This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
COVID lockdowns were a beautiful example of the most important thing in modern democracy, compromise. The lockdowns in many western nations were strong enough to be annoying at best and oppressive at their worst, while also not being nearly good enough to actually contain virus spread much. In fact due to political pressure, governments would run completely hypocritical programs at the same time like the eat out to help out campaign. Government lockdowns hurt restaurants, so the government subsidized not locking down and instead going into restaurants. Genius!
Full lockdowns are obviously successful in controlling spread. Virus particles aren't magic, they don't teleport from person to person. If people avoid interaction and have physical barriers and disinfectant, it will work. Even masks seem to work quite well ... except for the pesky issue that people aren't perfect. They don't wear it properly, it's not fit to their face, they take it off cause they're sweaty, they forget, they remove it to eat (ah yes, just like Eat Out To Help Out, it's nice of viruses to not spread when you're hungry), etc. So in actuality, masks weren't actually that useful.
Full authoritarian enforcement could in theory work, but instead we went with half measures that are the worst of both worlds. We lost time with our families and our friends and our loved ones, while also still spreading the virus around cause there was too many holes in the lockdowns.
Another example of bad results from compromise I always like to use here is bike lanes. There's all sorts of ways to do them and some are way better than others. The common "compromise" solution is the shoulder, bike lane or buffered bike lane methods in that image. But those suck for bikers, they're terrifying to use. The whole time you're scared of a car side swipping you because there's giant machines going 40 mph zooming past your frail human body. I would never use those. Meanwhile when I vacationed in Hilton Head, I rented a bike and was happy to use it to get around to the store and beach near my rental house. At least where I was staying they were seperated from the road and felt safe but those are more expensive and take up a lot more room to do so you either have to be a vacation area like Hilton Head (and even then, the main parts of the city still seemed mostly car centric) or have a strong biker culture. Otherwise you get the shitty compromise solutions at best where drivers lose space and would be bikers still don't feel safe to bike.
Rent control is another example I love to use. City politicians are stuck between the stereotypical NIMBY homeowners who want their property value to go up (but also no property tax increases!!) and no more development, while renters don't want their rent to surge up every year and want stable places to live. The renter class is also typically blind to why rents are going up so while there's political pressure to "do something", it's not necessarily pressure to upzone and allow development. Still at the end of the day it's is impossible to make both happy, but they're still both gonna be voting. So what do many politicians opt for instead? Rent control. You make the current tenants happy while not having to upset the homeowner NIMBYs, and the long term political and economic costs are abstract enough that only the weird policy wanks and nerds will oppose you.
Compromise is often pretty great though and I don't think we should be down on it just because there are flaws. Allowing people to have some wins with peace makes them unlikely to turn violent, and it forcibly moderates the idealogues and extremists to match closer to the center. I prefer our compromise society to any dictatorship. We really do get the best of both worlds in most cases. But sometimes, like with COVID or bike lanes or housing supply, half measures are actually worse than either.
As a COVID Never Forget, Never Forgive type, I feel an obligation to eat crow when this subtopic comes up. I think it was Scott Alexander that said something about the Noble Mask Lie being mostly wrong but yes people would wear them incorrectly; I agreed that yeah N95s are tricky to get exactly right but surely people will were surgical masks fine, and that's better than nothing.
Boy howdy was I wrong. Watching people wear their mask below their nose squashed what little hope I had for a lot of people. Absolute theatre.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with this. Hindsight is of course 20/20, but travel back to the pandemic itself where government officials had insane levels of pressure coming from every direction. In a pandemic under a democracy, how do you keep:
Add to this the crazy amount of data coming from every which way (including social media stoking the fire) and the constant comparisons to neighbouring nations who were either doing it right or wrong and it's no wonder that such a shit show of half-measures ensued.
Especially important to note that most shutdowns and closures were state/local government decisions to begin with, it wasn't the president deciding things, it was your state legislatures and your local mayor/city council. Heck Biden was even trying to get schools to reopen right after inauguration but it didn't really matter much because school lockdowns are and were mostly a local government decision. Not to mention the staffing shortages, sometimes even schools that had previously reopened had to go back to remote because they just didn't have the people. Some states were even mobilizing their national guard because of staffing issues.
Polling from the early time period also suggest that the lockdowns were widely popular too. Even four years later, public support for closures and mandatory masking in public during the pandemic were popular among the majority of Americans looking back.
So not only do you not have control over the lockdowns from a federal perspective, but you're also dealing with most Americans wanting them at the time to begin with!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's unlikely for a driver to do that unless they are malicious, drunk, or distracted. The actual danger is at intersections, which separated bike lanes do nothing to protect.
Drunk or distracted alone is terrifyingly common, but even if the statistics aren't that bad the psychological effect of being right next to cars zooming by you still exists and it's why I would never go out riding like that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think any authoritarian societies really did better with lockdowns except maybe in projecting the fantasy that they were followed.
I guess what I'm starting to think is, lockdowns don't really work in theory because the amount of social distancing you need to contain a virus is greater than people can actually really sustain. You can maybe sustain some amount over a small period of time. But anything that approaches solitary confinement, which is essentially what is needed for the theory to work, is impossible. It seems to hit up against some kind of soft biological limit because we need to spend time with other people. And in practice people created enough exceptions within the ideal of a lockdown that the virus could never be stopped.
I think with an authoritarian country like e.g. China they could pretend to have more rigorous lockdowns. And their draconian government could even keep the charade going at great cost long after it stopped working. But I'm not sure they actually got any better results.
China actually did succeed pretty well for quite a while, and we can know this by looking at the surge that happened after they ended lockdowns.
I was going to post this. I was in China for basically all of Covid. and they were able to stop the spread, it probably wasn't worth it but they could do it. But they would literally send a city of millions into lockdown over single digit case numbers. The two weeks after they lifted were like a ghost town as everyone got sick with Covid. My local bank had to shutdown because too many employees were sick.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Britain ceased to be a democracy for much of 2020 and 2021 due to a combination of cancelled elections and the executive usurping power in a self-coup via the Coronavirus Act 2020. Britain also saw some of the most strict, severe lockdowns in the world. Stricter than Korea, Japan, and at a national level (though some cities there were worse), China. The list of countries that were stricter than Britain is a mix of other western countries, alongside a few eclectic examples like Peru.
Lockdowns are not the same thing as "people avoid interaction". There is no evidence that full lockdowns would "obviously" control the spread, starting with the problem that the lockdowns we had don't even correlate with reducing it let alone eliminating.
It is funny that you bring up Peru. I have (thorough a strange set of coincidences) spent the first big lockdown wave in Peru for many months and nothing I have experienced later on in Europe (definitely not trivial) even came close to the intensity of the Peruvian lockdown. How do you know about this if I may ask?
Peru drew my attention by topping the league tables for lockdown deaths per capita for much of 2020 and 2021 And by a huge margin, too. A fact that so-called expects were curiously incurious about considering how severe Peru's lockdown was. So I looked into it a little. Nothing in great detail, only what's available via a cursory look at what restrictions were in place, for how long, and what the results were.
You should see some of the strange excuses for Peru's bad performance that came up in the rare case it even was mentioned. Basically saying Peru did bad because it's a developing country... While neglecting that every developing country did less bad, and that the top 10 at the time was all developed countries with the sole exception of Peru way out front.
Interesting. Peru in my experience is a much poorer country than its economic numbers suggest due to the nature of its mining wealth and extreme plutocratic capture. You do feel the difference clearly just being there vs being in other countries with supposedly similar gdp/ppp per capita.
I do remember that the lockdown started about the same days as in most of Europe and it was really harsh in theory. No travel between cities/provinces or abroad. Every store not selling food closed. Constant police harassment on the street. Double masking mandatory basically everywhere etc. But I was watching Peruvian TV at the time and I also remember convoys of thousands of desperate people walking 100s kms to go back to their home villages as they were destitute in the cities without work. And every other store reopened in a week and started selling some sort of foodstuff to be allowed to operate. Many locals were secretly still doing their professions. The amount of misery around was really palpable and sad. I believe a lot of lower middle class people survived because the government allowed dipping into your mandatory pension contributions, which of course will have consequences later on..
Also at the time I assumed the corona death numbers there had some relation to the general dirtiness/dustiness/dryness and high altitude of almost the entire country. Your lungs take a real beating just being outside for while, I cannot imagine living in a Peruvian city my entire life. My nose starts bleeding regularly everytime I spend some time on the street.
Very late reply because I forgot to respond, but...
Interesting. Peru in my experience is a much poorer country than its economic numbers suggest due to the nature of its mining wealth and extreme plutocratic capture. You do feel the difference clearly just being there vs being in other countries with supposedly similar gdp/ppp per capita.
The general trend for covid is that the poorer a country is, the better it does. So anything along the lines of Peru being poorer than the data suggests makes their outlier status even more extreme.
Yes, Peru's lockdown was also unusually early relative to the arrival of covid in the country, within 9 days of first being detected. If the UK was so early, it would have entered lockdown on February 8th.
Altitude has been given as an explanation, but isn't a good one, as there are other countries with higher average altitudes, Bhutan, Nepal and Tajikistan to name 3. None of which performed anywhere near as bad as Peru.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The evidence of a full lockdowns is extremely obvious, virus particles are not magic and there must be some level of barrier that if consistently maintained would prevent their spread.
The issue is that going full lockdown is basically impossible.
Which is the entire point being made in my comment, there are some things where half measures don't work. Non full lockdowns are a bucket with a hole at the bottom of it, maybe if you have enough bucket bottom you can slow the leak but all the water will get out eventually. So if you want to carry a bunch of water with you (prevent the spread in this analogy), you need the full bucket (full secure uber authoritarian lockdown).
Yes, if we sealed everyone in their own pharoah's tomb the virus would die out pretty quickly. Not least because everybody would die, mostly from other things. We kinda need other people to live. The question is 'can we stop viral spread at a level that's realistic to maintain', to which the answer is 'no'.
Randall Munroe (xkcd) touched on this in 2014, in What If?: Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions, responding to Sarah Ewart's question "If everyone on the planet stayed away from each other for a couple of weeks, wouldn’t the common cold be wiped out?".
The conclusion was that it would cause trillions of dollars in economic damage, and wouldn't be effective due to people with compromised immune systems acting as reservoirs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's a hypothesis, not evidence...
And that's why. If you can't test something how can you possibly claim to have evidence of what it would do?
I think it is a fair baseline that COVID must follow the laws of physics and therefore spreads through some kind of physical means. And thus if that physical means wasn't possible (either through blocking it enough, distance, or other factors), it would not be able to spread.
That a full lockdown is impractical, comes with severe downsides, and isn't worth the costs doesn't change that.
There are plenty of ways a disease can spread without human contact without breaking physics.
I am not suggesting that any of these specifically apply to covid. Only that you shouldn't assume diseases follow such a trivial model as you outlined. And the empirical failure of modelling which assumes as you do to predict what happens should be a clue that maybe there's a missing piece of the puzzle here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link