Is the group more important than the individual?

[2A_Tom]

I think people should choose.[SUB][snip][/SUB]

I agree completely.

 

[DadSmith]

None of those diseases filled up hospitals. Those diseases aren’t as transferrable. I have virtually zero risk of getting aids. I don’t live that kind of lifestyle.

I’m mot making a justification for continuing to quarantine everyone indiscriminately. I think people who are at risk should choose to take the steps necessary to protect themselves. Do what you must according to your own need, as long as you aren’t harming others. And that last part kinda makes a grey area where people sort of split according to the way they see things. What I just described is a very individualist viewpoint. But someone who has a more group oriented viewpoint might tend to think about it differently. They’ll have a more top-down approach.

A little known thing called self governing. Our Constitution requires it. If people stop self governing the constitution becomes worthless. That's when you must have a totalitarian police state to control individuals who won't control themselves. Are we that far along yet? I don't think so. When the majority of people stop self governing we will have nothing but chaos. Then comes the police state.

 

[MCgrease08]

*Redacted because of a cross post in the other CV thread. Trying to keep the conversation focused in one spot.

 

[actaeon277]

Do you want to protest the absolute ineptitude and heavy handedness of NYC leaders?

Too bad. Tin pot dictator Bill deBlasio says the first amendment has no place there. No protests for you.

[video=youtube_share;ZdkH_39pK2w]http://youtu.be/ZdkH_39pK2w[/video]

I JUST posted that in the politic of covid thread.

1 comment.
Tim started about a protest in Indiana, shooting of an "unarmed" man.. but then he walked it back and said he doesn't know.

 

[2A_Tom]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

[KLB]

None of those diseases filled up hospitals. Those diseases aren’t as transferrable. I have virtually zero risk of getting aids. I don’t live that kind of lifestyle.

I’m mot making a justification for continuing to quarantine everyone indiscriminately. I think people who are at risk should choose to take the steps necessary to protect themselves. Do what you must according to your own need, as long as you aren’t harming others. And that last part kinda makes a grey area where people sort of split according to the way they see things. What I just described is a very individualist viewpoint. But someone who has a more group oriented viewpoint might tend to think about it differently. They’ll have a more top-down approach.

How are the other strains of flu not as transferable?

The biggest difference I see between the flu and covid is that every case of covid is tracked and reported. They do not do that for the flu. We don't know who had the flu, nor do we know who died because of it. It is all just guesses.

For covid, we know who died from it, because we test everyone suspected of having it. Ever wonder how many that were negative had some strain of flu? That wouldn't get reported.

It looks like an estimated 10+ times more people had the flu that covid. Of course a lot more people had covid than reported, because not everyone that had it was tested or even knew they had it.

From Johns Hopkins

[FONT=noto_sansregular]Approximately 3,862,174 cases have been confirmed worldwide. There have been 1,256,972 cases in the U.S. as of May 8, 2020.*[/FONT]
[FONT=noto_sansregular]Flu: The World Health Organization estimates that 1 billion people worldwide get the flu every year.[/FONT]
[FONT=noto_sansregular]In the U.S., for Oct. 1, 2019 – Apr. 4, 2020, the CDC estimates that there were 39 million to 56 million cases of flu. (The CDC does not know the exact number because the flu is not a reportable disease in most parts of the U.S.)

[/FONT]

 

[2A_Tom]

KLB, your logic is unacceptable to the panicked.

 

[jamil]

This is a yuge sentence. I think you have nailed the biggest issue. In fact this may actually be the whole issue - and it is just hiding behind a bunch of political topics that are like veneer over the top of this, the underlying problem.

I wish I had some tiny bit of an answer but I don't know how to understand and communicate with bat-**** crazy.

Man, I'm trying. I think Johnathon Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory might help explain it, a little, but it won't help us have a common language where both sides can communicate without thinking the other is either literally Hitler or bat **** crazy. As it might apply here, conservatives/moderates have some moral foundations that progressives either don't have or don't prioritize. So they might prioritize the ones that make them think that it's immoral to go out in the public when there is a risk infecting people with a dangerous disease.

I think also it has to do with the information that people believe. With the same information available we still come to different conclusions. We don't have the same beliefs about the danger. We don't have the same beliefs about risks. We don't have the same beliefs about potential impacts of various policies. Even on INGO that was made evident. I posted something a few weeks ago about each side's opinion having some truth about it, and a lot of the hard core "start it up" people didn't seem to want to admit that the other side had any truth to what they're saying. It also seems the opposite is true, that the people most ardent on the pro-quarantine side can't admit that the anti-quarantine side has any truth behind it.

I just don't think we can have the public debate about it that we need to have to come to a resolution that most of us can live with. So it's probably best to continue as Trump is, mostly leaving things up to the states.

 

[Leadeye]

With groups, what leadership is doing is the motivation. Find out what is motivating the leadership, not the group, and the answers become clear, because many times they aren't the same.

Always follow the money...

... or the power.

 

[idkfa]

Individual, all the way. This is the only way to have a functional group.
As to lifting restrictions: all restrictions ought to be lifted immediately.
I chose that specific modal verb deliberately, as at this point, given the amount of accumulated data, it is a moral obligation to recognize that "shelter in place" caused nothing but devastation.

 

[JettaKnight]

Individual, all the way. This is the only way to have a functional group.

 

[Alpo]

Yes.

It is time for Venn diagrams.

 

[jamil]

Hey, I think this tends to confirm a hypothesis that individualist vs collectivist preference predicts a position on opening/closing the economy.

 

[Alpo]

In the context of this thread, "the group" to me is all those able-bodied individuals who want to work or who want to get back to work.

The "individual" is the one at risk of severe medical consequences if exposed to the virus.

In that regard, the "group" (i.e., the workers") rights prevail over the individual.

I know it's just wording, but most of the far left with their "save just one life" are thinking about individual rights.

Poppycock, I know. But, that's the view from their spaceship.

 

[nonobaddog]

Now there is some twisting and tap dancing.

 

[2A_Tom]

Cradle to grave, the group is responsible to feed, clothe, house, and coddle the individual and the individual must pledge fealty to the group.

 

[Alpo]

Now there is some twisting and tap dancing.

Yeah. It is strange. It really is a question of which tail wags which dog.

You guys are Schnauzers.

 

[BugI02]

Man, I'm trying. I think Johnathon Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory might help explain it, a little, but it won't help us have a common language where both sides can communicate without thinking the other is either literally Hitler or bat **** crazy. As it might apply here, conservatives/moderates have some moral foundations that progressives either don't have or don't prioritize. So they might prioritize the ones that make them think that it's immoral to go out in the public when there is a risk infecting people with a dangerous disease.

I think also it has to do with the information that people believe. With the same information available we still come to different conclusions. We don't have the same beliefs about the danger. We don't have the same beliefs about risks. We don't have the same beliefs about potential impacts of various policies. Even on INGO that was made evident. I posted something a few weeks ago about each side's opinion having some truth about it, and a lot of the hard core "start it up" people didn't seem to want to admit that the other side had any truth to what they're saying. It also seems the opposite is true, that the people most ardent on the pro-quarantine side can't admit that the anti-quarantine side has any truth behind it.

I just don't think we can have the public debate about it that we need to have to come to a resolution that most of us can live with. So it's probably best to continue as Trump is, mostly leaving things up to the states.

Kenneth Arrow’s “impossibility” theorem—or “general possibility” theorem, as he called it—answers a very basic question in the theory of collective decision-making. Say there are some alternatives to choose among. They could be policies, public projects, candidates in an election, distributions of income and labour requirements among the members of a society, or just about anything else. There are some people whose preferences will inform this choice, and the question is: which procedures are there for deriving, from what is known or can be found out about their preferences, a collective or “social” ordering of the alternatives from better to worse? The answer is startling. Arrow’s theorem says there are no such procedures whatsoever—none, anyway, that satisfy certain apparently quite reasonable assumptions concerning the autonomy of the people and the rationality of their preferences.

Survey says ... No

 

[jamil]

Survey says ... No

The theorem doesn’t apply. In this case there are just two choices. Open it up or not.

So what’s the rational choice here?

 

[2A_Tom]

The irrational choice was made to shut down everything in order to show us who is boss.

In November maybe they will learn the truth, but not likely.