Trying to think about my own thinking here, this is what I came up with:
Most of the points I’ve listed are commonly believed and mentioned. However, in every case I can recall, it was not pointed out that they support infection (for some people, in some situations) being less bad / more good than it otherwise would be. I realize that what I wrote seems one-sided. In my defense, almost every other article I’ve read seems one-sided the other way.
This creates the impression for me that other people are treating their arguments as soldiers. They’ve already made up their minds that stamping out the virus as aggressively as possible is the right thing to do, so anything that would go against that needs to be suppressed. I don’t think that’s epistemically valid, and I think it’s dangerous.
If I believe this, and if I assume that the people in question are rational other than this one blind spot, that would imply that the most expensive, least effective measures that they’re taking are not worthwhile. I don’t think the specific percentage of people who will eventually get infected is a crux of my argument. An individual’s decision should IMO relate mainly to the chance that that individual will eventually get infected, for any reason including through choice.
Since I don’t wish to treat my arguments as soldiers: the presence of a meaningful level of immunity very much IS a crux of my argument. If that isn’t true, it erases pretty much all of my other points and means we need to stamp this thing out even if the cost of doing so is unbelievably high.
Trying to think about my own thinking here, this is what I came up with:
Most of the points I’ve listed are commonly believed and mentioned. However, in every case I can recall, it was not pointed out that they support infection (for some people, in some situations) being less bad / more good than it otherwise would be. I realize that what I wrote seems one-sided. In my defense, almost every other article I’ve read seems one-sided the other way.
This creates the impression for me that other people are treating their arguments as soldiers. They’ve already made up their minds that stamping out the virus as aggressively as possible is the right thing to do, so anything that would go against that needs to be suppressed. I don’t think that’s epistemically valid, and I think it’s dangerous.
If I believe this, and if I assume that the people in question are rational other than this one blind spot, that would imply that the most expensive, least effective measures that they’re taking are not worthwhile. I don’t think the specific percentage of people who will eventually get infected is a crux of my argument. An individual’s decision should IMO relate mainly to the chance that that individual will eventually get infected, for any reason including through choice.
Since I don’t wish to treat my arguments as soldiers: the presence of a meaningful level of immunity very much IS a crux of my argument. If that isn’t true, it erases pretty much all of my other points and means we need to stamp this thing out even if the cost of doing so is unbelievably high.