Authoritarianism and Disease - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Authoritarianism and Disease
in Global

By WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts edited May 12
Psychological research has long linked the prevalence of pathogens in a geographical area (1,2) with the prevalence of authoritarian regimes. This is no surprise to psychologists, for authoritarianism is linked to disgust sensitivity, which in turn is a natural disease avoidance reaction. It's why Hitler referred to Jews as rats and cockroaches, and why he used pesticide (Zyklon B ) to exterminate them. Hitler was driven by disgust sensitivity; the psychological mechanism for disease avoidance.

This fact explains quite nicely why people are suddenly so willing to give up their essential freedoms for the promise of safety since the advent of Covid-19. To become more authoritarian is the natural psychological reaction to the perceived threat of disease.

Please be wary of your natural inclination to give more powers to governments and corporations due to the increased risk of disease, we do not need another repeat of the horrors of the 20th century.

To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Sources:
(1) https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/84qcm/providers/osfstorage/5e91c116f13535030dd53aee?direct=&mode=render
(2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641067/
AlofRI



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • AlofRIAlofRI 631 Pts
    The great advantage of authoritarianism is that you don't have to think, you just have to follow orders .... thinking is dangerous.

    Admiring one who admires authoritarians is an example of NOT thinking (logically, that is). To admire one is to want to become one!  THINK. "Do I WANT one??"
    WinstonC
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1348 Pts
    Reductio ad Hitlerum comes to mind here. I don't think people giving up their essential freedoms for the short term to save lives is anything like Hitler referring to the Jews as a disease that needs to be exterminated.

    Also, by the same token of this argument, I also urge people to be aware of their cognitive biases, especially confirmation bias here. This is the tendency to see patterns emerging where none exists. So when we think we are seeing something like authoritarianism let's take a moment and ask oneself is that really what's going on here?

    Plaffelvohfen









  • DeeDee 1903 Pts
    Well in fairness to governments you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t , governments went on best advice  from those in the medical field,  what do you think they should have done instead ignored such advice? 




    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfenpiloteer
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    edited May 13
    @ZeusAres42 "Reductio ad Hitlerum comes to mind here."

    I can scientifically demonstrate the link between disgust sensitivity, disease avoidance and authoritarianism further if you really think that necessary... Hitler is just a very good example of someone driven by this brain mechanism which is currently becoming more dominant in people's heads. The studies linked show that as pathogens become more prevalent in a nation, the likelihood that the regime will become authoritarian increases.

    "I don't think people giving up their essential freedoms for the short term to save lives is anything like Hitler referring to the Jews as a disease that needs to be exterminated."

    It's driven by the same brain mechanism, it's just milder. As for it being short term, think about how "short term" the anti-terror legislation of Bush has been. Moreover, I believe that I have sufficiently demonstrated elsewhere to you that it appears that more lives will be lost than saved due to these lock-down measures.

    "So when we think we are seeing something like authoritarianism let's take a moment and ask oneself is that really what's going on here?"

    It's certainly not libertarian to take people's basic freedoms and track everyone with contact tracing. You may think of authoritarianism as only when a regime becomes completely fascist, but authoritarianism/libertarianism is a sliding scale. Further, as a regime slides authoritarian, it becomes easier to move further in the direction of authoritarianism, because the regime has more power over it's citizens.
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    @Dee "Well in fairness to governments you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t , governments went on best advice  from those in the medical field,  what do you think they should have done instead ignored such advice?"

    Perhaps they should also have considered advice from those in other fields. We currently have over 130 Million starving people in the world and the UN World Food Programme chief says that 130 Million more could join their number due to the lock-downs (1). I quote "our analysis shows that 300,000 people could starve to death every single day over a three-month period".

    Sources:
    (1) https://insight.wfp.org/wfp-chief-warns-of-hunger-pandemic-as-global-food-crises-report-launched-3ee3edb38e47?gi=e7b4abf9d2c3
  • DeeDee 1903 Pts
    @WinstonC

    **** Perhaps they should also have considered advice from those in other fields. 

    Why? The duty of the government in my country anyway is to its citizens is first and foremost , would you agree?

    ***We currently have over 130 Million starving people in the world and the UN World Food Programme chief says that 130 Million more could join their number due to the lock-downs 

    Yes we currently have and always will have the , food  aid hurts rather than helps the starving millions in Africa , fat cats prop up all these charities the majority of aid is taken by corupt governments and the problems continue unabated 

    ****I quote "our analysis shows that 300,000 people could starve to death every single day over a three-month period".

    Yes possibly ,how is this insoluble problem suddenly solved seeing as we have not achieved any form of success so far?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    @Dee "Why? The duty of the government in my country anyway is to its citizens is first and foremost , would you agree?"

    I agree. In regards to the country's own citizens, it appears that a multitude will die due to the massive increase in unemployment due to the lock-downs (1). The same goes for the lack of cancer diagnosis and treatment (2), which is thought will cause more excess cancer deaths over the next 5 years than covid-19.

    "Yes possibly ,how is this insoluble problem suddenly solved seeing as we have not achieved any form of success so far?"

    Lift the lock-downs. The solutions cause more problems than they fix. We massively overestimated the mortality rate of the virus, according to all the recent studies (3,4,5,6,7,8). The reason for this is because the majority of those infected have mild symptoms, or are asymptomatic. As a result, only the more severe cases were included in earlier mortality rate estimations.

    Sources:
    (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21330027
    (2) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52382303
    (3) https://www.biospace.com/article/multiple-studies-suggest-covid-19-mortality-rate-may-be-lower-than-expected-/
    (4) https://www.livescience.com/death-rate-lower-than-estimates.html
    (5) https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/los-angeles-study-suggests-virus-much-more-widespread-1.4904990
    (6) https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200418/new-model-shows-covid-more-widespread-less-severe
    (7) https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1278393/Germany-news-economy-threat-Peter-Altmaier-coronavirus-return-COVID-19-latest
    (8) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/09/many-people-may-already-have-immunity-coronavirus-german-study/
  • DeeDee 1903 Pts
    edited May 13
    @WinstonC


    **** . In regards to the country's own citizens, it appears that a multitude will die due to the massive increase in unemployment due to the lock-downs (1). The same goes for the lack of cancer diagnosis and treatment (2), which is thought will cause more excess cancer deaths over the next 5 years than covid-19.

    You may be right , time will tell but I think most governments acted on what they assumed was best advice , in fairness they cannot win either 

    ***Lift the lock-downs. The solutions cause more problems than they fix. We massively overestimated the mortality rate of the virus, according to all the recent studies (3,4,5,6,7,8). The reason for this is because the majority of those infected have mild symptoms, or are asymptomatic. As a result, only the more severe cases were included in earlier mortality rate estimations.

    I cannot see any leader taking that decision as best advice is still saying it would be a disaster , how is one to know for sure? 

    Thanks for the links 
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1348 Pts
    WinstonC said:
    @ZeusAres42 "Reductio ad Hitlerum comes to mind here."

    I can scientifically demonstrate the link between disgust sensitivity, disease avoidance and authoritarianism further if you really think that necessary... Hitler is just a very good example of someone driven by this brain mechanism which is currently becoming more dominant in people's heads. The studies linked show that as pathogens become more prevalent in a nation, the likelihood that the regime will become authoritarian increases.
    I am sure there are plenty of studies that contradict what you might believe, then search just to confirm what you believe. If you want to go about this scientifically then it is helpful to also search for information that counters what one already believes. So, you gather information/Data from two opposing sides, and then you can analyze what piece is greater in terms of evidential support.

    I also stand by my statement that this case regards covid19 is nothing like Hitler referring to the Jews as a disease that needs to be exterminated. Furthermore, during this global pandemic which began in late December, I haven't seen many countries become authoritarian at all with the exception of China who was already authoritarian to begin to with.

    The Chinese government initially silenced the medical professionals that tried to raise the issue. Then when China did do a lockdown their government was also very harsh, beating citizens who were not staying in their house; that's what I call authoritarianism. I have not seen anything like this occurring in the US, UK, EU, and most other countries around the world; the lockdown measures in these countries have been very modest in my opinion.

    "I don't think people giving up their essential freedoms for the short term to save lives is anything like Hitler referring to the Jews as a disease that needs to be exterminated."

    It's driven by the same brain mechanism, it's just milder. As for it being short term, think about how "short term" the anti-terror legislation of Bush has been. Moreover, I believe that I have sufficiently demonstrated elsewhere to you that it appears that more lives will be lost than saved due to these lock-down measures.

    I have to disagree. Also, global pandemics and terrorism are two different things; the anti-terror legislation is a discussion for another day. Furthermore, there is an abundance of sufficient data to suggest that more deaths would be lost without lockdown measures. This stands to reason since this is a disease that grows at an exponential rate. Already, since later December 2019 there have been:

    Coronavirus Cases:

    4,422,147

    Deaths:

    297,552
    And don't forget that this is with if not all, definitely most countries around the world already implementing lockdown measures. The world is already struggling even with lockdown measures. So, what do you think would happen without these lockdown measures. These are also known cases; the amount is probably far greater. Also, according to leading mathematical models without good lockdown measures, the death toll would be in the millions in just a matter of months.

    We need to balance everything out with the economy, controlling the virus, and also other matters such as starving people. And from where I am standing most countries are trying to do this anyway. As for the United States I'd say their lockdown measures are one of the most modest compared with many other countries across the globe.



    piloteerPlaffelvohfen









  • I've been holding off on this discussion for a while because I wanted to wait until I had the opportunity to read the links in full, and now that I have I have to be a bit of a data snob so that we can understand the efficacy of this information and its limitations.

    First off, it is important to note that the first link is a pre-print which has not yet been peer-reviewed and it is very recent, clearly in direct response to the Covid-19 outbreak. It details the correlation between pathogen prevalence and historical authoritarian tendencies, which the paper suggests is related to conservative attitudes. The paper concludes that this data is most reliable in terms of nonzonotic (human-to-human) infections (13x more likely)

    This supports the Parasite-stress theory of authoritarianism, which the second link details 2 studies which also both support this theory.

    Since it looks like no one has talked about this so far, the parasite-stress theory proposes that the prevalence of pathogens (viruses, bacteria, helminths) influences the evolution of a specie's social dynamics in various ways. In the context of societal development, the theory states that authoritarian governments are more likely to emerge where parasites are common. The hypothesis for why this occurs is that social conformity and strict adherence to rules benefits those who obey, favoring authoritarian politics.

    That context out of the way, we can finally start talking about where this works and where it breaks down. These theories do not have anything to do with the Nazi ideology which lead Hitler to his final solution. This is not to say that there is no connection here, but simply put this theory is misapplied in psychoanalyzing Hitler. It is likely that Hitler already had authoritarian tenancies and the independently labeled Jews as diseases thanks to his anti-Semitic ideas.

    In addition, it is a predictor of historical trends in a region, so again this theory is misapplied when used in the context of Covid-19 pandemic. It would be similar to compare this theory to the link between authoritarianism and the need for irrigation, which simply states that the need to irrigate land favors authoritarianism in contrast to rain fed land, in that just knowing if an area is irrigated doesn't tell you much about it's governance, because it is just a sole factor. There are many factors which influence an area's political preferences.

    The global pandemic has lead to a preference for authoritarian policies, such as widespread respect for professional order's to stay home and bans on non-essential work. What can also be noted, is that regions that already have authoritarian tenancies, such as China, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea (North Korea maybe?) have all been very effective at combating the disease and getting the situation under control as quickly as possible. What the theory predicts is that the tendency of authoritarian governments to succeed where libertarian governance fails is what leads to their success across many generations. Read in this way, it could therefore be argued that authoritarianism is required to limit the spread of disease. (I'm not arguing this point, just point it out)

    So what is the key takeaway here?

    While I am completely against authoritarianism as a permanent fixture in our society, a minarchist society has a serious vulnerability to pathogens. However, if we have learned anything since 911 it is that getting rid of authoritarian policies is nigh impossible. That is not to say there is no middle ground however. What we must do moving forward is to set our society up with the proper checks and balances to be able to ramp up authoritarian policies temporarily and in response to catastrophe in such a way that this power will expire, thus limiting it. A preemptive plan for the rapid deployment of preventative measures could allow us and our society to get the best of both worlds- limiting freedoms only to the point necessary to protect the public's health.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    edited May 14
    @ZeusAres42 "I am sure there are plenty of studies that contradict what you might believe, then search just to confirm what you believe. If you want to go about this scientifically then it is helpful to also search for information that counters what one already believes. So, you gather information/Data from two opposing sides, and then you can analyze what piece is greater in terms of evidential support."

    My friend, this link is a very well documented fact in the psychological literature. Am I open to evidence to the contrary? Of course. I don't particularly want to write a long essay detailing the extensive evidence for this link and how it fits perfectly with the surrounding literature on personality, political belief and so on. However, if you really feel it necessary to substantiate my claim (which is mainstream psychology) then I can do so. Edit: I've actually done a decent amount of this in my reply to Happy_Killbot.

    "I also stand by my statement that this case regards covid19 is nothing like Hitler referring to the Jews as a disease that needs to be exterminated."

    So authoritarian attitudes and policies, and the drives underlying them have nothing to do with authoritarian regimes?

    "Furthermore, during this global pandemic which began in late December, I haven't seen many countries become authoritarian at all with the exception of China who was already authoritarian to begin to with."

    I'm not sure that you understand. The political compass has four dimensions. There is left and right and there is authoritarian and libertarian. Things can be more right or left wing and things can be more authoritarian or more libertarian. Western regimes have become more authoritarian because they have taken liberties from their citizens.

    "I have to disagree. Also, global pandemics and terrorism are two different things; the anti-terror legislation is a discussion for another day."

    When, in your knowledge, has a government ever willingly given up powers that it has given itself? I guarantee you that contact tracing is here to stay and that if another pandemic occurs people will ocne again be locked down.

    "Furthermore, there is an abundance of sufficient data to suggest that more deaths would be lost without lockdown measures. This stands to reason since this is a disease that grows at an exponential rate."

    As I have previously showed, the mortality rate of this virus is far lower than previously believed (3,4,5,6,7,8). The reason for the initial rate appearing far higher is sampling bias. Most cases are relatively mild or symptom-less.

       "Coronavirus Cases:
        4,422,147
        view by country
        Deaths:
        297,552
        Recovered:
        1,654,819"

    The studies I linked suggest far higher rates of infection.

    "These are also known cases; the amount is probably far greater."

    Exactly, which means the mortality rate is lower. I've mentioned this before to you but if someone dies while they are infected with Covid-19, that is added to the numbers regardless of the cause of death.

    "Also, according to leading mathematical models without good lockdown measures, the death toll would be in the millions in just a matter of months."

    Those models were wrong. As shown above, mortality rates are lower than initially believed, due to the sampling bias of early studies. Also, the lock-downs are expected to kill millions, as previously discussed.

    "We need to balance everything out with the economy, controlling the virus, and also other matters such as starving people. And from where I am standing most countries are trying to do this anyway. As for the United States I'd say their lockdown measures are one of the most modest compared with many other countries across the globe."

    In some states they are, in others they are not. I believe I have put forth a good case for why the threat of the virus has been over-exaggerated and why the lock-downs will be disastrous for both the economy and for life. This is not to say that people should not take precautions, it is to say that in this case the solution of lock-downs causes more problems than it fixes.

    Sources:
    (3) https://www.biospace.com/article/multiple-studies-suggest-covid-19-mortality-rate-may-be-lower-than-expected-/
    (4) https://www.livescience.com/death-rate-lower-than-estimates.html
    (5) https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/los-angeles-study-suggests-virus-much-more-widespread-1.4904990
    (6) https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200418/new-model-shows-covid-more-widespread-less-severe
    (7) https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1278393/Germany-news-economy-threat-Peter-Altmaier-coronavirus-return-COVID-19-latest
    (8) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/09/many-people-may-already-have-immunity-coronavirus-german-study/
    ZeusAres42
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot "First off, it is important to note that the first link is a pre-print which has not yet been peer-reviewed and it is very recent, clearly in direct response to the Covid-19 outbreak."

    It's an old hypothesis (1). I sadly cannot link most of my archived studies on this issue as they are on my hard drive, not publicly available and copyrighted. You'll find a lot of studies cited in the introductions of the papers, for they go over the background of research on the issue.

    A relevant example might be found in the first paper I originally cited in the OP;
    "Firstly, at the level of individual psychology, when the perception of infection risk is elevated, individuals tend to adopt more conformist and conservative attitudes (Helzer & Pizarro, 2011; Inbar, Pizarro, Bloom, 2009; Jones & Fitness, 2008; Murray & Schaller, 2012; Wu & Chang, 2012)."

    Or perhaps, from the same introduction;
    "Higher levels of parasite stress are related to greater regional political authoritarianism and social conservatism (Murray, Schaller, & Suedfeld, 2013; Terrizzi, Shook, McDaniel, 2013; Thornhill, Fincher, & Aran, 2009; but see: Horita & Takezawa, 2018), prioritization of obedience and intolerance of nonconformity (Murray, Trudeau, & Schaller, 2011; Tybur et al., 2016), heightened collectivism and endorsement of binding moral concerns (Fincher, Thornhill, Murray, Schaller, 2008; Van Leeuwen, Park, Koenig, & Graham, 2012), moral vitalism (Bastian et al., 2019), and increased frequency of intrastate armed conflict (Letendre, Fincher, & Thornhill, 2010). Higher ecological prevalence of infectious diseases therefore appears to promote societal norms that are more conservative and authoritarian."

    "That context out of the way, we can finally start talking about where this works and where it breaks down. These theories do not have anything to do with the Nazi ideology which lead Hitler to his final solution. This is not to say that there is no connection here, but simply put this theory is misapplied in psychoanalyzing Hitler. It is likely that Hitler already had authoritarian tenancies and the independently labeled Jews as diseases thanks to his anti-Semitic ideas."

    You may find this likely, however the link between authoritarianism and disgust sensitivity is clear (2). We can further break down disgust sensitivity as a construct but for our current discussion it seems unnecessary. A lack of openness (one of the "Big Five" personality traits) is associated with disgust sensitivity (3) which in turn is associated with authoritarianism (4,5). Hitler certainly acted as if he was driven by disgust sensitivity, and at the very least he capitalized on the disgust sensitivity of others.

    "The global pandemic has lead to a preference for authoritarian policies, such as widespread respect for professional order's to stay home and bans on non-essential work. What can also be noted, is that regions that already have authoritarian tenancies, such as China, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea (North Korea maybe?) have all been very effective at combating the disease and getting the situation under control as quickly as possible."

    So we agree.

    "What the theory predicts is that the tendency of authoritarian governments to succeed where libertarian governance fails is what leads to their success across many generations. Read in this way, it could therefore be argued that authoritarianism is required to limit the spread of disease. (I'm not arguing this point, just point it out)"

    We shall see, for the upcoming financial crash is going to cause untold damage, most especially to those places that were placed in lock-down.

    "While I am completely against authoritarianism as a permanent fixture in our society, a minarchist society has a serious vulnerability to pathogens."

    I don't think there has ever been a time when a nation has forbade all it's citizens from even leaving their homes without permission. I'd also suggest that the mortality rate of this virus is too low for such a response to be proportional, as detailed with many studies in my other posts.

    "However, if we have learned anything since 911 it is that getting rid of authoritarian policies is nigh impossible."

    100% agreed. In the case of the contact tracing, for example, I see not why the governments of the world will ever cease this practice.

    "What we must do moving forward is to set our society up with the proper checks and balances to be able to ramp up authoritarian policies temporarily and in response to catastrophe in such a way that this power will expire, thus limiting it."

    I agree to some extent, but the problem is that it sets a precedent for these authoritarian policies to return, for example, when there is a new infectious disease.

    "A preemptive plan for the rapid deployment of preventative measures could allow us and our society to get the best of both worlds- limiting freedoms only to the point necessary to protect the public's health."

    What would this entail?

    Sources:
    (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23658718?dopt=Abstract
    (2) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171091
    (3) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222798873_Disgust_Sensitivity_as_a_Function_of_the_Big_Five_and_Gender
    (4) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
    (5) https://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/the-2-main-personality-types-of-the-politically-correct
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1348 Pts
    WinstonC said:
    @ZeusAres42

    "I also stand by my statement that this case regards covid19 is nothing like Hitler referring to the Jews as a disease that needs to be exterminated."

    So authoritarian attitudes and policies, and the drives underlying them have nothing to do with authoritarian regimes?

    Not what I said or even implied for that matter.


    "Furthermore, during this global pandemic which began in late December, I haven't seen many countries become authoritarian at all with the exception of China who was already authoritarian to begin to with."

    I'm not sure that you understand. The political compass has four dimensions. There is left and right and there is authoritarian and libertarian. Things can be more right or left wing and things can be more authoritarian or more libertarian. Western regimes have become more authoritarian because they have taken liberties from their citizens.
    Maybe you and I are thinking of something different when we think of authoritarianism. When I think of authoritarianism I am thinking in terms of totalitarianism where are government is dictatorial and centralized that demands complete subservience to the state. I don't see this going on in the US or many other countries for that matter.


    "I have to disagree. Also, global pandemics and terrorism are two different things; the anti-terror legislation is a discussion for another day."

    When, in your knowledge, has a government ever willingly given up powers that it has given itself? I guarantee you that contact tracing is here to stay and that if another pandemic occurs people will ocne again be locked down.

    "Furthermore, there is an abundance of sufficient data to suggest that more deaths would be lost without lockdown measures. This stands to reason since this is a disease that grows at an exponential rate."

    As I have previously showed, the mortality rate of this virus is far lower than previously believed (3,4,5,6,7,8). The reason for the initial rate appearing far higher is sampling bias. Most cases are relatively mild or symptom-less.

       "Coronavirus Cases:
        4,422,147
        view by country
        Deaths:
        297,552
        Recovered:
        1,654,819"

    The studies I linked suggest far higher rates of infection.

    "These are also known cases; the amount is probably far greater."

    Exactly, which means the mortality rate is lower. I've mentioned this before to you but if someone dies while they are infected with Covid-19, that is added to the numbers regardless of the cause of death.

    "Also, according to leading mathematical models without good lockdown measures, the death toll would be in the millions in just a matter of months."

    Those models were wrong. As shown above, mortality rates are lower than initially believed, due to the sampling bias of early studies. Also, the lock-downs are expected to kill millions, as previously discussed.

    "We need to balance everything out with the economy, controlling the virus, and also other matters such as starving people. And from where I am standing most countries are trying to do this anyway. As for the United States I'd say their lockdown measures are one of the most modest compared with many other countries across the globe."

    In some states they are, in others they are not. I believe I have put forth a good case for why the threat of the virus has been over-exaggerated and why the lock-downs will be disastrous for both the economy and for life. This is not to say that people should not take precautions, it is to say that in this case the solution of lock-downs causes more problems than it fixes.

    Sources:
    (3) https://www.biospace.com/article/multiple-studies-suggest-covid-19-mortality-rate-may-be-lower-than-expected-/
    (4) https://www.livescience.com/death-rate-lower-than-estimates.html
    (5) https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/los-angeles-study-suggests-virus-much-more-widespread-1.4904990
    (6) https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200418/new-model-shows-covid-more-widespread-less-severe
    (7) https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1278393/Germany-news-economy-threat-Peter-Altmaier-coronavirus-return-COVID-19-latest
    (8) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/09/many-people-may-already-have-immunity-coronavirus-german-study/

    Firstly, I am aware of sampling biases as well as other things such as minimization, exaggeration, puffery, catastrophizing, generalizing, etc. Minimizations in this respect would be to take the small percentage of the population that gets a bad outcome from this virus outbreak and then conclude it mustn't be that bad after all. What people tend to forget though that his percent is still a huge number of people that equates to the millions without any mitigation strategies. The other thing that needs to be remembered is this is something that grows exponentially. Bill Gates did a very good video on the exponential growth of pandemics that I recommend watching. Furthermore, let's also not forget the indirect deaths that occur due to hospitals becoming overwhelmed with outbreaks which also needs to be mitigated.

    Secondly, as this is unprecedented the models won't be 100 % accurate at least in the beginning phase anyway. With that being said, leading scientists have not been that far off the mark so far with their predictions. For example, at the beginning of April, the leading scientists from the University of Washington predicted that the UK would see about 60,000 deaths by August. It's now May and the UK is thought to have 40,000 deaths although the official report is just above 33, 000. This just goes to show they were not that far off.

    Moreover, as with any mathematical models the worst-case scenario is the one that will always come up, and that is the one you need to prepare for. It's not that these models are wrong; it's that they are looking at the worst-case scenarios. Now, while we may not have the worst-case scenario it is still worth preparing for it. Just like if you go out and it's expected to rain, would you decide to leave your umbrella at home because the weather forecast might have got it wrong? I don't think so. Or if the forecast predicted a deadly hurricane would you not take cover because the hurricane might not be as bad as it is predicted?

    Deaths caused by a lockdown also need to be prevented as well. However, both direct and indirect deaths seem a far bigger problem as a result of this virus than what might happen during the lockdown.
     
    Thanks for the links. I have to admit that I have not read them yet but will review them as time permits.









  • @WinstonC
    You may find this likely, however the link between authoritarianism and disgust sensitivity is clear (2). We can further break down disgust sensitivity as a construct but for our current discussion it seems unnecessary. A lack of openness (one of the "Big Five" personality traits) is associated with disgust sensitivity (3) which in turn is associated with authoritarianism (4,5). Hitler certainly acted as if he was driven by disgust sensitivity, and at the very least he capitalized on the disgust sensitivity of others.
    You are still misapplying these studies to reach the conclusions you are arriving at. Even if we assume that Hitler was low in openness and high in disgust sensitivity which made him as an individual more likely to hold his authoritarian attitudes, this is inadequate to connect parasite-stress theory to the Nazi ideology and Hitler's final solution because it fails to demonstrate a causal link between the two.

    Low openness/disgust sensitivity in Hitler --> Authoritarianism ---> ????? ---> Parasite-stress theory ---> ????? ---> Nazism ---> Hitler's final solution
    We shall see, for the upcoming financial crash is going to cause untold damage, most especially to those places that were placed in lock-down.
    China and South Korea are already back at full operational capacity. The point I am making here is that according to parasite-stress theory authoritarianism thrives in a parasitic environment, and decimates libertarian states like the US. If we take the study seriously, then it deals a major blow to libertarian ideas because of the financial damage.
    I don't think there has ever been a time when a nation has forbade all it's citizens from even leaving their homes without permission. I'd also suggest that the mortality rate of this virus is too low for such a response to be proportional, as detailed with many studies in my other posts.
    I would argue that the reason we have never seen this in the past is because the means to enact such a policy are only recently available via information technology such as the internet and advances in the understanding of pathogens.
    100% agreed. In the case of the contact tracing, for example, I see not why the governments of the world will ever cease this practice.
    The way forward is to put this power in everyone's hands.
    I agree to some extent, but the problem is that it sets a precedent for these authoritarian policies to return, for example, when there is a new infectious disease.
    That's literally the idea. You make your state fungible in such a way that it can be authoritarian when it needs to be and libertarian when it can be.
    What would this entail?
    1. A detailed plan for pandemic response, stockpiles of medical equipment, designated personnel, and equipment (Basically everything Obama had that Trump got rid of)
    2. Legislative plans in place which would allow temporary control be delegated to the designated personnel. This power would have a time limit, after which the individuals holding the designated power must be changed (to prevent them from hording power so they have motivation to actually fix the problem)
    3. Education and training materials set aside to promote safety and compliance. (viruses are bad M'kay?)
    4. Special emergency funds or loan provisions set aside to limit economic damage in the case of a large scale outbreak.

    Basically, everything would work like this: A virus outbreak gets into the country and congress turns over some control to designated experts who are chosen ahead of time based on qualifications. This person would have access to the funding and resources to coordinate action against the outbreak. They would also have limited control of policy, although any such policies would need to be ratified by congress and approved by the president. The idea is of course, to never get to this point by enabling a rapid response. After a set time limit, this person would no longer have control and the second in line will relieve the first.
    ZeusAres42piloteer
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • piloteerpiloteer 738 Pts
    edited May 16
    @WinstonC

    I find it unlikely that hitler ordered zyklon B to be used to murder people. It just happened to be the most efficient at what the nazis needed it for. Initially, truck fumes were pumped into an enclosed room as a method of murder. Interesting topic none the less. I never heard of disgust sensitivity before this.  
  • piloteerpiloteer 738 Pts
    edited May 16
    WinstonC said:
    @Dee "Well in fairness to governments you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t , governments went on best advice  from those in the medical field,  what do you think they should have done instead ignored such advice?"

    Perhaps they should also have considered advice from those in other fields. We currently have over 130 Million starving people in the world and the UN World Food Programme chief says that 130 Million more could join their number due to the lock-downs (1). I quote "our analysis shows that 300,000 people could starve to death every single day over a three-month period".

    Sources:
    (1) https://insight.wfp.org/wfp-chief-warns-of-hunger-pandemic-as-global-food-crises-report-launched-3ee3edb38e47?gi=e7b4abf9d2c3
    Even if we overestimated the number of people that will die of hunger, that would be around 30million. That is a high number, but nowhere near the amount of people that died as a result of both world wars. The virus could potentially kill more people than the amount of people who died as a result of both world wars combined. 115million people died as a result of both world wars, and the virus could kill more.  
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    @ZeusAres42 " Not what I said or even implied for that matter. "

    My apologies, I thought that you were saying that bringing up Hitler is this context was unwarranted.

    "Maybe you and I are thinking of something different when we think of authoritarianism. When I think of authoritarianism I am thinking in terms of totalitarianism where are government is dictatorial and centralized that demands complete subservience to the state. I don't see this going on in the US or many other countries for that matter. "

    You may be interested in the political compass.

    "Firstly, I am aware of sampling biases as well as other things such as minimization, exaggeration, puffery, catastrophizing, generalizing, etc."

    Sampling bias is specifically an experimental methodological issue.

    "The other thing that needs to be remembered is this is something that grows exponentially."

    The way I see it, the cat is already out of the bag and most people are going to get infected in the long term. This is a virus with low mortality and high infection rate, which will not respond as well to such measures as a virus with a high mortality rate and low infection rate.
    "Furthermore, let's also not forget the indirect deaths that occur due to hospitals becoming overwhelmed with outbreaks which also needs to be mitigated. "

    This is definitely something to be considered. On the flip side, it appears that in the UK the nightingale hospitals created specifically for this pandemic only saw a couple of hundred patients in total before closing.

    " For example, at the beginning of April, the leading scientists from the University of Washington predicted that the UK would see about 60,000 deaths by August. It's now May and the UK is thought to have 40,000 deaths although the official report is just above 33, 000. This just goes to show they were not that far off. "

    In the UK, it was predicted that 500K would die by UK Coronavirus advisor professor Neil Ferguson's study. Perhaps it comes across as callous, however 60k deaths among a population of 300 million does not seem like a good reason to take people's basic freedoms. For me, it would have to be an existential crisis to merit such a response.

    "Moreover, as with any mathematical models the worst-case scenario is the one that will always come up, and that is the one you need to prepare for."

    We probably did this with our response to terrorism in the early 2000's.

    "Now, while we may not have the worst-case scenario it is still worth preparing for it"

    I agree with this, I just disagree with the actions taken.

    "Deaths caused by a lockdown also need to be prevented as well. However, both direct and indirect deaths seem a far bigger problem as a result of this virus than what might happen during the lockdown. "

    We will see, but the UN WFP chief's prediction that millions will starve seems very likely to me, especially given that the world is currently primed for economic catastrophe due to other factors (as previously discussed).
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot "You are still misapplying these studies to reach the conclusions you are arriving at. Even if we assume that Hitler was low in openness and high in disgust sensitivity which made him as an individual more likely to hold his authoritarian attitudes, this is inadequate to connect parasite-stress theory to the Nazi ideology and Hitler's final solution because it fails to demonstrate a causal link between the two."

    First of all, you are incorrectly referring to parasite-stress theory as it is but a facet of the literature on the link between pathogens, disgust sensitivity and authoritarianism. Secondly, it is plain to see in the rhetoric and actions of Hitler that he was either motivated by disgust sensitivity or was capitalizing on this attribute in his followers. Finally, in any case, we can see from the literature that an increase in percieved threat of disease seems to lead to an increase in authoritarian attitudes and also to an increase in the authoritarian tilt of the government.

    "China and South Korea are already back at full operational capacity."

    The UK is already in recession.

    "The point I am making here is that according to parasite-stress theory authoritarianism thrives in a parasitic environment, and decimates libertarian states like the US. If we take the study seriously, then it deals a major blow to libertarian ideas because of the financial damage."

    What financial damage? If lots of people die that is actually good for the financial situation of those left behind.

    "I would argue that the reason we have never seen this in the past is because the means to enact such a policy are only recently available via information technology such as the internet and advances in the understanding of pathogens."

    In other words, our advances in technology have enabled greater authoritarianism to be implemented.

    "The way forward is to put this power in everyone's hands."

    The power of contact tracing? Aside from the fact that governments would never allow this, what would you use the information for?

    "That's literally the idea. You make your state fungible in such a way that it can be authoritarian when it needs to be and libertarian when it can be."

    It's a tilt towards authoritarianism because it will be the go-to response. That's like saying that if you give police the power to torture in some situations then you aren't making the police more authoritarian, you are simply allowing them to be authoritarian when they need to be and libertarian when they can be.

    "Basically, everything would work like this: A virus outbreak gets into the country and congress turns over some control to designated experts who are chosen ahead of time based on qualifications. This person would have access to the funding and resources to coordinate action against the outbreak. They would also have limited control of policy, although any such policies would need to be ratified by congress and approved by the president. The idea is of course, to never get to this point by enabling a rapid response. After a set time limit, this person would no longer have control and the second in line will relieve the first."

    There are no doubt specifics to be hammered out with this but it could certainly be an improvement. In any case, I agree that having resources, both financial and medical, set aside for such emergencies would be a good idea.
  • @WinstonC
    First of all, you are incorrectly referring to parasite-stress theory as it is but a facet of the literature on the link between pathogens, disgust sensitivity and authoritarianism. Secondly, it is plain to see in the rhetoric and actions of Hitler that he was either motivated by disgust sensitivity or was capitalizing on this attribute in his followers. Finally, in any case, we can see from the literature that an increase in percieved threat of disease seems to lead to an increase in authoritarian attitudes and also to an increase in the authoritarian tilt of the government.
    There still isn't a causal link here between disgust sensitivity and authoritarian attitudes. There is still a huge leap in logic between Hitler's hatred and authoritarian attitudes being common to a region.
    The UK is already in recession.
    The UK is also more libertarian in relation to China and South Korea.
    What financial damage? If lots of people die that is actually good for the financial situation of those left behind.
    No, just no. The opposite actually because you are loosing talent and skill that keeps the machine running at full capacity. You also have fewer people to do tasks, which means that everyone else has to work harder to maintain production. This means cutbacks and downsizing which hurts financial development.
    The power of contact tracing? Aside from the fact that governments would never allow this, what would you use the information for?
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/how-south-korea-stopped-covid19-early-by-myoung-hee-kim-2020-04 
    From a libertarian perspective, what the capability of power is can be assumed irrelevant. What is relevant is that everyone owns it equally, or the sum of all power and capability in a society is distributed.
    It's a tilt towards authoritarianism because it will be the go-to response. That's like saying that if you give police the power to torture in some situations then you aren't making the police more authoritarian, you are simply allowing them to be authoritarian when they need to be and libertarian when they can be.
    It seems like you are having trouble grasping these concepts and understanding what they mean and what they imply, because you are being blinded by idealistic ideas and perfect visions.

    No, if you want to make states less authoritarian then you have to eliminate all disease. If you can not do that, then you must accept some authoritarian policy to manage disease. 
    piloteer
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • piloteerpiloteer 738 Pts
    edited May 19
    @WinstonC

    I agree with the article that you posted in which it says that the true mortality rate of covid-19 may not be known for some time to come, because the dynamics of this virus aren't fully known. Using a truly non-biased sample would need to include other countries. It can be shown that the mortality rate differs from one country to another. There is strong evidence to suggest that the mortality rate in a country, region, state, or even right down to the community, is directly effected by the social response to the virus. Just bluntly stating that the virus has a uniform mortality rate across borders is not a reliable objective, or even empirical argument. There are also more recent studies that suggest the opposite of what you claim, and they suggest this virus could be more deadly than the Spanish flu. The first link under this argument  shows how the mortality rate can fluctuate from one region to another. The second link suggests covid 19 is twenty-fold  more deadly than a common flu.  

    https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

    https://www.foxnews.com/health/u-s-weekly-coronavirus-mortality-rate-20-fold-greater-than-influenza-study

    Your assertion the virus has an overestimated mortality rate is not a sound argument. It clearly states in the first paragraph in the first link you posted "The actual death toll for COVID-19 won’t be calculable for some time". This coupled with the fact that there are just as many studies coming off the press that suggest you are incorrect which renders your claim simply conjecture at best. If we're going to use an unbiased reflection of the mortality rate, there is a study that suggests the mortality rate can be far higher than what was initially thought, and this could be because of the regional response to the virus. Ignoring CDC guideline regarding the virus does put others at risk. The medical community does not now, nor have they ever based their recommendations for viral outbreaks on what data "suggests" in non peer reviewed studies.   

    You are not going to make many friends with the medical community if you go around claiming the virus is less dangerous than many think. It is they who have to care for the sick. Whether the mortality rate is lower is of no consequence when it comes to medical professionals who are the ones dealing with this unknown virus. One thing you cannot deny is the fact that ignoring CDC guidelines for the virus will most certainly cause more people to be infected, which in turn will most certainly cause more people to have to be hospitalized. You most certainly will not have any evidence that proves a medical staff will not be overburdened by more patients. When a hospital is filled to capacity and there aren't enough staff to deal with it, death rates go up. Not even just for the virus itself, but now others who have other medical issues not related to the virus cannot be cared for. That will make the death rate go up for the entire population, and whether they are infected with the virus or not is of no value because if you can't be seen by a doctor when you have a dangerous medical condition, your life is at risk. Your claim of a lower mortality rate is weak from a multitude of angles.  

  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot "There still isn't a causal link here between disgust sensitivity and authoritarian attitudes. There is still a huge leap in logic between Hitler's hatred and authoritarian attitudes being common to a region."

    I already linked studies showing that individual people with higher disgust sensitivity are more authoritarian (1,2).

    "The UK is also more libertarian in relation to China and South Korea."

    This is true, but it is also one of the countries that have implemented lock-downs. It also is more authoritarian that the U.S.

    "The opposite actually because you are loosing talent and skill that keeps the machine running at full capacity. You also have fewer people to do tasks, which means that everyone else has to work harder to maintain production. This means cutbacks and downsizing which hurts financial development."

    I'll put it this way, if you have 100 people who each contribute, let's say 40 useful hours of work on average a week then you have 4000 man hours per week. The "profits" of this labor are then shared among these 100 people. If we have 97 people then, provided that those who die are not disproportionately useful, then we still have the same resources per person. After all, each of these people needs to be fed, housed, given healthcare etc. While we are reducing the amount of homes built, for example, we are also reducing the number of people who need homes. Funnily enough, not only does this decrease proportionally, but due to the sort of people who die (older, more infirm) we actually should end up having more man-hours per person.

    "https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/how-south-korea-stopped-covid19-early-by-myoung-hee-kim-2020-04 "

    This power was in the government's hands, not the people's hands.

    "From a libertarian perspective, what the capability of power is can be assumed irrelevant. What is relevant is that everyone owns it equally, or the sum of all power and capability in a society is distributed."

    According to who? I've heard anarchist libertarians argue, for example, that everyone should be allowed to own nuclear weapons but never have I heard that everyone should "own (them) equally". Sounds like a bad idea to me.

    "It seems like you are having trouble grasping these concepts and understanding what they mean and what they imply because you are being blinded by idealistic ideas and perfect visions."

    I haven't put forth any such thing. Please quote me one of my "idealistic ideas and perfect visions." If there are any to be found, I would be very interested in expunging any such utopian nonsense from my head.

    "No, if you want to make states less authoritarian then you have to eliminate all disease. If you can not do that, then you must accept some authoritarian policy to manage disease."

    I would agree that reducing disease, in and of itself, would decrease authoritarianism. Becoming authoritarian in order to reduce authoritarianism is completely counterproductive. There is no need to take everyone's basic freedoms in order to prevent at the most 1% of the population from dying. The fact that you are saying this is imperative and that there is no alternative shows that you are not willing to even consider any other path forward.

    Sources:
    (1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222798873_Disgust_Sensitivity_as_a_Function_of_the_Big_Five_and_Gender
    (2) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    @piloteer "The first link under this argument  shows how the mortality rate can fluctuate from one region to another. The second link suggests covid 19 is twenty-fold  more deadly than a common flu."

    Once again, those numbers suffer from horrible sampling bias. The studies I linked above show that infection rates are far higher than these official numbers. These studies do not suffer from sampling bias because they do not merely include people who seek medical attention, but rather are sampled from the general population.

    A good example may be the LA study, which suggested an infection rate of ~4%, with ~320k cases among their population of 8 million. If this holds true across the whole U.S., then we should expect ~12M cases, rather than the 1.6M cases cited. The alternative inference is that LA, despite being 4% of the U.S. population, has  20% of the cases. This decreases the mortality rate tenfold. I've cited multiple studies with similar results in the same post.

    Why would the infection rate seem lower in your cited stats? Because they were only counting those who were severe enough in symptoms to seek medical attention. People who had mild symptoms or no symptoms (who also are the least likely to die by the way) do not appear in these statistics.

    "This coupled with the fact that there are just as many studies coming off the press that suggest you are incorrect which renders your claim simply conjecture at best."

    What I've said here is backed by my solid understanding of the experimental method. Psychologists have to deal with a lot of extraneous and confounding variables and so I understand them, and the impact that they can have on a study's results, rather well. By all means, if you find a study that suggests inflated rates which does not have result-invalidating sampling bias then I would be interested to see it.

    "Ignoring CDC guideline regarding the virus does put others at risk. The medical community does not now, nor have they ever based their recommendations for viral outbreaks on what data "suggests" in non peer reviewed studies."

    The data you cited is not a peer reviewed study.

    "Whether the mortality rate is lower is of no consequence when it comes to medical professionals who are the ones dealing with this unknown virus."

    The truth is of no consequence? I don't even know what you are arguing here.

    "You most certainly will not have any evidence that proves a medical staff will not be overburdened by more patients."

    Well it does appear that the nightingale hospitals opened in the UK were superfluous, for they all closed after only treating ~100 patients. There is an increased burden on healthcare services though, yes.

    "When a hospital is filled to capacity and there aren't enough staff to deal with it, death rates go up."

    I don't know if you know this, but this actually happens every flu season.

    "Not even just for the virus itself, but now others who have other medical issues not related to the virus cannot be cared for. That will make the death rate go up for the entire population, and whether they are infected with the virus or not is of no value because if you can't be seen by a doctor when you have a dangerous medical condition, your life is at risk. "

    Only if we prioritize covid-19 over other medical conditions in triage.
  • @WinstonC
    I already linked studies showing that individual people with higher disgust sensitivity are more authoritarian (1,2).
    This only counts for individuals, it has nothing to do with ideology. What I am saying is that we can predict someone's odds of being authoritarian based on their disgust sensitivity, but that does not predict if someone will be a Nazi.
    I'll put it this way, if you have 100 people who each contribute, let's say 40 useful hours of work on average a week then you have 4000 man hours per week. The "profits" of this labor are then shared among these 100 people. If we have 97 people then, provided that those who die are not disproportionately useful, then we still have the same resources per person. After all, each of these people needs to be fed, housed, given healthcare etc. While we are reducing the amount of homes built, for example, we are also reducing the number of people who need homes. Funnily enough, not only does this decrease proportionally, but due to the sort of people who die (older, more infirm) we actually should end up having more man-hours per person.
    You are severely oversimplifying here. It is not right to assume that if everyone does 40 man hours per week that those man hours will result in the same productivity. Lets say those 100 people had a task which took a combined 3500 man hours to complete and then other jobs that took 500 hours collectively. If we lose 3 people, now there are 120 unaccounted for man hours, meaning everyone else needs to put in about 1 hour 15 minutes of overtime. The amount of work that needs to be done doesn't necessarily decrease with fewer people.
    This power was in the government's hands, not the people's hands.
    I'm saying there is no reason you can't put that power in people's hands.
    According to who? I've heard anarchist libertarians argue, for example, that everyone should be allowed to own nuclear weapons but never have I heard that everyone should "own (them) equally". Sounds like a bad idea to me.
    This is fundamentally what libertarian theory is about. Instead of authority being centralized it is distributed. This doesn't necessarily mean that everyone owns the nukes collectively, it could mean that just a few people own the nukes, and others owns all of our tank or fighters. What's important is that it isn't one person who commands everything.
    I haven't put forth any such thing. Please quote me one of my "idealistic ideas and perfect visions." If there are any to be found, I would be very interested in expunging any such utopian nonsense from my head.
    Right here in the OP:

    "This fact explains quite nicely why people are suddenly so willing to give up their essential freedoms for the promise of safety since the advent of Covid-19. To become more authoritarian is the natural psychological reaction to the perceived threat of disease.

    Please be wary of your natural inclination to give more powers to governments and corporations due to the increased risk of disease, we do not need another repeat of the horrors of the 20th century.

    To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    I would agree that reducing disease, in and of itself, would decrease authoritarianism. Becoming authoritarian in order to reduce authoritarianism is completely counterproductive. There is no need to take everyone's basic freedoms in order to prevent at the most 1% of the population from dying. The fact that you are saying this is imperative and that there is no alternative shows that you are not willing to even consider any other path forward.
    I assume that's a typo, you would be becoming more authoritarian to increase disease resistance, it has nothing to do with decreasing authoritarianism.

    I'm thinking about this from a Darwinian perspective. Very simply this is evolve or die. If you try to stay libertarian in disease land, you are not going to survive. The only options are eliminate disease or become more authoritarian.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • piloteerpiloteer 738 Pts
    edited May 24
    @WinstonC

    All life threatening conditions are considered important in a triage setting. It would be highly unethical for the medical community to disregard patients who have covid-19, especially since ignoring CDC protocol will most certainly make more people infected and eventually most, or all patients would have to be ignored. There is no value in disregarding patients with covid-19. Just because a makeshift hospital in the UK was not used, it does not constitute a good argument as to why we should ignore CDC guidelines because many makeshift hospitals are still being used in the US, including in the state where I reside.

    The study about how much more dangerous covid-19 is compared to the common flu was not intended as a proper mortality rate for covid-19, it was intended to demonstrate how much more dangerous covid-19 is compared to the common flu. In that study it also brings up the fact that there were many covid-19 cases that went undiagnosed. There were a large number of people who were diagnosed with the flu and died, but it was later learned they did indeed have covid-19. The number of times this happened is unknown and will probably remain that way, but it is known to be a factor which plays into the fact that the mortality is unknown and maybe higher than thought. Because of that, any study that claims to know the true mortality rate of covid-19 is most certainly only conjecture.

    Your argument that your non-peer reviewed studies are more correct than mine is also not a valid argument because they still remain un-reviewed, therefore only conjecture none the less. As I've stated before, it is not the policy of the medical community to shape their response to an unknown virus based on the conjecture of non-peer reviewed studies. You or I do not serve as valid judges on the truism of any study that hasn't been reviewed. It is the medical professionals only who can serve as valid judges on the validity of a study.              
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot "This only counts for individuals, it has nothing to do with ideology. What I am saying is that we can predict someone's odds of being authoritarian based on their disgust sensitivity, but that does not predict if someone will be a Nazi."

    I agree, I mentioned Nazis as but one of many examples of authoritarian idceologies. Further, high disgust sensitivity is linked to right wing attitudes and also to racist attitudes and so I thought it would be most appropriate to reference an authoritarian regime with these attributes.

    "You are severely oversimplifying here. It is not right to assume that if everyone does 40 man hours per week that those man hours will result in the same productivity. Lets say those 100 people had a task which took a combined 3500 man hours to complete and then other jobs that took 500 hours collectively. If we lose 3 people, now there are 120 unaccounted for man hours, meaning everyone else needs to put in about 1 hour 15 minutes of overtime. The amount of work that needs to be done doesn't necessarily decrease with fewer people."

    This isn't accurate because less people need fewer resources and services. In other words, if we lose three people then we also need 3 less cars, 9 less meals per day etc. This is even more the case given that the overwhelming majority of deaths are elderly who on average contribute less (or no) labor to society than the mean. They also are disproportionately an economic burden on society. Am I saying their lives don't matter? No. Any economic argument in favor of lockdowns, however, is the exact opposite of true.

    "I'm saying there is no reason you can't put that power in people's hands."

    The ability to track one's own contacts will be in the person's own hands, sure. The point I'm making is that the ability to track everyone's contacts will only ever be in the government's hands, and the hands of large corporations.

    "This is fundamentally what libertarian theory is about. Instead of authority being centralized it is distributed. This doesn't necessarily mean that everyone owns the nukes collectively, it could mean that just a few people own the nukes, and others owns all of our tank or fighters. What's important is that it isn't one person who commands everything."

    The trend certainly is toward decentralization but in my experience libertarians do not agree on what should be decentralized. Libertarian thought is on a spectrum, ranging from minor reductions in government power, to minarchism, to anarchism.

    "Right here in the OP:..."

    Asking people to keep their natural authoritarian response to disease in check because it can have disasterous consequences is utopian thinking? Please explain.

    "I assume that's a typo, you would be becoming more authoritarian to increase disease resistance, it has nothing to do with decreasing authoritarianism."

    You previously said "No, if you want to make states less authoritarian then you have to eliminate all disease." I was responding to that point, because in and of itself it is true that eliminating disease should in theory decrease authoritarian tendencies.

    "I'm thinking about this from a Darwinian perspective. Very simply this is evolve or die. If you try to stay libertarian in disease land, you are not going to survive. The only options are eliminate disease or become more authoritarian."

    I think you mean either you become more authoritarian or ~1% of those that get infected will die. That is not an existential threat. Even if the disease had a 10% mortality rate it would not be an existential threat to humanity.
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    @piloteer "It would be highly unethical for the medical community to disregard patients who have covid-19, especially since ignoring CDC protocol will most certainly make more people infected and eventually most, or all patients would have to be ignored."

    No it wouldn't, because there is not an amazing amount of care that can be given for those with covid-19. This is particularly the case given that those most likely to die are least likely to see a benefit from the treatments available. Under triage, this means that those most likely to actually need the meager treatments available are least likely to get them, because they are least likely to see a benefit. As I mentioned before, it appears that more cancer deaths than covid-19  deaths will occur over the next 5 years due to the decreased screening, treatment and diagnosis (1). The same goes for other diseases, such as TB (2). A triage system means that those most likely to see a benefit from the medical resources should be assigned those medical resources. These are not easy decisions to make, however it must be noted that whichever decision is made, people will die.

    "There is no value in disregarding patients with covid-19. Just because a makeshift hospital in the UK was not used, it does not constitute a good argument as to why we should ignore CDC guidelines because many makeshift hospitals are still being used in the US, including in the state where I reside."

    My point on the several UK nightingale hospitals is that we have not exceeded our resources in this regard.

    "The study about how much more dangerous covid-19 is compared to the common flu was not intended as a proper mortality rate for covid-19, it was intended to demonstrate how much more dangerous covid-19 is compared to the common flu."

    How are you assessing danger if not via mortality rate. I'll put it this way, I could set up a study on asthma, to measure the mortality rate of asthma. I get access to hospital data and find that 1% of patients have asthma. I then find that 10% of these asthmatic people in hospital died from their asthma. Does this mean that asthma has a 10% mortality rate? Or has a flaw in my methodology led me to an inaccurate assessment?

    "In that study it also brings up the fact that there were many covid-19 cases that went undiagnosed. There were a large number of people who were diagnosed with the flu and died, but it was later learned they did indeed have covid-19. The number of times this happened is unknown and will probably remain that way, but it is known to be a factor which plays into the fact that the mortality is unknown and maybe higher than thought. Because of that, any study that claims to know the true mortality rate of covid-19 is most certainly only conjecture."

    The many studies I linked specifically include the undiagnosed cases (antibody tests, for example). Also, the bias in the numbers actually appears to lean the other way, for if you die while you have covid-19 you are counted as a covid-19 death (3).

    "Your argument that your non-peer reviewed studies are more correct than mine is also not a valid argument because they still remain un-reviewed, therefore only conjecture none the less."

    That isn't my argument, I have given sound reasoning for why the methodology is superior and how it overcomes the issues of the statistics you have cited through eliminating confounding variables. A study with confounding variables is without merit.

    "You or I do not serve as valid judges on the truism of any study that hasn't been reviewed. It is the medical professionals only who can serve as valid judges on the validity of a study."

    I studied the experimental method for years, in addition to taking a supporting role in the creation of several psychological studies. While medicine is not my field, what I've said on experimental methodology is, quite frankly, an expert opinion.     

    Sources:
    (1) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52382303  ;  
    (2) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/covid-19-lockdown-risks-1-4-mn-extra-tb-deaths-study/ar-BB13Eyiw
    (3) https://www.theblaze.com/news/cause-of-death-coronavirus-gunshot-washington
  • @WinstonC ;
    This isn't accurate because less people need fewer resources and services. In other words, if we lose three people then we also need 3 less cars, 9 less meals per day etc. This is even more the case given that the overwhelming majority of deaths are elderly who on average contribute less (or no) labor to society than the mean. They also are disproportionately an economic burden on society. Am I saying their lives don't matter? No. Any economic argument in favor of lockdowns, however, is the exact opposite of true.
    I think that what you are missing a few things here. We can't assume that ~1% is an accurate figure because it is the most common number for Covid-19 specifically, because there might be a worse disease in the future. Most developed nations are service economies rather than resource economies, so the amount of food, cars, and tangible goods we consume isn't tied to how much of this we produce. Think about the FIRE sector. If an insurance company has 5000 employees which handles in excess of 5 million contracts suddenly loses 50 employees that doesn't decrease their work load, even (especially) if they suddenly have to close out 50,000 contracts. The diversity in our economies guarantees that our productivity is higher than our actual production.

    To demonstrate this further let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion. Let's say that instead of just a few people lost it is 99.9999% of people lost. In fact, lets just say that in the span of just a few months we cut down to just 100 people in our country, but in other more authoritarian nations they curb the spread. (I will return to this) If your argument held true then we would expect the same amount of people by percentage to work in the same industries. in the US about 2% of people are farmers, but in order to do their job they need fertilizer, care for their animals, seed engineering, soil and erosion management, electrical power, diesel fuel for their tractors, etc. There are all of these things which farmers need in order for 2% of them to make enough food for everyone, and in a country with just 100 people this isn't feasible because there isn't enough people to produce all of these other dependencies.
    The ability to track one's own contacts will be in the person's own hands, sure. The point I'm making is that the ability to track everyone's contacts will only ever be in the government's hands, and the hands of large corporations.
    I guess that depends on what you consider a large corporation. Cambridge analytica was a modest company, yet they still managed to harvest most of the data from millions of Facebook accounts and influence many elections. If you had about 20-30 employees you could reasonably do something like this.
    Asking people to keep their natural authoritarian response to disease in check because it can have disasterous consequences is utopian thinking? Please explain.
    It's Utopian because you are asking people to just do something not in their nature. It would be like saying, "you know, everything would be great if people just did what I said, then they would all be happy" or specifically: "If we just tell people smoking causes cancer / eating unhealthily is bad / don't drive your car because climate change / everyone gave freely to those who need / don't freak out about disease because authoritarianism then everything can get along just fine" The problem here is that you are telling people to change for your motivations rather than understanding their motivations and changing that. 
    I think you mean either you become more authoritarian or ~1% of those that get infected will die. That is not an existential threat. Even if the disease had a 10% mortality rate it would not be an existential threat to humanity.
    This is specifically for Covid-19, but we can expect there to be returns in the future at pseudo-predictable rates. Sunspot activity and influenza outbreaks happen to occur at around the same time periodically. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/sunspot-activity-and-influenza-pandemics-a-statistical-assessment-of-the-purported-association/06DDEE622D8ACFD42B3E1564278BD3FC/core-reader
    Furthermore, we need to think about this from a survival perspective. If a country is periodically losing a large percentage of its population because it is unwilling to accept any authoritarian policy, it is going to be weakened little by little and eventually superseded by larger powers. Take that country I mentioned before where the population cuts down to just 100 people. Can they really stand up to any other mechanized nation? Provided that is an extreme example, but even just a 1% decrease in economic output is huge by today's standards.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • WinstonCWinstonC 163 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot "I think that what you are missing a few things here. We can't assume that ~1% is an accurate figure because it is the most common number for Covid-19 specifically, because there might be a worse disease in the future."

    There doubtless will be worse diseases in the future, but going into lockdown is only justified if said disease is legitimately an existential threat.

    "Most developed nations are service economies rather than resource economies, so the amount of food, cars, and tangible goods we consume isn't tied to how much of this we produce."

    You can consider our fiat currency as a proxy for these.

    "Think about the FIRE sector. If an insurance company has 5000 employees which handles in excess of 5 million contracts suddenly loses 50 employees that doesn't decrease their work load, even (especially) if they suddenly have to close out 50,000 contracts."

    Firstly, does it harm them more to lose 1% of their employees or does it harm them more to shut down partially or completely for several months? Secondly, as 1% of their customers should also have died the workload should, roughly speaking, have decreased in proportion. Thirdly, they can simply hire more people as unemployment is currently at the highest level it's been since the great depression.

    "To demonstrate this further let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion. Let's say that instead of just a few people lost it is 99.9999% of people lost. In fact, lets just say that in the span of just a few months we cut down to just 100 people in our country, but in other more authoritarian nations they curb the spread. (I will return to this) If your argument held true then we would expect the same amount of people by percentage to work in the same industries. in the US about 2% of people are farmers, but in order to do their job they need fertilizer, care for their animals, seed engineering, soil and erosion management, electrical power, diesel fuel for their tractors, etc. There are all of these things which farmers need in order for 2% of them to make enough food for everyone, and in a country with just 100 people this isn't feasible because there isn't enough people to produce all of these other dependencies."

    Militarily this would be a disaster, in addition to it being a humanitarian catastrophe. Economically, however, it would not be. Aside from the fact that there is enough long life food to last decades (longer if it didn't expire) for these hundred people, they would also each be millionaires or billionaires in assets. Moreover, they could simply take over one or two farms, or even import people from other countries to work for them. Further, there would be enough diesel in the nation to last them thousands of years, and diesel generators are perfectly functional for electricity. As for managing soil and erosion, that is why fields are left to fallow and why they are flanked by hedgerows. I have no idea why we would require seed engineering when we could just use regular seeds.

    "I guess that depends on what you consider a large corporation. Cambridge analytica was a modest company, yet they still managed to harvest most of the data from millions of Facebook accounts and influence many elections. If you had about 20-30 employees you could reasonably do something like this."

    Who did Cambridge analytica work for? Governments and corporations. Now, what does it benefit, let's say a modest company, to spy on people to give that information back to them? It doesn't. There is, however a financial incentive to sell that information elsewhere, which is precisely what Cambridge analytica did.

    "It's Utopian because you are asking people to just do something not in their nature."

    Is it also utopian to say that people should try to refrain from doing violence to those that they are angry with? Is teaching children not to bully each other utopian too? How about rape?

    "It would be like saying, "you know, everything would be great if people just did what I said, then they would all be happy" or specifically: "If we just tell people smoking causes cancer (...) everything can get along just fine""

    That's completely facetious, what I am saying is akin to saying that "Smoking is bad, you shouldn't do it", not akin to saying that "If we just tell people smoking causes cancer (...) everything can get along just fine".

    "This is specifically for Covid-19, but we can expect there to be returns in the future at pseudo-predictable rates. Sunspot activity and influenza outbreaks happen to occur at around the same time periodically. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/sunspot-activity-and-influenza-pandemics-a-statistical-assessment-of-the-purported-association/06DDEE622D8ACFD42B3E1564278BD3FC/core-reader"

    I don't understand the point you are making here.

    "Take that country I mentioned before where the population cuts down to just 100 people. Can they really stand up to any other mechanized nation?"

    I would agree that lockdowns are a proportionate response to a disease with a high infection rate and a 99.9999999999% mortality rate.

    "Provided that is an extreme example, but even just a 1% decrease in economic output is huge by today's standards."

    When the upcoming global depression occurs, in part as a result of these measures, we will wish that we merely had a 1% decrease in economic output.
  • @WinstonC ;

    Firstly, does it harm them more to lose 1% of their employees or does it harm them more to shut down partially or completely for several months? Secondly, as 1% of their customers should also have died the workload should, roughly speaking, have decreased in proportion. Thirdly, they can simply hire more people as unemployment is currently at the highest level it's been since the great depression.
    That depends on your cost-benefit analysis on what a human life is worth to you. Technically, the company could lose more money by having employees die than by losing business due to being shutdown. If you lose executives and experienced managers, replacing that talent is expensive even if labor is plentiful. How do you go about replacing the CEO of a company? Especially a small one where the CEO might be the founder or someone who spent a carer there and has a lot of experience and skill. I use FIRE sector as an example because it shows the disproportion in scale. 1 person can not handle 1,000 contracts as easily as 5,000 people can handle 5 million because each person in the company can specialize and focus on doing a particular task.  losing 1% of the people in your country is roughly equivalent to losing 1% of the types of jobs in your economy.
    Militarily this would be a disaster, in addition to it being a humanitarian catastrophe. Economically, however, it would not be. Aside from the fact that there is enough long life food to last decades (longer if it didn't expire) for these hundred people, they would also each be millionaires or billionaires in assets. Moreover, they could simply take over one or two farms, or even import people from other countries to work for them. Further, there would be enough diesel in the nation to last them thousands of years, and diesel generators are perfectly functional for electricity. As for managing soil and erosion, that is why fields are left to fallow and why they are flanked by hedgerows. I have no idea why we would require seed engineering when we could just use regular seeds.
    Economically this would be a disaster, your entire economy just vanished overnight. If these people are in different places and don't meet each other, your economy is 0. This country would become no mans land, other's would colonize it from other countries and impose their governance on the region. The few people who were left would most likely not be billionaires, because it would be impossible for them to maintain that wealth, because they don't have enough people to actually do so. Diesel fuel isn't designed to be stockpiles and in 6 months to a year it becomes potentially unsafe for use, let alone decades. While canned foods can provide a food source, they would not replace fresh foods like domesticated plants and animals do, which by the way, all of those animals which did not escape and go feral are now dead due to lack of care. Everything we have is gone, left to rust and decay. It will quickly be overgrown and rendered useless.

    Also, not related to this debate but "regular seed" isn't how things work for most crops. The corn seed which is a staple crop in the US is all GMO, and it is sterile. The Monsanto company genetically modifies all of the seed that gets planted, something which 100 people would not be reasonably capable of doing. The benefit of using GMO seed is that you can use roundup as herbicide. This is the crux of the point I am trying to make about scale. If you want to know more about this, watch this video about a $1500 sandwich that only took 6 months to make https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rk2hPrEnk8
    Is it also utopian to say that people should try to refrain from doing violence to those that they are angry with? Is teaching children not to bully each other utopian too? How about rape?

    That's completely facetious, what I am saying is akin to saying that "Smoking is bad, you shouldn't do it", not akin to saying that "If we just tell people smoking causes cancer (...) everything can get along just fine".
    The short answer is yes. The long answer is that while education is a staple of societal order, you can not expect everyone to agree and to follow your advice.
    I don't understand the point you are making here.
    The point is that this isn't an isolated event. It is a long string of events that are going to reoccur in the future. 
    I would agree that lockdowns are a proportionate response to a disease with a high infection rate and a 99.9999999999% mortality rate.

    When the upcoming global depression occurs, in part as a result of these measures, we will wish that we merely had a 1% decrease in economic output.
    This was never about safety, this was always about money. Each person who dies costs us a certain amount of money, something which statisticians figure out, in the US this is about $10 million and it is assumed that everyone is worth the same amount. So, losing 1% of you population is like losing $32.82 trillion dollars, for the reasons I detailed above in regards to scale. Just to pound this point home, might I ask why today we are able to have more resources and abundance per person than say, 2,000 years ago? By your reasoning, we should be no better off, and can not become better off because we would always have to do the same amount of work to feed the same number of people. This isn't the case, so there must be something wrong with this reasoning, and that thing is scale. Losing 1% of your population doesn't equate to a 1% drop in economy, it is much more than that specifically because more people benefit from diversity of service and product than any given product or service, due to co dependencies within the economy.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch