reply, in the end within a group of people or society, people build a common view on which things are difficult or easy, however...unfortunately up to now, there can be cases where the entire group or society doesn't make sense, but this isn't what people who make up the group or society want to do, this is simply what they did, is what we find in the past, so that we can learn to avoid similar mistakes in the future. CASES, That people view similarly over some time become… FASHIONABLE, But ways that people view similarly OVER AND OVER IN TIME, become… …common sense. https://youtu.be/hNFYMORvM_o


Clean air
We have a right to clean air. Just as 19th century disease was (to oversimplify a tad) erradicated by providing people clean water. And 20th century disease by clean surfaces. The 21st century will be all about clean air. In offices, public spaces, and especially in public transport, the air is infectious. It doesn't matter if you wear a mask, or disinfect your hands and doorhandles. Modern diseases are adapted to spreading through the air and air-conditioning. As long as the poor are forced to travel daily in overcrowded buses and trains, the epidemics will continue. *** We've seen that lockdowns, hand sanitisers, vaccination, etc, are all only slightly effective against airborn disease. But some territories have started to take the first steps toward eliminating covid. Small incremental improvements to ventilation. And it will help a bit. But it's worth remembering that it won't be enough - this is a disease of overcrowding, and the only effective cure is to improve living conditions. There are several possible solutions I've thought of, though others could maybe find better ones: * Zoning so that houses and workplaces must move closer together. * High taxes on workplaces near the most overcrowded parts of the transport network. * More buses and bus lanes of course. If people need to stand, it should be considered overcrowded. The bus/train company should have to pay the standers, as an incentive. * Limit the rate of entering the metro, to physically prevent overcrowding. People have to queue, or traven at a different time. * Free travel outside rush hour. Because extra passengers do not cost the provider anyway. * Reducing the vacancy in inner-city housing, through a UBI-style tax and benefit system.

A real measure of democracy
We need a way to measure the level of democracy of each territory. And especially when it changes, we need a may to measure whether the new law or regime takes us closer or further away. First, the simplest objections: * This already exists. There are organisations that measure democracy globally, but what they mostly measure is people's opinions of democracy is their country, which is not at all the same thing. We need an objective, not a subjective measure * It's hard to define the criteria that define a democracy. There are a few points which are debatable alright. In the end this measure will become the first rigorous definition of democracy. Once that first step is done, anbody can fork this and change some of the criteria to make an improved version * It's debatable whether all of the things specified here are desirable. Certainly there are many people who don't believe in them, but those people don't believe in a pure democracy. Whether pure democracy is a desirable thing is an important debate. To have that debate, we first want an accurate measure of what is is. A pure, or 'direct' democracy, does not exist anywhere today. It is a theoretical ideal, like a competitive economy, or a meritocracy, or equality-of-opportunity. But democracy at least is easy to specify: "It is a government which is totally subservient to the population. It acts according to the will of the majority. The actions of the democractic government are the same as would be taken by a well-designed multiple-round referendum." That was my own definition. There are other definitions, mostly because there are multiple meanings of the word democracy. For some people it is "territories with the word 'democratic' in them, or "places where the government is made of elected representatives", or "places which are free and economically open", or "states which are political allies of my state". Those are vague definitions so they are not much use in objective discussions. To show what it would look like, I'll build an example section. 1. Are all political offices elected? 2. Are some people above the law, and will remain so for life? 3. Are electoral districts drawn by a body independent from politics? 4. Can residents lose the right to vote, for example by being imprisoned? 5. Can any resident initiate a referendum? 6. Is the constitution mutable only by referendum? 7. Is there a written constitution at all? 8. Is there a mechanism by which all of the people holding power be removed from power before their term ends (except for judges)? 9. Is there a secret ballot? The number of 'yes' answers is important. But some questions are more important than others. The above questions are a sample of the more important ones near the top. The questions near the bottom will be more like 10. "is there a government" 11. are there elections? 12. is succession chosen by people outside the family of the office holder? Nearly every territory will get yes answers to q9-11. They more measure whether it is the opposite of democracy. The places that fail will be monarchies or dictatorships etc. Very few will answer yes to q1-8. Only Switzerland (AFAIK) will pass q5. So with only one state that can pass it, q5 is therefore the most important question. So it becomes a ranking on two levels. The questions are ranked by importance, according to how many territories can answer yes to them. Then the territories are ranked in order, according to the lowest question it answers no to. For example the UK is often called a democracy, because it ranks highly in surveys of people's perception of democracy. It has extraordinarily effective propoganda. But objectively it is much less democratic than its neighbours. It fails questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 9. And 7 and 9 are very weak tests, that indicate a very weak democracy. So this is a concrete measure, not of people's perception of democracy in their regions, but of real democracy. The word will no longer just be a political throwaway, but have real meaning. This tool will inform our debates and influence policy.

Covid 19 and china
Politicians are (by and large) people who spend a lot of time talking to other politicians, who are sensitive to other people's expectations, who go with the flow and follow conventional wisdom. They don't break ranks and do anything radical or innovative alone. The politician who does otherwise is an unsuccessful politician. When a government makes a plan to solve some problem, it tends to be the same as his neighbour's solution. *** China was the first territory to react to Covid, and it reacted brutally, with what we now call lock-downs. Total suppression of human movement and interaction and activity, covering an entire city. This was not the only option nor the most effective one, though the people who copied this solution now claim that it was. And that's just it, most of the world copied this approach, because politicians instinctively copy each other. But if covid had started somewhere else, if the first government to react had been portuguese or venezualan or dutch, the template solution would certainly have been very different. It would have been a less brutal and more effective one. The world might be a very different place today.

Vaccines and the trolley problem
I've previously said here that mass vaccination is a crucial tool in disease control, but that enforced vaccination has some problems. The first five I'm just listing, because I think everyone should be aware of them. I know some are controversial, but I'm not planning to discuss them here. The last one is IMO the most interesting. # Misc issues, not the subject of this post * civil rights - forcing medical treatment on people is normally a serious crime, but for whatever reason people seem to make an exception for vaccination. * utility - politicians usually don't think so, but people generally make better decisions for themselves than politicians will make for them * fragility - when everybody is forced to do the same thing at the same time, and problems with it are immediately big problems. Like when the CDC mandated one covid test kit, but the kit was defective, and hospitals were prohibited from using different non-approved kits. It's better for people to have access to several options, in case the mandated one has some flaw. * incentivisation (1) - a government which cannot enforce a rule has to convince people to follow the rule. So it has an incentive to make high quality rules. You can then measure whether the rule really works for people by measuring the compliance by demographic. * incentivitation (2) - many people will resist or ignore a command from an authority. They are much more likely to obey good convincing advice from an authority. # The real subject of this post * trolley problem You can guess that a novel vaccine will have unexpected side effects and will kill some number of people. You should, because every medical intervention has a non-zero mortality rate, with very rare exceptions like acupuncture. So the vaccine will save X deaths and cause Y deaths. Nobody can know what X and Y are, except that X is much bigger than Y. This sounds like the trolley problem. I used to think that providing access to vaccines is good. People can make their own decisions to take the risk, based on their personal risk profiles and doctor's advice. But if the president or minister forces people to do something that kills Y people, the president/minister is responsible for those deaths. The only question would be what [level of culpability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Modes_of_culpability) he would have. # So my question. Does instead framing it as a trolley problem hold water? If so, does that debunk the criminal argument? Or is there maybe a hybrid perspective or a different one, that's even more solid?

  • 0 users online
  • 1 user / day
  • 1 user / week
  • 2 users / month
  • 24 users / 6 months
  • 60 subscribers
  • 23 Posts
  • 128 Comments
  • Modlog