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 -
The COVID lockdowns in the UK point to a darker problem with expertise. Life is short, people grow old and die; it takes about 70 years. Suppose that being locked down causes a 10% reduction in quality of life (I'd prefer to say 50%, but I'll err on too low because I want to focus on a different controversy). Government locks down 70 million people for a year, which costs 7 million Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Actual deaths, if spread across the age range, cost 35 QALY's each. The lock down needs to be saving 200 thousand lives to break even. But deaths from COVID were concentrated among the frail elderly. Say 7 QALY's each. To break even the lock down needed to save the lives of one million frail old people. It is not remotely plausible that it did so.
The lockdowns were a national disaster on the scale of 200 thousand dead. Compare that to American loses in Vietnam at 50 thousand. The lockdowns were a huge national disaster.
But how did it happen? The experts were socialized into an "identified cause" model of morbidity. If something specific kills you, that counts. If something makes you a year older, that counts zero. Since zero times anything is still zero, it doesn't matter how many people are affected. Basically expertise here was so narrow in scope that the fact that people grow old and die lay outside of its scope and was neglected.
The darker problem is that growing old and dying is basic to the human condition. The experts let themselves be socialized into collective insanity. I don't see any way around this. Experts are dangerous in much the same way that fire is dangerous. Essential despite being dangerous. You have to be able to spot that experts have gone mad and flat out reject what they say.
Yes, this is my main criticism of lockdowns from the perspective of health, and why I was deeply skeptical of them from day 1. There's no possible way for anything but short lockdowns that inexplicably eradicate covid forever to be a net QALY gain. You don't even need to look at long-term second and third order effects to determine that. Just the immediete acute loss in QALY from being put under lockdown restrictions already does more damage than covid could possibly do.
As for how big the effect on quality of life is, EQ-5D-5L puts a moderate reduction in ability to do usual activities (work, study, school, all sorts of things lockdowns prohibit) as a 12% reduction in quality of life. Severe as a 22% reduction. Severe + slight anxiety or depression as a 28% reduction. Severe in both is a 47% reduction. So the actual answer for lockdown's median effect on QALY probably is somewhere between 10% and 50%. This is a question that absolutely could be answered by chucking some money into getting a randomly sampled survey done.
As much as simple ignorance would be a comforting explanation, prior to lockdowns, experts in public health were perfectly happy to use QALY thinking for decisionmaking. They only abandoned such cost/benefit analysis specifically when doing lockdowns, which suggests more ideological or malicious intentions.
More options
Context Copy link
Was it experts that made the call though? Or was it politicians? Testimony going on right now indicates that Boris reversed course not because of expert advice but because of public pressure.
"Sir Patrick wrote that Mr Johnson said his party "thinks the whole thing is pathetic and Covid is just nature's way of dealing with old people - and I am not entirely sure I disagree with them. A lot of moderate people think it is a bit too much."
But then Boris wants to rely on public polling as to what he should do. And that fits with what I have been told by other MP's I know, that they were getting swamped with emails and letters from their constituents about needing to do more.
Indeed we saw Boris had analysis (by experts) that the average age of death was 81-85 and only 4% of under 60's even have to go to hospital and "we may need to recalibrate" and "it shows we don't go for nationwide lockdown"
2 weeks later he announced new lockdowns because it wasn't "politically viable yet to change course" i.e. because of public pressure.
Didn't that Imperial College model (by experts) confidently stating that Something Must Be Done or Several Zillion Will Die come out right around then? Whether Boris was listening to Imperial or a bunch of panicky people who were listening to Imperial, the root still lies with the experts.
I think that was the one in March, and this was October, where he says he doesn't believe the NHS will get overwhelmed etc (which is one of the things that report said).
But he could certainly have said that, and changed course. Possibly the public would have pushed back, and maybe you can trace that back to that report. But 1) he didn't try and 2) The PM can find his own experts to say the opposite , and 3) We're now a long way from experts being the ones that decided it, rather that some experts said something that people believed and wanted their politicians to act upon, their politicians knew better and did so anyway.
Experts don't exactly seem the chief problem there. ..
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why did the public swamp politicians? Did somebody tell them to? Perhaps a shiny box in their pocket or in their living room?
The flaw of democracy is that most people are extremely influenceable by what other people tell them, especially if these other people seem to know what they are talking about. Anybody with a pile of money large enough to get a sufficiently large enough megaphone and some respectable-looking attire can legally, publicly influence policy in democratic countries toward any outcome without any repercussion.
This is essentially what the Democrats and their media machine claimed Russia did in the 2016 American elections, but somehow we are still playing this same game.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link