The delta race

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

God Country... corpse..

That structure served western society well enough for maybe 1000 years. Sorry if you don't think it works good enough, Sir.

Someone had to keep the barbarians from entering the gate. If you want to drop god, country and corpse you may as well prepare to be overrun, and quickly, by some other place that does not share a similar deep love and compassion for the brotherhood of man.

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1.That structure served western society well enough for maybe 1000 years. Sorry if you don't think it works good enough, Sir.

2. Someone had to keep the barbarians from entering the gate. If you want to drop god, country and corpse you may as well prepare to be overrun, and quickly, by some other place that does not share a similar deep love and compassion for the brotherhood of man.

1. Please don't put it on me.  I'm a fan of whatever works, and given religion's decline, a lot of people aren't buying it anymore.

2. Like another planet or ?  Anyway religion isn't morality.  And some religious hypocrites and maniacs are doing the movement a disservice.

[OftenWrong]

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Please don't put it on me.  I'm a fan of whatever works, and given religion's decline, a lot of people aren't buying it anymore.

2. Like another planet or ?  Anyway religion isn't morality.  And some religious hypocrites and maniacs are doing the movement a disservice.

Has nothing to do with those things. Im sorry. After three times explaining, I have failed.

[myata]

Note that once again ("Wuhan", etc) the bureaucracy has led the society to the state where there's no good options. To drag the quarantines with unknown rationale and effect and face the backlash, eventually a part of population would just ignore everything. To lift it now, and get OK you got you quarantines now get lost and ignore everything. The race is to the bottom, not which decision, option etc is the best, allows the society to manage the epidemics while keeping more or less normal life but which one is not absolutely and obviously the worst, and even that is not always clear. Are we going to succeed, with this strategy and attitude in this century? Why? When and where ignoring the reality has been a winning strategy?

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, myata said:

1. even that is not always clear. 2.Are we going to succeed, with this strategy and attitude in this century? Why? When and where ignoring the reality has been a winning strategy?

1. Agreed

2. What strategy? You can't expect people to provide perfect outcomes in the chaotic situation with no consensus and myriad stakeholders.  Armchair strategy isn't helpful

[myata]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. What strategy? You can't expect people to provide perfect outcomes in the chaotic situation with no consensus and myriad stakeholders.  Armchair strategy isn't helpful

In an active and engaged democratic society the objective is very clear: minimize the impact of the epidemics AND the disruption to the society, both, simultaneously and together, not one or the other, instead of another, because that would be a race to the bottom with inevitable outcome of minimal progress with maximum disruption.

Right, "oh so new" all over and again, two decades after SARS. And why should it be any different, like what's the incentive? Phoenix took a decade to cancel.

Edited June 6, 2021 by myata

[myata]

In the absence of outside checks, controls and stimuli a bureaucracy will always choose the path of maximum cost with minimal action. This is trivial, maximize benefits and minimize risks where every non trivial action has inherent risk. Are we here to offer practical illustration of the basics of game theory?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

1. the objective is very clear: minimize the impact of the epidemics AND the disruption to the society, both, simultaneously and together, not one or the other, 

2. Right, "oh so new" all over and again, two decades after SARS. And why should it be any different, like what's the incentive? Phoenix took a decade to cancel.

1. Armchair strategizing, from what I can see.  You make it sound so simple.  And yet, you give two objectives while implying that there can be no trade off between them?

2. Sars and Phoenix were different problems.  I'm an armchair strategist also, so I know one when I read one ?

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You make it sound so simple.  And yet, you give two objectives while implying that there can be no trade off between them?

Sorry can't take the credit. People not only made these objectives but actually achieved them in reality. And that involves intelligent dialogue with the society that cannot happen if and when one side simply has no reasons, no slightest incentives for an intelligent conversation and may very well have forgotten what it is and how it's done.

And of course in any complex problem there will be different factors, difference of opinions and tradeoffs. It's exactly those that need to be communicated and discussed in intelligent conversations, proposed solutions based on sound logic and evidence (not finger in the sky "projections" or "WHO") and implemented effectively and efficiently. This is what it would take to have an intelligent and effective public policy in this century. Now how close it is to the observed status quo.

Edited June 6, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

1. People not only made these objectives but actually achieved them in reality.  

2. And of course in any complex problem there will be different factors, difference of opinions and tradeoffs.

3. It's exactly those that need to be communicated and discussed in intelligent conversations, proposed solutions based on sound logic and evidence (not finger in the sky "projections" or "WHO") and implemented effectively and efficiently.

4. This is what it would take to have an intelligent and effective public policy in this century. Now how close it is to the observed status quo.

1. Who dat ?
2. What a relief, and how generous for you to admit that...  Sorry for the snark here, but I have to get to know you better before I accept that you could have a point... I'm getting there slowly...
3. Sure... but in Ontario, for example, we have a guy who owned a printing company who thinks he is qualified to make decisions.  Behind him are faceless leagues of bureaucrats who could be brilliant or useless, we have no idea.
4. I hear you on this, really I do.  But you don't show up at a circus hoping that there will be a good debate on Climate Change.  The media can't tell the difference between an expert and a public relations person, for one thing.  "The" public can't be expected to understand the issues, and yet is told that their opinion is important.  And they aren't presented with knowledgable points of view, or people who can explain the domain of options clearly.  Every choice is presented as a political right/left choice or dumbed down in other ways.  I listened to a call in show where they invited an epidemeologist to take calls and the host and callers were asking about health policies and vaccines.  I mean, even the host was asking.
 

[myata]

The question of armchair strategy is very valid. In the absence of honest information (and that's whole separate discussion) and meaningful options to contribute, the choice, opinion-wise is very limited: ignore; obey blindly; or reject outright. Privately one can decide for themselves what makes sense or not and as I see most people do in some way. Nothing else makes sense because it's like talking to the Moon, pointless.

We may well be at or near the turning point; the time and technology definitely allow the citizens more direct and more meaningful involvement in understanding and influencing the decisions that affect everybody. But as always its left up to the society to find and create these new mechanisms, to change, to renew or to get stuck in its ways and hope that next time it would be better. No guarantees, miracles or surprises.

Edited June 6, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, myata said:

1. the choice, opinion-wise is very limited: ignore; obey blindly; or reject outright. Privately one can decide for themselves what makes sense or not and as I see most people do in some way. Nothing else makes sense because it's like talking to the Moon, pointless.

2. We may well be at or near the turning point; the time and technology definitely allow the citizens more direct and more meaningful involvement in understanding and influencing the decisions that affect everybody.

3. But as always its left up to the society to find and create these new mechanisms, to change, to renew or to get stuck in its ways and hope that next time it would be better. 

1. Ok.
2. I agree with this the most.
3. Sort of, but we are in an ecosystem and the "old" ways of engaging with "the" public (ie. television in the context I mean) are horribly inefficient and appear fake.  Unless someone adopts the newest guise of "reality" television then it looks horrible... like Hillary Clinton in a blood red pantsuit.  But "reality television" isn't reality, and anybody with a brain would know this.  Yet, millions watch.... hmmmm..... The perfect leader, someone who is honest, intelligent and doesn't promise a happy ending, wouldn't fly with that crowd.  It's much easier to make the politics itself the end point of governance tne argue political identity over substance.  "Owning the libs" or "Punishing Diaper Don" are great strategies for winning elections for such people.

 

[myata]

Maybe what would help is citizens investigation panels, for essential matters. Something along the lines of juries. Not parliamentary commissions useless as much as over expensive and too late for anything in a partisan political system. The same old principle if the citizens could not do, who could? And if they wouldn't care who should?