Read on Twitter
1/ It seems like the dominant lockdown justification is moving from "We need to bend the curve" (buy time for ICU system to increase capacity) to "We need to save every life". As ideal as it would be to "save every life", the shifting justification is troubling. Here's why:
2/ Americans are now fully aware that there is a circulating virus for which there is no vaccine and no widespread proven treatment.
Now that we're aware of the virus, we can price in risk of infection/hospitalization/death to every decision we make.
Now that we're aware of the virus, we can price in risk of infection/hospitalization/death to every decision we make.
3/ A higher-risk person should act accordingly. Maybe self-quarantine until there's a vaccine.
A lower-risk person should leave home, work, eat out, and keep economy going. But socially distance, wash hands, + take reasonable precautions in case he's an asymptomatic carrier.
A lower-risk person should leave home, work, eat out, and keep economy going. But socially distance, wash hands, + take reasonable precautions in case he's an asymptomatic carrier.
4/ If you're a lower-risk person who wants to act like a higher-risk person, fine, self-quarantine. Reduce your chances of getting COVID to as near-zero as possible. You do you.
5/ Having a sense of how at-risk you are, you can price in the risk of Death From Coronavirus the way you price the risk of ***every other decision you make***.
6/ If nearly everyone who gets COVID prices in that risk, then carriers who unknowingly transmit it need not feel guilty as long as they are responsible and take precautions to minimize odds of transmission...
7/ because the people who *they* transmit it to are assuming the risk of getting COVID by going to the store, going to the gym, leaving their apartment, etc. And the people who are interacting with those people are assuming *that* related risk.
8/ Exponential/Multiplicative risk has ZERO to do with this specific issue, bc I am addressing personal risk levels in a scenario where either the curve has been sufficiently bent or the healthcare capacity line has been sufficiently raised.
9/ The early arguments (like 2-4 weeks ago early) for these lockdowns was bc we had to "bend the curve" aka make sure our ICU system isn't overwhelmed. That was a much more compelling argument, from a societal POV, than "We need to save every life."
10/ I know that sounds harsh, but stay with me.
There's a base assumption in the US that if you need intensive care, you're going to get it. Any threat to that assumption is societally dangerous.
If you get in a car accident, and surgery would save you, but you die...
There's a base assumption in the US that if you need intensive care, you're going to get it. Any threat to that assumption is societally dangerous.
If you get in a car accident, and surgery would save you, but you die...
11/ because the ICU is overrun, similar situations spread across thousands of hospitals in the US for days or weeks would be a threat, in a sense, to one of our basic assumptions about America: that the ER is there if you need it.
12/ What does the country look like when we can't count on our local ER in an emergency? We don't want to find out.
But now that it seems clear that "healthcare capacity" isn't monolithic, is much more local/regional than national, and that we're pretty damn good at quickly
But now that it seems clear that "healthcare capacity" isn't monolithic, is much more local/regional than national, and that we're pretty damn good at quickly
13/ increasing it where there are shortages, proponents of the lockdown are moving off the "bend the curve" justification and towards the "We need to save every life" justification. But, and here finally is my main point:
14/ That justification has no limiting principle. Bc if we're still locked down not to bend the curve but to "save every life", why should we ever open up? Why should we let people make decisions that increase their risk of injury or death? Why, IOW, assume the risks of freedom?
