Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Perspective, Context, and the Rational Response
It has been a while since I’ve posted anything… some (all of those “charter members”) might recall that I am often fairly long-winded. I recently added a series of comments to another post. Seems stupid to write 1,500 words in a comments section, so I’m just putting them all in this separate post. It’s not polished or written in essay form or anything like that. Just a very long comment all on its own.
I have recently engaged in some debate over how to correctly apply Thomas Sowell’s famous statement that “there are no solutions, only trade-offs” to our present situation with respect to COVID-19. I feel that it is being misapplied. Perhaps a more appropriate restatement in this context would be to say that “all solutions have a cost.”
I am not a doctor or a virologist, but I do spend every day working with a government system whose stated purpose is the mitigation of harm, and let me assure you, my views are not nearly so crass as “interventions are ok as long as they don’t impact my life!” Rather, taking a look at both the harm and the intervention, I am daily reminded that our best interventions are generally inadequate to eliminate the harm, yet they very often result in greater harms – like that old joke about punching you in the nose to help you forget the pain in your toe.
With respect to this virus, I tend to think of it in this way: I’ve represented three teenagers who ended up dying of cerebral palsy. All of them died as a result of some sort of infection or pneumonia. In talking with doctors about this, it really seems that that is what these sorts of diseases are all about. Everyone has to die of something, but rarely do people die of the thing they’re actually dying of. They die of pneumonia. Colds and flus, oddly, seem to serve that purpose. They are what gets you in the end. Or, rather, they are like the last straw.
It seems to me that COVID is essentially a new addition to that group of last straws. It will either burn out on its own, or it will become less virulent and stick around forever, acting like a seasonal bug. There is precious little we can do about that. It is not attacking indiscriminately, it is attacking elderly and infirm, just as other respiratory illnesses tend to do. It’s not that I consider human lives to be a “trade-off,” it is that I consider this disease to be, very likely, a newly-discovered part of our lives about which we can do very little. When we react as we have, the primary foolishness is in the idea that this is something we can actually control or eliminate. Also, we seem to be grossly overstating the impact that it actually has.
Yet, for some reason (and I think it is almost entirely media and social-media driven), we are reacting to this illness far more like the zombie apocalypse or invasion of the body snatchers than anything else. Our interventions are extreme, and our desperate need for interventions is unprecedented. Our willingness to give up basic freedoms and allow centralized control to self-interested politicians with no better access to data than anyone else, and our trust in self-proclaimed “experts” whose primary expertise is trial-and-error, and who tend to live in a very specialized bubble is, again, unprecedented. We have for some reason decided to compartmentalize, and magnify this single problem of human existence to far beyond every other problem we currently face, at the expense of our ability to deal with any of those other problems.
And consider the scale of what we’re actually dealing with. It is probably roughly on par with the flu – something that is hardly nothing, but (importantly) something that we have come to accept as a part of our lives. Saying that it is 2X “deadlier” than the flu is virtually meaningless, as it serves primarily the same function, seems to operate in roughly the same way, and again, “twice as deadly” must be taken in context. Twice as deadly as the flu (for a disease with no vaccine and few well-tested treatments) is still statistically on par with the flu. Not something to be totally ignored or disregarded, but also within the bounds of something we are going to need to consider to be a part of our lives for the foreseeable future.
But more importantly, what about the extremity of our actions? Here is where “everything has a cost” comes in. We could control the flu and even the common cold (which is also not 100% benign) in the same ways we are attempting to control COVID. We could cancel all sporting events, ban large gatherings, all deck out in PPE everywhere we go, wash our hands, sanitize, etc. It is up for debate whether this would do any good in the long run (our immune systems, for instance, are important), but we could do these things for illnesses we already have, and we don’t. Why don’t we? We recognize that the cold/flu operates as I discussed above. It is an inconvenience to most, and it is the last-straw that kills many. It is a problem that we keep in mind – but on the long list of problems (poverty, depression, cancers, domestic violence, heart attacks, obesity, international politics… domestic politics like immigration, abortion, etc…), it is not nothing, but neither is it so important that literally everything else is brushed aside.
So why are we doing this with COVID?
My response may seem selfish or callous or heartless… but that is only because this is right at the forefront of everyone’s minds, and it is being discussed in a vacuum. It is no more callous or heartless than our response to literally any other problem. Why are 70K lives lost to COVID an appropriate test of humanity while 60K lives lost to any other respiratory illness are simply a part of life? The only difference is that this is where our focus currently is, and when this newly-ADD-riddled global population gets its mind set like a laser beam on one problem, it loses all context and perspective. But context is everything.
So what would I do? What would I recommend with respect to COVID? That all depends. I would say that people need to think of COVID in exactly the same way they think of any other respiratory illness. If you are overweight, lose weight. If you are diabetic or have hypertension, get it under control (and probably lose weight). If you live in a big city, slap yourself in the face, get a life, and realize that stress is probably going to kill you… then, move out of the big city, start voting republican, and get a concealed-carry permit. If you are extremely old, realize that you have entered the phase of life where death is lurking around every corner. Enjoy every moment with your family and try to dust off the Bible that you received 70 years ago at your baptism. All of that sounds heartless, no? Not really. It is the approach we take with virtually everything, because we simply cannot live our entire lives in fear of death and illness. This latest illness is one that has just been added to the list of things that are trying to kill us. For the old and infirm, they should treat this exactly the way they do the flu – both can kill you. Half as deadly as “dead” isn’t much better…
But what should our national response be? I don’t think our response to COVID should be any different than anything else. It is a reminder to hospitals and governments that it would be a good idea to be better prepared for disaster and pandemics. Maybe we shouldn’t be so heavily in debt, such that we can actually afford to provide limited relief when something like this flares up. Maybe instead of spending billions on ridiculous pet projects, graft, and personal favors for individual politicians, we should incentivize research and innovation through grants and so forth (which will still be subject to graft and favors). When we see a massive problem in nursing homes (as COVID seems to indicate), maybe we should be attempting a more targeted response… there are books of regulations (and as a lawyer, I’ve read them!) for these facilities, and it may be that they need to be improved. Maybe, as individuals, we should focus less on our own careers and think about the extent to which we rely on these sorts of facilities to care for our elderly.
All that to say – what we really need to do is [expletive]-ing snap out of it. We are experiencing a major panic that is largely driven by media/social-media and fear of the unknown. This latest unknown has somehow led us into forgetting that our lives are absolutely chock full of unknowns, and whether this is twice or three or five times as deadly as the well-known and already accepted flu, that difference still exists on the margins, and COVID still falls into roughly the same category.
Somehow, we have decided that this latest hazard necessitates a complete shift in our way of thinking – it reminds me of the first Bolshevik revolution in 1917, which bubbled and stewed, and then just spread like a tsunami, resulting in decades of misery. COVID is the earthquake out in the middle of the ocean that started that wave, but the tsunami is now a thing all its own.
Consider what we’re doing. We’ve started with the absolute most extreme. Essentially, house arrest. Whether this is effective in stopping the spread of this particular disease is up for debate, of course, but I don’t think that is the most important consideration. If we were to look at anything in a vacuum, we could start to solve the problem the way we’re “solving” COVID. We could ban driving to cut back on automobile accidents, we could ban all guns to cut back on violence (whoops… I guess that’s a different post). So, people are pretty fed up with this solution, right? People suffering from other ills are fed up with this notion that we’ve taken this one problem and elevated it above literally all other problems. But we don’t get to open up that vacuum and let in the rest of life. This becomes a negotiation process, for some reason. What are you willing to compromise? What are you willing to give up? We still, apparently, need to stay laser-focused on this one problem… ok, so let’s start talking about privacy rights. You willing to give those up? We need extreme contact tracing, we need large-scale testing. Let’s start talking about individual rights. We need you all to put on this mask. Complain? Well, you don’t complain about having to wear pants, do you?! Nevermind that the two are in no way comparable. Do you want off this house arrest, or what?
All this over what? No – you can’t say that! If you say that, you are basically sacrificing lives. Too many wish to put it in those overly simplistic terms. My freedom at the expense of lives. Intervention is OK just as long as it doesn’t impact me directly, right?
No – the problem is that this is a fundamental shift in the way we solve problems…
The problem is not that I fail to recognize that this particular respiratory illness is to some degree more deadly than the other respiratory illnesses that we accept as a part of our lives… it is that we really do need to start focusing on limiting principles, because the fact is, this particular respiratory illness is not different enough from those other accepted illnesses to necessitate so drastic and fundamental a change in our underlying views of what are and are not appropriate responses to this category of harm.
So what’s my solution? Let grandma die? Shrug our shoulders just as long as we’re not personally impacted? No, you don’t get to accuse me of that, because the exact same accusation could be levied against anyone who isn’t fully on board with pushing every other harm aside in favor of your preferred harm. My solution is that we should handle this exactly the same way we handle literally everything else that we face on a daily basis. Smart people who are motivated to do so should continue attempting to work on the problem. Profit-driven drug companies should still hope to capitalize on people’s fears by providing effective treatments, innovating, and solving problems regardless of their motives for doing so. Doctors should continue to abide by the Hippocratic oath and do their best to save lives, continually updating treatment methods and discovering new ways to address not just this problem, but every other problem that their individual specialties point them toward. People in at-risk categories should continue to protect themselves from all the final-straws, perhaps keenly aware that some are more dangerous than others. People with at-risk loved ones should help out as much as they can. And all of us should focus our time and energy on trying to solve our individual problems, whatever they may be.
As a lawyer, I spend my time working with teenagers who are abused or neglected. That’s a problem. It has lasting effects on their lives. Some will die because of lifestyle choices resulting from trauma or despair. Some will grow up and abuse their own spouses or children. If we all put down everything we’re doing and worked together, maybe we could help these kids. Maybe, though, we’d do more harm than good. Undoubtedly, we’d be putting down whatever else we otherwise would be doing. If a doctor stopped seeing patients in order to help me solve my problem, he wouldn’t be solving his own problems, and people would suffer as a consequence of that.
Interestingly, the free market still works, even with pandemics. There are still a million and one problems that need to be solved, the result of which lives are very much at stake. This notion that we should stop everything we’re doing to solve this one particular problem is taking us back to that Bolshevik revolution mindset that has been stewing for the past decade. My own governor, Jay Inslee, released his four-phase plan for release. We see posters up everywhere, ads on TV… everyone needs to work together.
He may just as well call it a five-year plan, and we can start producing the Yugo all over again, all in it together, all solving just one problem.
Published in General
Actually, he said “heart failure.”
I am a little OCD about this stuff. I didn’t intend to write anything organized, polished, or even good… But when I read back through it I see all sorts of little changes that need to be made. As obviously dumb mistakes detract from the point you’re trying to make. And you, Marci, know about my dumb mistakes better than anyone! :)
This guy puts it succinctly: https://spectator.us/lockdown-doesnt-work/
Nice to see you back Hammer. I hope you start up your podcast again. It was after the, “best podcast on ricochet.”
Great post. It inspires a few random thoughts.
What kind of wimpy state requires a permit? We can concealed-carry in Arizona, and don’t need no stinkin’ permits.
The media fuel the panic, and so does social media, but I don’t think that they are the real problem. The real problem is the people, I’m afraid. People who are uneducated, indoctrinated into Wokeist ignorance, and apparently unable to understand or follow reasoned argument and evidence. People who are contemptuous of faith, who despise our history and traditions, and who are devoid of a sense of meaning or purpose. They seek such meaning in all sorts of strange places.
Part of the rejection of reasoned argument and evidence is distrust of authorities and institutions. That distrust is warranted, as most of the institutions are badly corrupt. It is certainly a mess.
It would be nice to have a leader who would say what you said in the OP, Hammer. Basically: We’re going through a moderately bad plague. It’s a trivial danger to most people. Be careful if you’re old or sick, and especially if you’re old and sick. Otherwise, buck up and get on with life. We don’t want to have both a modest plague and a Great Depression.
Even President Trump isn’t saying this. I think he’s a canny politician, and knows how speaking the truth would be portrayed in the media, and knows how many people would react.
LOL.
Yep. Happened to me last week. A post which I wasn’t even aware had been “promoted” (at the time it had 16 or 18 likes, or something), but it wasn’t yet appearing on the main feed. So I fixed a simple typo, almost at the end. I had the word “form.” It should have been “from.” I clicked update.
I sat for the 5-7 seconds it takes my abysmal internet connection to upload a change, and as I did, I saw the dread words (paraphrase) “Your post was promoted to the main feed. If you screw with it, it will be sent back to the member feed.” At the time this happened, though, I’d just checked the main feed, and my post wasn’t there. And I received no notification that it had been promoted.
Clearly, the editors do not trust the members to have the same concern for “the face of Ricochet” that they do. And that’s sad. My action was taken solely to fix a typo BEFORE promotion, since I wasn’t aware, when I fixed it that promotion had, apparently, already taken place.
Max did respond to my PM, and I appreciate that. I haven’t heard from either of the editors, to whom I also sent it. I consider what was done most unfair and unreasonable. But, sadly, not atypical.
PS: I believe (please correct me if I am mistaken) from my years as a moderator, that TPTB already received an alert when a post on the main feed was updated. This makes the current situation particularly specious since I expect that main feed posts are rarely edited by members other than, as @marcin says, we’re simply trying to correct obvious mistakes that even the editors may have missed, but that even when we do, they were already alerted to the situation.
@samuelblock.
PS: My post is here: http://ricochet.com/756296/quote-of-the-day-waltz/. Currently at 22 likes. Yet I am punished for an honest mistake that I did not foresee, and apparently there is no appeal, and almost no response, when I ask for fairness. Sad.
PPS: EDIT/UPDATE Since my shoutout to “Member Support Associate” Samuel Block” isn’t highlighted as a link, I have no idea whether it worked or not, since, as we know, sometimes it doesn’t. Therefore, I’m PMing him a copy of this message, in case he doesn’t receive a notification that I tried to reach out to him.
Well, yeah, as long as it is a tactful and well-mannered person such as you. But what if it’s me?
LOL. Stop clanking, you.
You’d have to write a post first.
Details, details. . . .
Brevity is the soul of wit. Discretion is the better part of valor. One can’t get more brief or more discrete than keeping oneself to oneself.
Nothing is always a wise thing to say and a good thing to do?
I’m going for taciturn, here. Laconic, even.
You’ve been watching too much Firefly.
I only saw a couple of episodes. Seems like my kind of show, though.
Once, in flight school, Wash was laconic.
So perhaps the good author Heinlein stole the remark from you!