That graph is good for supporting Gardner's view, but it's too crude and lacking in important context to demonstrate much of anything. I see it as an example of how to employ limited statistics to present a preferred picture -- that's all.
I like this article but I think attempting to be prepared is arrogant. Asteroids, coronal mass ejections, ufo's, contagion.
You just have to accept some things happen and mitigation is embarrassing to say the least. It cannot be macro-managed but like the American chestnut blight and a shit load of other disasters - small independent adaptations would have worked but the gov got involved.
4 billion trees removed and now basically extinct.
I get the concept that we're often dealing with phenomena beyond our abilities to control, but lack of preparation is just an acquiescence to impotence. We can't control everything, and sure, something is likely to get the best of us eventually, but preparation extends the boundaries of what we can achieve as we learn more.
I'll cite your specific examples of things for which humanity's preparation would be "arrogant":
- We're already working out ways to destroy or re-direct killer asteroids.
- Better understanding of the sun, which we know more about in the past 100 years than we did in the previous 40,000. Coronal mass ejections haven't wiped out millions of years of life on Earth yet; will they before we find a defense? Maybe, but we're well on our way.
- UFOs? Let's jump off that bridge if/when we get there. Are you seriously advocating for zero preparation because alien entities will inevitably destroy us anyway?
- We have made more inroads against contagions than they have made against us (Proof=billions of living humans). Without preparation, we'd still have all the diseases which are now controlled (or in many cases completely eradicated) by science.
Can we control everything? Of course not, and even if we could, new threats would arise. That's not a reason to be unprepared, chestnut blight or no.
Fair point and my reply was actually under-done and a little lazy. I would counter that we don't control disease any more than trees do, or sharks or grass or worms. We simply optimise health. Other lifeforms are not engaged in interventionist approaches in the way pharma is for example but yes ultimately your point holds weight but there is still the issue of over-controlling behaviours based on excessive fear of the future. I guess balance is what is called for. Interventionist medicine is far less effective for positive outcomes than healthy living.
Anyway I respect your position but you seem to be way more of a techno-optimist than me but we have our bias I guess.
The fallacy is "red herring" or "non sequitur". "Covid is dangerous" just doesn't imply any sort of government action unless other, obviously false, premises are included.
Of course, I believe that the claim that "had we done nothing, SARS-CoV-2 would have caused a material increase in deaths relative to, say, a bad flu season" is itself highly debatable.
It’s pretty clear to me that if the UK government had reduced all government employees wages by 25% for the duration of the lockdowns, those lockdowns would have ended after twenty minutes or so.
Perhaps the government started off wanting to protect Canadians, but the effort was soon transformed into a social experiment to see how much control could be gained through fear. The OPP actually. showed up to deal with me because they thought I wasn't where I ought to be. I was caring for my dying mother, but their monitoring of my location was thwarted by poor cell phone reception in the hills of Caledon. I'll never forget them coming to the door to harass me just minutes after I'd watched my mother pass away. I will also never forgive.
You really don't like listening to people who disagree, do you? You have read into that statement REAMS of claims that aren't there and you are tearing those apart, to your considerable satisfaction, apparently. Good for you. Everybody needs a hobby. Just please stop spamming me with this crap, OK?
I'm not sure how including your name in the piece so you have a chance to reply is spamming you. I thought I made it quite clear to anyone reading it that you said you hadn't meant it that way.
Philip, I tried to speak with you directly, in fact asked to do so, but rather than simply having a frank conversation with me, which would be public for anyone who wanted to read it, you chose instead to repeatedly make separate public posts which effectively made it impossible for me to ask questions and provide answers in a coherent way. All while yanking my chain. Here's the bottom line: I think you grossly misread what I wrote. (Remember, this comes from a single sentence tweet!) If you had simply engaged with me, I could have clarified what I did and did not say or mean, and you could have responded however you wished, you and I could have better understood what each other thinks, and others could follow along if they wished. There may have been some value in that, for you, me, or others. But you didn't do that. Instead, you made a series of hectoring posts which I can't imagine had any value to anyone.
If you disagree with someone, great, OK. Say why. If that person has any intellectual integrity, they will engage your objection. The result may be a worthwhile conversation. Simple, right? Give it a try some time.
Is covid even a thing in Canada? I haven't had a covid incident in Ontario since two Christmases ago. I keep hearing people getting covid after stopping by O'Hare airport in Chicago. Any incidents in BC?
If you mean from a disease standpoint then it's a thing like the flu is a thing.
If you mean from a political standpoint, probably only to those still angry about everything that happened. I fall in the second camp but mostly only think about it when it's brought up online.
That graph is good for supporting Gardner's view, but it's too crude and lacking in important context to demonstrate much of anything. I see it as an example of how to employ limited statistics to present a preferred picture -- that's all.
I like this article but I think attempting to be prepared is arrogant. Asteroids, coronal mass ejections, ufo's, contagion.
You just have to accept some things happen and mitigation is embarrassing to say the least. It cannot be macro-managed but like the American chestnut blight and a shit load of other disasters - small independent adaptations would have worked but the gov got involved.
4 billion trees removed and now basically extinct.
Thinking you can be perfectly prepared for everything may be arrogant. I don't think I'd say attempting to be prepared is arrogant though.
Preparation is arrogant?
I get the concept that we're often dealing with phenomena beyond our abilities to control, but lack of preparation is just an acquiescence to impotence. We can't control everything, and sure, something is likely to get the best of us eventually, but preparation extends the boundaries of what we can achieve as we learn more.
I'll cite your specific examples of things for which humanity's preparation would be "arrogant":
- We're already working out ways to destroy or re-direct killer asteroids.
- Better understanding of the sun, which we know more about in the past 100 years than we did in the previous 40,000. Coronal mass ejections haven't wiped out millions of years of life on Earth yet; will they before we find a defense? Maybe, but we're well on our way.
- UFOs? Let's jump off that bridge if/when we get there. Are you seriously advocating for zero preparation because alien entities will inevitably destroy us anyway?
- We have made more inroads against contagions than they have made against us (Proof=billions of living humans). Without preparation, we'd still have all the diseases which are now controlled (or in many cases completely eradicated) by science.
Can we control everything? Of course not, and even if we could, new threats would arise. That's not a reason to be unprepared, chestnut blight or no.
ZL
Fair point and my reply was actually under-done and a little lazy. I would counter that we don't control disease any more than trees do, or sharks or grass or worms. We simply optimise health. Other lifeforms are not engaged in interventionist approaches in the way pharma is for example but yes ultimately your point holds weight but there is still the issue of over-controlling behaviours based on excessive fear of the future. I guess balance is what is called for. Interventionist medicine is far less effective for positive outcomes than healthy living.
Anyway I respect your position but you seem to be way more of a techno-optimist than me but we have our bias I guess.
Balance is indeed key, in this and every other aspect of life.
For anyone who wants to actually hear from an expert who knows what he’s talking about:
https://www.hoover.org/research/doctor-scott-atlas-and-efficacy-lockdowns-social-distancing-and-closings-1
Thanks Daniel!
Good post—facts matter and so does liberty.
The appeal to fear—argumentum ad metum.
Nice one. Hadn't heard of that one before. Thanks.
And I always appreciate a new Latin phrase.
The fallacy is "red herring" or "non sequitur". "Covid is dangerous" just doesn't imply any sort of government action unless other, obviously false, premises are included.
Of course, I believe that the claim that "had we done nothing, SARS-CoV-2 would have caused a material increase in deaths relative to, say, a bad flu season" is itself highly debatable.
Thank you for leading me down the logic rabbit hole. I propose one other possible fallacy, appeal to authority.
It’s pretty clear to me that if the UK government had reduced all government employees wages by 25% for the duration of the lockdowns, those lockdowns would have ended after twenty minutes or so.
I agree 100%.
This is exactly I wanted teachers laid off when schools coffee closed.
Perhaps the government started off wanting to protect Canadians, but the effort was soon transformed into a social experiment to see how much control could be gained through fear. The OPP actually. showed up to deal with me because they thought I wasn't where I ought to be. I was caring for my dying mother, but their monitoring of my location was thwarted by poor cell phone reception in the hills of Caledon. I'll never forget them coming to the door to harass me just minutes after I'd watched my mother pass away. I will also never forgive.
Many of us are still angry but few I think have as much right to be as you. I'm sorry that happened to you.
You really don't like listening to people who disagree, do you? You have read into that statement REAMS of claims that aren't there and you are tearing those apart, to your considerable satisfaction, apparently. Good for you. Everybody needs a hobby. Just please stop spamming me with this crap, OK?
I'm not sure how including your name in the piece so you have a chance to reply is spamming you. I thought I made it quite clear to anyone reading it that you said you hadn't meant it that way.
Philip, I tried to speak with you directly, in fact asked to do so, but rather than simply having a frank conversation with me, which would be public for anyone who wanted to read it, you chose instead to repeatedly make separate public posts which effectively made it impossible for me to ask questions and provide answers in a coherent way. All while yanking my chain. Here's the bottom line: I think you grossly misread what I wrote. (Remember, this comes from a single sentence tweet!) If you had simply engaged with me, I could have clarified what I did and did not say or mean, and you could have responded however you wished, you and I could have better understood what each other thinks, and others could follow along if they wished. There may have been some value in that, for you, me, or others. But you didn't do that. Instead, you made a series of hectoring posts which I can't imagine had any value to anyone.
If you disagree with someone, great, OK. Say why. If that person has any intellectual integrity, they will engage your objection. The result may be a worthwhile conversation. Simple, right? Give it a try some time.
Try water instead of Kool-Aid, Dan. Clears the mind, and enhances the senses.
Is covid even a thing in Canada? I haven't had a covid incident in Ontario since two Christmases ago. I keep hearing people getting covid after stopping by O'Hare airport in Chicago. Any incidents in BC?
If you mean from a disease standpoint then it's a thing like the flu is a thing.
If you mean from a political standpoint, probably only to those still angry about everything that happened. I fall in the second camp but mostly only think about it when it's brought up online.
From the disease standpoint. For politics Trudeau and Ford really fucked that up