tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2222651913141022653..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The lockdown is no longer morally justifiableEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53122152067907076822020-07-24T03:06:44.750-07:002020-07-24T03:06:44.750-07:00I'm definitely concerned that the universal lo...I'm definitely concerned that the universal lockdown in my home city. Ed, you say authorities can only prevent people from exercising their natural rights if it is strictly necessary for the common good. This lockdown definitely does not seem 'strictly necessary'. Can you elaborate on how you use the term 'common good' here? If it's the aggregate of individual goods (healthy individuals) I guess the virus is harming the common good. But if it's something other than the aggregate of individual goods, as I have heard some say, then maybe it's not being harmed.Poiternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88750809093767157142020-06-03T14:38:57.954-07:002020-06-03T14:38:57.954-07:00@LonelyProfessor
So you claim you wanted to say
I...@LonelyProfessor<br />So you claim you wanted to say <br />If (1) IFR has this and that value, (2) R0 has this and that value, and (3) the serial intervall is this and that value,<br />then (catastrophe),<br />and whoever denies "this" is either stupid or a right wing hack?<br />That is not how it reads, given your comments on the matter in other threads, but it would be a possible interpretation. It does nothing however to save your argument.<br />Pray tell, what is "this"? It clearly shifts meaning because the right wing hacks will tell you that your premise is likely wrong, and the actual data - even with all the intentional overcounting - actually proves it to be wrong. That you demand people take your assumptions for gospel and panic accordingly is amusing. That you preemptively resort to namecalling by actually claiming that whoever disagrees with you must be stupid and/or "right wing" is telling.<br />However, given that you want to take it down to right wing vs left wing - what do you say to your fellow leftwing rioters not taking careful social distancing measures while burning down American cities? Are they really trying to kill 1-2 million of people (according to your assumptions) in the next couple of weeks?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38563576062755311292020-06-03T05:53:06.984-07:002020-06-03T05:53:06.984-07:00Lockdown is usually a good measure but since human...Lockdown is usually a good measure but since human lives are at stake perhaps a better alternate is required to make things workJamie Carterhttps://wvw.123movie.ccnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66609990585034798922020-06-02T14:02:09.016-07:002020-06-02T14:02:09.016-07:00At least you have a pride in your sophistic craft ...At least you have a pride in your sophistic craft then and strive to do better....Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33873464194445680422020-06-02T07:05:06.024-07:002020-06-02T07:05:06.024-07:00Jeremy Taylor,
Don't worry, it isn't just ...Jeremy Taylor,<br /><i>Don't worry, it isn't just him who thinks that your comments are incredibly dishonest, One Brow.</i><br /><br />If you thought my comments were honest, I would probably need to look them over an figure out what I did wrong.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90764090258543729372020-06-02T06:01:38.083-07:002020-06-02T06:01:38.083-07:00@Anonymous,
"Your core argument was:
If the...@Anonymous,<br /><br />"Your core argument was:<br /><br />If the IFR has this and that value,<br />then R0 must have this and that value,<br />and only right-wing hacks come to a different conclusion than I, the LonelyProfessor."<br /><br />Uh, no, that was not my core argument. If you think it was you are either 1) really stupid, 2) really ignorant, or 3) really dishonest. NOWHERE did I even imply the value of R0 was dependent on IFR. You don't know what you're talking about; and, worse, you don't care that you don't know what you're talking about.<br /><br />Now apparently NO ONE here is willing to admit that if, indeed, the estimates of R0 and IFR which I provided are accurate, this predicts a health catastrophe without social distancing measures in place. Even though the math is quite straightforward. This is a philosophy blog. You are supposed to care about the truth. You evidently don't.<br />LonelyProfessornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30866268048663735242020-06-01T20:46:32.473-07:002020-06-01T20:46:32.473-07:00Don't worry, it isn't just him who thinks ...Don't worry, it isn't just him who thinks that your comments are incredibly dishonest, One Brow.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69284311955420911672020-06-01T15:21:44.930-07:002020-06-01T15:21:44.930-07:00Feeding the Troll,
This must be the most dishonest...Feeding the Troll,<br /><i>This must be the most dishonest post in this entire comment section. Congratulations, One Brow.</i><br /><br />Not at all. This comment to which I am responding exceeds any measure of dishonesty you imagine in me.<br /><br /><i>It is breathtakingly disingenuous to feign confusion over the meaning of "normal";</i><br /><br />I'm good with "usual, typical, or expected".<br /><br />Being stabbed in the heart is not normal; dying after you are stabbed in the heart is normal. Having a healthcare be overwhelmed is not normal; having a health care system that was overwhelmed during a pandemic might be normal.<br /><br /><i>admitting defeat after being refuted does not mean the refutation was not necessary because you "had already admitted" defeat;</i><br /><br />Refuting a point a second time, when I acknowledged the correction after the first refutation, is pointless. For a presentist, doesn't the claim cease to exist when I cease to make it?<br /><br />However, what's even more amusing is that you seem to think acknowledging a correction is a "defeat". That's pretty sad, frankly. Learning how and when I was wrong can make discussion very interesting.<br /><br /><i>you clearly don't know what R0 is (the CDC article explicitly quoted in this comment section should help);</i><br /><br />If I'm wrong, perhaps you could name a disease with an R0 under 1 that became a pandemic?<br /><br /><i>simply refusing to understand the numbers for Germany does not make the example Germany vanish;</i><br /><br />I agree. It's also true that claiming the R0 for Germany was less than 1 does not make it true. Maybe you'll step up for Anonymous and provide evidence for this claim?<br /><br /><i>the distinction "social distancing" / "social distancing measures" was made in Anonymous' first response to LonelyProfessor (May 28, last paragraph), in the very beginning of this thread (its meaning obvious but in the face of remarkable obtuseness displayed by you even further explained in response to your first intervention in this thread).</i><br /><br />I didn't find any comment where the distinction was made in the last paragraph. I did see one where it was buried in the middle of the third-to-last paragraph, and there was no definition offered for the difference. Since a "measure" in the sense used refers to "a plan or course of action taken to achieve a particular purpose" and does not necessarily involve any sort of government mandate, you could easily say that I am taking social distancing measures.<br /><br />As for "meaning obvious", some people might think the definition of "last paragraph" would be obvious, but you never know.<br /><br /><i>All in all every single salient point of your entire argument was at best mistaken. </i><br /><br />All in all, your judgment in these matters is proving unreliable.<br /><br /><i>Sadly, it seems far more likely that most if not all of your "points" were made in bad faith.</i><br /><br />I have every confidence that just about all of comments will seem *to you* as if they were made in bad faith.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86910070517496565122020-06-01T11:37:06.015-07:002020-06-01T11:37:06.015-07:00This must be the most dishonest post in this entir...This must be the most dishonest post in this entire comment section. Congratulations, One Brow.<br /><br />It is breathtakingly disingenuous to feign confusion over the meaning of "normal"; <br /><br />admitting defeat after being refuted does not mean the refutation was not necessary because you "had already admitted" defeat; <br /><br />you clearly don't know what R0 is (the CDC article explicitly quoted in this comment section should help); <br /><br />simply refusing to understand the numbers for Germany does not make the example Germany vanish; <br /><br />the distinction "social distancing" / "social distancing measures" was made in Anonymous' first response to LonelyProfessor (May 28, last paragraph), in the very beginning of this thread (its meaning obvious but in the face of remarkable obtuseness displayed by you even further explained in response to your first intervention in this thread).<br /><br />All in all every single salient point of your entire argument was at best mistaken. Sadly, it seems far more likely that most if not all of your "points" were made in bad faith.Feeding the Trollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11412007077775564682020-06-01T07:03:43.032-07:002020-06-01T07:03:43.032-07:00Feeding the Troll,
I am happy to provide your mea...Feeding the Troll,<br /><br />I am happy to provide your meal for you.<br /><br /><i>(1) Sweden's health care system is not overwhelmed. Whoever claims that it is needs to show some evidence, not the person assuming normalcy absent any indication of abnormality.</i><br /><br />In a time where health systems have been overwhelmed all over the world, what counts as "normalcy"?<br /><br />Still, the Swedes were certainly concerned about it as of May 5.<br /><br />https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86256<br /><br /><i>(2) Showing that NYC easily beats Sweden in the "who leads the world in cumulative covid-19 deaths" refutes the troll's claim that Sweden is leading in that category. Clearly that is "informative," although for most people not oblivious to the facts surrounding the pandemic this information is hardly new.</i><br /><br />Well, since I had already acknowledged the prior evidence that Sweden is only fifth in terms of countries, there was no longer a claim to defeat. However, if you're going to compare a country to a city, why not take it further and compare some nursing home with a 30% to a country? By that measure, every country's policy has been an outrageous success! <br /><br />Why yes, that does sound stupid.<br /><br /><i>(3) If only the troll had read and understood what "in Germany R0 was below 1 before lockdown measures were put in place" means. </i><br /><br />Well, I was trying to explain what that would mean to the troll, but they are stubborn. A disease with an R0 of less than 1 before social distancing couldn't grow into a pandemic in the first place.<br /><br /><i>A second example would be Japan, which has not implemented any social distancing measures because apparently the Japanese government takes the Japanese constitution seriously.</i><br /><br />You still need a first example. Despite the press, Sweden did engage in some "social distancing measures", as you define it below, by banning gatherings of over 50 people. Japan closed schools, has entry restrictions, and is in an official state of emergency.<br /><br />Japan acted earlier than the US, with a culture of compliance toward the government suggestions. You don't need mandatory lockdowns in a culture where citizens will lock themselves down voluntarily.<br /><br />Of course, trolls have trouble with such distinctions. They tend to be such black-and-white creatures.<br /><br /><i>Note the persistence of the troll in ignoring the explicit distinction made between "social distancing" and "social distancing measures" (defined as implemented by the state with force of law).</i><br /><br />Note how trolls only decide to apply definitions after the fact in an attempt to win an argument.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90634124496624276112020-05-31T08:09:04.337-07:002020-05-31T08:09:04.337-07:00Troll in response to anonymous:
"So the pers...Troll in response to anonymous:<br /><br />"So the person (maybe, who knows with the anonymi?) who referred to "... the lack of extinction of the Swedes", claimed without evidence that the Swedish health care system has not been overwhelmed, thinks comparing the results from a largely rural population to a metropolis is informative, and think the R0 of covid19 was below 1 without social distancing measures (which happened no where in the world) is calling me a troll?"<br /><br />(1) Sweden's health care system is not overwhelmed. Whoever claims that it is needs to show some evidence, not the person assuming normalcy absent any indication of abnormality.<br />(2) Showing that NYC easily beats Sweden in the "who leads the world in cumulative covid-19 deaths" refutes the troll's claim that Sweden is leading in that category. Clearly that is "informative," although for most people not oblivious to the facts surrounding the pandemic this information is hardly new.<br />(3) If only the troll had read and understood what "in Germany R0 was below 1 before lockdown measures were put in place" means. A second example would be Japan, which has not implemented any social distancing measures because apparently the Japanese government takes the Japanese constitution seriously.<br />Note the persistence of the troll in ignoring the explicit distinction made between "social distancing" and "social distancing measures" (defined as implemented by the state with force of law).Feeding the Trollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1996012521142652702020-05-31T07:27:05.976-07:002020-05-31T07:27:05.976-07:00Jeremy Taylor,
I second that One Brow is certainly...Jeremy Taylor,<br /><i>I second that One Brow is certainly a sophist and pathologically dishonest, from my experience, if not an out and out troll. I imagine this will quickly become the general consensus around here if he sticks around.</i><br /><br />I see you still have hurt feelings after our last exchange. You really shouldn't linger on these things. It's bad for you, but it really doesn't bother me at all. You're only hurting yourself.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28252674842161772502020-05-31T07:25:00.433-07:002020-05-31T07:25:00.433-07:00Anonymous,
Now that would seem to indicate that Sw...Anonymous,<br /><i>Now that would seem to indicate that Sweden does not, in fact, "lead the world in deaths per capita"</i><br /><br />Thank you for the correction. Being fifth per capita is not exactly a resounding success of their policies, as I am sure you will agree.<br /><br /><i>You could be less obvious in spreading false information. Your description of what LonelyProfessor did bears little resemblance with reality.</i><br /><br />I didn't describe what LonelyProfessor did. <br /> I explained why I did not replay to a single comment on R0, and then only to point out that it confirmed on what we had been seeing (that in some ares where the social distancing measures were implemented successfully, R0 was reduced to below 1). Frankly, I have nothing particularly positive or negative to comment upon regarding LonelyProfessor's comment.<br /><br /><i>You have me convinced of one thing, though. I blame myself for giving you the benefit of the doubt and ending up feeding a troll.</i><br /><br />So the person (maybe, who knows with the anonymi?) who referred to "... the lack of extinction of the Swedes", claimed without evidence that the Swedish health care system has not been overwhelmed, thinks comparing the results from a largely rural population to a metropolis is informative, and think the R0 of covid19 was below 1 without social distancing measures (which happened no where in the world) is calling me a troll?<br /><br />Well, I'll take that criticism with all the seriousness you heave earned through your various meanderings.<br /><br /><i>My apologies to everyone else for doing so. I won't in the future.</i><br /><br />I strongly support you in this effort.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31242150745280315522020-05-30T17:39:41.912-07:002020-05-30T17:39:41.912-07:00"But the draconian total lockdown that was pu... "But the draconian total lockdown that was put in place across most of the country is at this"<br /><br />There was never a TOTAL Lockdown across most of the country. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16023468198428339122020-05-30T14:50:57.776-07:002020-05-30T14:50:57.776-07:00I second that One Brow is certainly a sophist and ...I second that One Brow is certainly a sophist and pathologically dishonest, from my experience, if not an out and out troll. I imagine this will quickly become the general consensus around here if he sticks around.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50275020882393973072020-05-30T08:19:20.977-07:002020-05-30T08:19:20.977-07:00Dear One Brow,
you claim Sweden "lead(s) the ...Dear One Brow,<br />you claim Sweden "lead(s) the world in deaths per capita".<br />Thankfully that claim can be checked. Looking at today's WHO data (WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard - Data last updated: 2020/5/30, 9:37am CEST) some of the death per 1 million population figures are:<br />Belgium 810, Spain 621, United Kingdom 556, Italy 548, France 438, Sweden 422, USA 303.<br />Now that would seem to indicate that Sweden does not, in fact, "lead the world in deaths per capita"<br />And as some already have pointed out, New York City numbers say they have roughly 21,500 deaths, so if we are generous and say New York City has a population of 9,000,000 that would be about 2,389 per million population. Slightly worse than Sweden.<br /><br />You could be less obvious in spreading false information. Your description of what LonelyProfessor did bears little resemblance with reality.<br /><br />You have me convinced of one thing, though. I blame myself for giving you the benefit of the doubt and ending up feeding a troll.<br /><br />My apologies to everyone else for doing so. I won't in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31370541794316403142020-05-30T06:15:02.076-07:002020-05-30T06:15:02.076-07:00Anonymous (I really wish each of you anonymi would...Anonymous (I really wish each of you anonymi would choose some sort of signature for yourselves to end your posts with, so we could tell you apart more reliably),<br /><br /><i>Perhaps you recall the efforts to explain the lack of extinction of the Swedes? Since Sweden did not implement a lockdown the predictions of some current models would have called for a much quicker spread of the disease, which should have overwhelmed the Swedish health care system and resulted in many more deaths. </i><br /><br />I don't recall any authority ever putting "extinction" on the table as a possible outcome. I don't know if the Swedish healthcare system has been overwhelmed, but they lead the world in deaths per capita, so that would be evidence in favor of "many more deaths". Did you have some argument in mind that Sweden's approach was successful?<br /><br /><i>As a general matter of principle, my remarks are not a "claim" of some facts. I wrote "seem to" for a reason.</i><br /><br />So, you're one of the anonymi who's just arguing from hot air. OK.<br /><br /><i> Apparently you think that the LonelyProfessor who assured us that "it's certainly true that today, social distancing measures have reduced R0 to below 1"</i><br /><br />LonelyProfessor was referring to the evidence of reduced transmission we have seen after social distancing measures were implemented. There are all sorts of timelines where you can see the number of cases fall over time a few weeks after measures are taken. What I have not seen is evidence of cases falling in areas where no social distancing measures are being taken. LonelyProfessor made a claim I have seen multiple evidences for, you made a claim I have seen no evidence for, and one that is contrary to the evidence I have seen.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4564858293854384912020-05-30T06:00:20.716-07:002020-05-30T06:00:20.716-07:00Anonymous,
It seems we have the same reading afte...Anonymous,<br /><br />It seems we have the same reading after all. Thank you for acknowledging that Dr. Feser was also talking about financial distress in addition to the right to work. I'm sure you can see how responding by saying that we don't have evidence of massive financial distress is not making any sort of argument at all about the right to work.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68973774214638519672020-05-29T10:54:32.894-07:002020-05-29T10:54:32.894-07:00Why we have a different reading I do not know eith...Why we have a different reading I do not know either. However, I'd maintain that my reading is correct. The last sentence of that third paragraph of the "natural right" section you got your initial quote from seems to indicate that as well.<br /><br />"Keeping in mind that what we are really talking about is interference with a basic human right reminds us of the situation’s true urgency."<br />Remember the second paragraph explained why the rhetorical framing of "saving lives" versus saving "the economy" does hinder proper appreciation of the argument from the right to earn a living.<br /><br />The "paycheck to paycheck" remark shows it is urgent also from a standpoint of survival because (absent further intervention) the economic impact of the lockdown is the depletion of the life savings of millions and millions of human beings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55400043128688880902020-05-29T07:45:58.566-07:002020-05-29T07:45:58.566-07:00What do you mean "source"? I cannot poin...What do you mean "source"? I cannot point you to a readily google-able compilation of the R0-estimates over time for the last months, neither for the US nor for any other country.<br /><br />Perhaps you recall the efforts to explain the lack of extinction of the Swedes? Since Sweden did not implement a lockdown the predictions of some current models would have called for a much quicker spread of the disease, which should have overwhelmed the Swedish health care system and resulted in many more deaths. When that did not happen, one explanation was that Swedes observed social distancing practices without a government fiat; similarly for Germany, where the reproduction rate of the virus has fallen below 1 before the first lockdown measures were taken (you can look at the German RKI's situation reports which are archived and accessible via www.rki.de but to my knowledge you have to do the timeline yourself).<br /><br />That is why I made a distinction between "social distancing" and "measures" taken by governments.<br /><br />As a general matter of principle, my remarks are not a "claim" of some facts. I wrote "seem to" for a reason.<br /><br />Generally what you are doing goes to the core of the matter, that is who has to justify their assertions. Apparently you think that the LonelyProfessor who assured us that "it's certainly true that today, social distancing measures have reduced R0 to below 1" does not have to defend this extraordinary claim when reasonable questions are posed but instead that reasonable questions must provide a "source" first.<br /><br />This is just the kind of shifting the burden - not to mention the goalposts - that is one of the themes of Feser's blog post in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74902501861982455212020-05-29T02:56:49.208-07:002020-05-29T02:56:49.208-07:00Santi?Santi?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88565330921897466492020-05-28T11:14:56.313-07:002020-05-28T11:14:56.313-07:00Quarantines, as in complete isolation of those sho...Quarantines, as in complete isolation of those showing symptoms, are indeed quite old. That might include sealing off an entire town. It is the universal restrictions, affecting the symptomatic, the potentially vulnerable, and those at very low risk for either becoming ill or spreading the infection, that are unprecedented.Goateggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879399639305763480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90879391188983490102020-05-28T09:06:57.487-07:002020-05-28T09:06:57.487-07:00Some news, which I thought some of you might find ...Some news, which I thought some of you might find interesting:<br /><br />1. <a href="https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/05/a-library-of-useful-links-on-the-virus-panic-for-thinking-people.html" rel="nofollow">A Library of Useful Links on the Virus Panic, for Thinking People</a><br /><br />2. <a href="https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/05/major-news-from-japan-not-many-interested.html" rel="nofollow">Major News From Japan. Not Many Interested.</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72807210159249957382020-05-28T07:35:36.204-07:002020-05-28T07:35:36.204-07:00(And if you're among the millions on the brink...<i>(And if you're among the millions on the brink of starvation in a poor developing country thanks to our 'prudential' decision to ravage the world economy, still, "sorry, had to do it!")</i><br /><br />To be fair, the economic impact of COVID is not fully attributable to lockdowns, much less to United States policy. There would have been economic consequences anyway. They might be worse than they could have been, but they were not all preventable. How much worse are they? I have no idea how to arrive at a confident answer to that question.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30358631945342885812020-05-28T06:16:04.821-07:002020-05-28T06:16:04.821-07:00Which is doubtful, since it seems to be the case t...<i>Which is doubtful, since it seems to be the case that R0 has been below 1 before "social distancing measures" have been implemented.</i><br /><br />What is your source for this claim?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.com