We have provisional statistics on longer term issues. Either those numbers are too high for you or they aren’t.
That seems to be the black-or-white fallacy. Given a certain level of risk there are some interventions that are cost effective and others that aren’t.
I’m still not exactly sure why you seem to be against wearing reusable respirators when we can’t run into our bunkers. It’s almost-no-risk, high-reward, especially for a many of us that think there’s a decent chance that we could live forever and that much worse pandemics could arrive in the not-too-distant future.
“Are you being gassed to death? Well, don’t use a gas mask because it might provide a false sense of security.”
If you can wander the streets freely in some token PPE you bought from a hardware store then it is not a crisis.
“Reusable respirators won’t work because I said so.”
In another comment:
the only reason I’ve worn masks is for legal mandate, manners, and to hide my face. If I seriously believed I was at risk I wouldn’t be wearing a mask, I’d be at home behind a locked door.
“Seat beats? Forget it. Avoid driving and stay home forever. I just wear seat belts because it’s the law.”
I wanted to know if you had any reasonable objection to wearing reusable respirators during pandemics (i.e., a strong rationale for why they’re inadequate) but comments like these indicate that you don’t.
Between running and staying there’s walking a bit. In the pandemic context that means reducing your exposure but not moving it to zero. There’s no reason to treat either of the extreme of no contact at all or normal contact as the only two choices.
Car accidents are a serious problem. It’s possible to reduce that risk to zero by not driving any cars but that’s very costly. Wearing a seatbelt on the otherhand isn’t costly and therefore worth the effort to reduce risk. There’s no reason to see either extreme of driving cars with maximum risk and not driving at all as the only possible choices.
If the act and the risk are not divisible then if the act is taken risk will always be non-zero.
It turns out that you can’t live with non-zero risk. Both completely isolating yourself (the sepsis death of a rationalist but also other risks) and leaving your flat comes with risks.
If the true risk of disability or death were unacceptably high then I am of the opinion that one shouldn’t take that risk without seriously consideration and potential payoffs.
Without engaging in serious consideration you don’t know the true risk anyway. I don’t think anyone here advocates taking actions regarding isolating or not without serious consideration and potential payoffs.
-
That seems to be the black-or-white fallacy. Given a certain level of risk there are some interventions that are cost effective and others that aren’t.
-
I’m still not exactly sure why you seem to be against wearing reusable respirators when we can’t run into our bunkers. It’s almost-no-risk, high-reward, especially for a many of us that think there’s a decent chance that we could live forever and that much worse pandemics could arrive in the not-too-distant future.
-
“Are you being gassed to death? Well, don’t use a gas mask because it might provide a false sense of security.”
“Reusable respirators won’t work because I said so.”
In another comment:
“Seat beats? Forget it. Avoid driving and stay home forever. I just wear seat belts because it’s the law.”
I wanted to know if you had any reasonable objection to wearing reusable respirators during pandemics (i.e., a strong rationale for why they’re inadequate) but comments like these indicate that you don’t.
-
Yes, and the reasoning you used is clearly the black and white fallacy. You are free to make reasoning errors and I’m free to point them out.
Reducing choices to two is again a textbook example of the black and white fallacy.
Whether or not you are afraid of dying, living with CFS or something similar because you got long covid isn’t fun.
-
Between running and staying there’s walking a bit. In the pandemic context that means reducing your exposure but not moving it to zero. There’s no reason to treat either of the extreme of no contact at all or normal contact as the only two choices.
-
Car accidents are a serious problem. It’s possible to reduce that risk to zero by not driving any cars but that’s very costly. Wearing a seatbelt on the otherhand isn’t costly and therefore worth the effort to reduce risk. There’s no reason to see either extreme of driving cars with maximum risk and not driving at all as the only possible choices.
-
It turns out that you can’t live with non-zero risk. Both completely isolating yourself (the sepsis death of a rationalist but also other risks) and leaving your flat comes with risks.
Without engaging in serious consideration you don’t know the true risk anyway. I don’t think anyone here advocates taking actions regarding isolating or not without serious consideration and potential payoffs.
-