Everything about traveling ambitiously while spending judiciously. Travel Cheap & Travel Smart.
A subreddit for memes relating to grad school, life as a graduate student, etc.
Token-curated registries are decentrally-curated lists with intrinsic economic incentives for token holders to curate the list’s contents judiciously.
I wrote most of this as a comment on another post, and I feel I've stated my position pretty well. I realize that my karma is likely (I think) to take a hit as a result of my posting this here, but I think there is important information here, of which a lot of people seem to be unaware. I also think I've made some logical arguments which some people have not considered. I would greatly appreciate if folks could read this with an open mind. I've really tried to be non-confrontational in the way this is composed.
First of all, 'lockdown' is generally a bit of a misnomer. By and large, no one has been locked away. Most lockdowns have just meant that some businesses were ordered to close or limit the type of services offered, on penalty, usually, of fines. This is well within the appropriate actions for a government to take in response to a public health crisis. Just as coercing people to get vaccinated is, theoretically, appropriate--and that generally doesn't happen anyway.
My getting vaccinated not only protects me, it protects all of the people I might infect if I were infected. As well as all the people they, in turn, would infect. And all the people
they would infect.
Likewise, if my participation in some particular activity makes me more susceptible to infection, then preventing me from participating in said activity protects everyone.
In economic terms, this is what is called an externality. The resulting protection of the public at large from infection is a public good. This is an important role for government--in fact, some would argue that the provision of public goods is the
only appropriate role for government.
It is true that lockdowns are a limitation of personal freedom. Many have expressed that they feel they should be able to make the choice of putting themselves at risk.
The problem with this is,
you're not the only one you're putting at risk in making such a choice. If you do contract the virus, you are likely to infect other people, including people who did not volunteer to risk exposure. None of the preventative measures we have are 100% effective. The most effective measure is to
limit in-person interaction with other people--in other words,
lockdowns. This is especially true because the data suggests that the virus can be transmitted while the host is still asymptomatic. It is also significant that early symptoms can be mild and difficult for some people to recognize.
And if you do contract the virus, and you are aware that you are infected and take precautions against spreading it, you will likely still encounter situations in which you are unable to avoid potentially exposing others. Very few people are able to completely isolate themselves for multiple weeks, and it's entirely impossible if they need to seek medical treatment. Just going out to get tested
to see if you have the virus, you may potentially infect others.
The point is, as I said before, you may be willing to risk your own exposure, but because preventative measures are not absolutely, 100% effective, if you do contract the virus, you are likely to expose people who are not willing and who have been very careful not to risk exposure. Not to mention, the vast majority of people who do not wish to risk exposure are not able to
completely avoid such risk. Everyone needs groceries. Not everyone can afford to have them delivered, and even those who can risk being exposed by the delivery person--or the virus may be on the groceries themselves.
With infectious diseases, epidemiologists try to create a statistic known as r0, or r-nought. This represents the number of people an infected individual is likely to infect. COVID-19 had proven difficult to pin down in terms of r0. It seems the r0 for COVID might be as low as 2.2... but it might be as high as
6--or higher. 2.2 isn't the best. 6 is kinda bad.
https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-020-02501-x https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#covid-19-r-0 https://www.the-scientist.com/features/why-r0-is-problematic-for-predicting-covid-19-spread-67690 Furthermore, I've seen
one study which suggests that lockdowns reduced the rate at which the coronavirus mutates, which makes it easier to vaccinate against--which puts us closer to an end to this mess. Doesn't seem like that bad a tradeoff. Give up dining out for a while so that we can end this ordeal sooner, and go back to normal life,
with no need for lockdowns any more.
Most of us, by now, have likely heard that one of the main goals of a lockdown is to 'flatten the curve,' to make the crisis more manageable for hospitals and other healthcare providers.
In case you're unaware what the situation was like in New York during the early months of the pandemic... The hospitals were
very much overwhelmed. It got scary. Their morgues were so full, they had to store bodies in multiple refrigerated trucks parked outside.
Seriously, we're talking
mass graves.
The New York Times: Why 530 Frozen Bodies Sit in a Brooklyn Warehouse And then there's this, from Russia:
NBC News: Deaths of two doctors bring Russia's lack of protective equipment into sharp focus The New York Times: As Coronavirus Overruns Russia, Doctors Are Dying on the Front Lines And just the other day, I read several articles which said that there are NO open ICU beds in Los Angeles.
The Daily Briefing: No ICU capacity: How hospitals are responding to the worst Covid-19 surge yet KGO-TV: Southern California ICU capacity drops to 0% while LA County COVID cases soar San Francisco Chronicle: California is at 0% ICU availability. Here’s what that number really means And the infection rate is still on the rise. It's going to get worse before it gets better.
Yes, lockdowns have negative consequences, and they need to be considered very carefully before implementation. Lockdowns are not to be employed blithely. But they are an acceptable and appropriate response to a public health crisis.
Perhaps the problem is that this event is so extreme and unusual that it is without precedent in your lifetime, so everything seems extreme and unusual. Perhaps you should look back to the last pandemic--influenza, 1918. The Spanish Flu. Read up on responses, efficacy, not to mention the effects of the pandemic itself.
It's worth pointing out that my personal ideology and philosophy place a very high value on individual liberty. I believe in limited government. In fact, I firmly believe that the best governments are those designed with the protection of the rights of the individual as the first and primary consideration. But the statistics, the basic logic, and the anecdotal evidence all support the need for lockdowns in some situations.
Here are a couple of links to evidence regarding the efficacy of lockdowns:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/19/covid-lockdown-shows-signs-working-england-expert-neil-ferguson https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext Edit: Basically the response I expected. I even anticipated the hostility. It was reeeally tempting to meet hostility with hostility, but I thought that would be counterproductive. But honestly, I kinda wonder if it would have made any difference at all. Probably would have been just as productive to respond 'fuck off, asshole' to every single comment. Doubt it would have changed a thing.
Is it unclear that I specifically avoided absolutes? Absolutes are unrealistic. I didn't say lockdowns should always be used, everywhere, across the board... I said there is an argument to justify their
judicious, limited use.
Fair warning, I don't think I'll be responding in the comments any more. Doesn't accomplish anything. Too much to hope for actual civil discussion/debate on reddit, I guess. Or... I guess I was hoping this sub was more than an echo chamber.
submitted by judiciously Bedeutung, Definition judiciously: 1. in a way that has or shows reason and good judgment in making decisions: 2. in a way that has…. Englisch-Deutsch-Übersetzungen für judiciously im Online-Wörterbuch dict.cc (Deutschwörterbuch). dict.cc Übersetzungen für 'judiciously' im Englisch-Deutsch-Wörterbuch, mit echten Sprachaufnahmen, Illustrationen, Beugungsformen, ... Judiciously definition, in a way that shows good judgment or discernment; wisely or prudently:Food labels are required for a reason, and I use them judiciously to avoid chemicals and ingredients I don't want in my body. See more. Übersetzung Englisch-Deutsch für judiciously im PONS Online-Wörterbuch nachschlagen! Gratis Vokabeltrainer, Verbtabellen, Aussprachefunktion. Define judiciously. judiciously synonyms, judiciously pronunciation, judiciously translation, English dictionary definition of judiciously. adj. Having or exhibiting sound judgment; prudent. ju·di′cious·ly adv. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright ©...