The Coronavirus

[David Horn]

(05-09-2021, 12:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-08-2021, 09:18 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-08-2021, 08:18 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-07-2021, 04:45 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I would excuse states and localities that got hit hard early (Michigan and New Jersey), especially where COVID-19 cases were associated with the demographic of "frequent flyers", a group of comparatively old professionals with high mobility. Later surges were generally more preventable, and they often reflected workshops with sweatshop conditions, religious nutcases who believed that a disease like COVID-19 is the Will of God, and MAGA rallies.  

Cupertino, California of course has plenty of "frequent flyers". In Michigan some of the most vulnerable to COVID-19 were involved in Wayne County and Detroit law enforcement. Been there? That's one very troubled area, and when the police get sick because of the 2020 plague, you can imagine what that does to the sorts of people who call for police aid or get arrested.

Epidemiology is a well-established science, and it was as able to track COVID-19 as... HIV/AIDS. In the cases of both diseases, certain behaviors put one much more at risk. Some of those behaviors could be modified for safety. As an example, physicians got far more careful about needles after some contracted HIV/AIDS. People with addictive behaviors, as with sex and IV drugs, were far more reckless and less reachable -- let alone less likely to change their ways. For many on the Right, Donald Trump is practically an addiction in its effects upon behavior and character.

Unfortunately, even scientists have prejudices, and the prevailing wisdom of the WHO lead to months of excessive handwashing and surface cleansing.  Neither is bad, but neither was effective either.  Then there's masking which was thought to be less important, but is, in fact, the most important preventative. There's a great NY Times commentary by one of my favorite social analysts: Zeynep Tüfekçi (unfortunately long and behind their pay wall), where she dissects the entire epidemiology establishment for being locked into old ideas that were clearly wrong.  They got the transmission method wrong (large air droplets rather than aerosol), and never reexamined the evidence until it became so overwhelming that they had no choice.  We did somewhat better here, but that's faint praise.

Everyone has some prejudices. The question is of the harm and offense. Everybody sees everything through some cultural haze. Pure rationality is as much a myth as fire-breathing, maiden-devouring dragons. I question whether pure rationality is possible without one being in deep, constant despair. We all work within some body of preconceptions, and even the most sophisticated in their learning can become so accustomed by their experiences that when truth violates those preconceptions  that they make predictable errors. 

Many old ideas remain valuable, and none but fools would dispose of Euclid's geometry and number theory for obsolescence. Likewise, many of the old standards of morality prove upon some callow challenge why they exist. But even then we can often change our minds when we find a contradiction. Antipathy toward homosexuality is an attitude from antiquity,  and I long had that antipathy. What changed? That I suddenly decided that I might enjoy it? Not in the least. It reduces to a conflict between homophobia and the necessity of law and order for human rights and a civil society.  As with religious and ethnic minorities so it is with homosexuals; they do not deserve to be beaten, robbed, and killed. I'm choosing between two differing standards of morality, and one of them is more desirable. There is nothing post-modern in my change of moral standards on LGBT rights; I recognize a conflict between two traditions. One of those two must yield because they cannot both be right when they conflict.

Reality ultimately decides what intellectual constructs are valid and which ones are valid and which ones are void.

Well written, Mr. Brower.

You both missed the point: evidence abounded that their assumptions were wrong, and yet they persisted.  This is the exact opposite of the scientific method, and a shameful example that cognitive dissonance affects even the best and brightest.  Yes, there is always value in old ideas that have stood the test of time, but that is not the standard that applies to a new and emerging threat.  The correct response: make some assumptions based on evidence at hand and collect data.  If the assumptions prove wrong, abandon them and repeat step one.  Hopefully, the researchers won't have to go through many bad ideas, but the process does lead to a real solution at the end.

BTW, some of that bad thinking is still standing in the way.  A few trite but glaring examples are the CDCD's handling of vaccine passports (they should be encouraged and never illegal), mandatory vaccination of healthcare personnel (so far, only through individual employers) and widespread use of the passports to allow the vaccinated a return to normalcy (encouraging the reluctant to get them as well). Instead, Nero rosins his bow.