Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An acquaintance of mine, who has an extensive background in theater, posted a blog yesterday which basically expressed the opinion that virtual theater is the only way forward, as many people "will never feel safe going to the theater again."
It made me wonder how many people are still of the belief that so long as COVID is out there, they can never resume their lives. Because they're going to be waiting a long time...
You have put your finger on a reason I OP'd this thread in Psychology. Some people like the straitjacket of restrictions, the comfort of being told what to do, the way they experienced that as a child. Some people are scared of freedom.
I don't know anyone like that, nobody on City-Data comes across like that, and I picture a meek woman with a bossy husband (or maybe vice versa) and not someone wanting government to play that role.
You have put your finger on a reason I OP'd this thread in Psychology. Some people like the straitjacket of restrictions, the comfort of being told what to do, the way they experienced that as a child. Some people are scared of freedom.
I hate wearing a mask and I sure miss the freedom to road trip and all the public indoor activities but with asthma and currently battling bronchitis I can’t afford to be cavalier.I don’t live in fear I live with sensible precautions that will protect my health best I can. If that means isolating ( like now as I recover from bronchitis) , wearing a mask, avoiding crowds, getting vaccines, flu and pneumonia shots, taking meds to keep cancer from returning, exercising, eating healthy, hike trails, wearing a seatbelt , accepting lifestyle change due to pandemic, so be it. I can’t risk getting covid.
I hate wearing a mask and I sure miss the freedom to road trip and all the public indoor activities but with asthma and currently battling bronchitis I can’t afford to be cavalier.I don’t live in fear I live with sensible precautions that will protect my health best I can. If that means isolating (like now as I recover from bronchitis) , wearing a mask, avoiding crowds, getting vaccines, flu and pneumonia shots, taking meds to keep cancer from returning, exercising, eating healthy, hike trails, wearing a seatbelt , accepting lifestyle change due to pandemic, so be it. I can’t risk getting covid.
Exactly. I very much doubt most people are so masochistic as to actually enjoy covid restrictions or seek them out. But they are also just rational responses to the situation.
Heck, my stepson used some of an unexpected cash gift from his father to buy N95 masks for himself and my wife and I. We have used good quality disposable surgical masks in the past, which we doubled up on, but when going into buildings full of people (usually, the grocer, or our drug store, which has closed its drive-thru due to a staffing shortage) that extra protection is much appreciated, given Omicron's much higher transmissibility. He makes around $16K a year and he's not whining about spending $250 on masks, in fact he did so on his own initiative. This stuff is neither that hard nor that awful.
There are decent odds that we'll have a period or two this year, as we did last year, where infection rates are low enough to experience more normalcy and take much fewer precautions. I look forward to that. But this is not that time. [shrug]
If people are going to suggest I'm a sheep or a masochist or a child or afraid of freedom, maybe I should start calling them out as wimps? Somehow I suspect they wouldn't enjoy that.
Whether Covid restrictions are or are not "rational responses", depends on our personal situations and our values, does it not?
We've already noted earlier in this thread, that for those of us who have been duly labeled as anti-social jerks, for whom the fate of others is irrelevant, the rationale for partaking of the various "responses" would merely be a question of their personal risk-tolerance. Assuming that such a person is not in a vulnerable category, the risk is low. Assuming that the psychological makeup tends more to gallantry than to circumspection, the risk-tolerance is high.
Would it not then be entirely rational, to dispense with said responses? I mean, we set aside judgment of this person's character. Given that, what is and what isn't rational?
Whether Covid restrictions are or are not "rational responses", depends on our personal situations and our values, does it not?
We've already noted earlier in this thread, that for those of us who have been duly labeled as anti-social jerks, for whom the fate of others is irrelevant, the rationale for partaking of the various "responses" would merely be a question of their personal risk-tolerance. Assuming that such a person is not in a vulnerable category, the risk is low. Assuming that the psychological makeup tends more to gallantry than to circumspection, the risk-tolerance is high.
Would it not then be entirely rational, to dispense with said responses? I mean, we set aside judgment of this person's character. Given that, what is and what isn't rational?
Rationalizing any response will vary according to what you include in your calculus. If you ignore your level of connection and interdependence on others and on society as a whole, you may be in for a surprise at some point in the future, when those connections fail you.
To put it into a different but related context, what we're discussing is similar to how the wealthier a person is, the less empathy they tend to have. This has been studied and documented quite conclusively -- money serves as a kind of substitute for good will, but has its limitations. From Scientific American:
Quote:
Wealth and abundance give us a sense of freedom and independence from others. The less we have to rely on others, the less we may care about their feelings. This leads us towards being more self-focused.
So the less well-off person you may have passed for years with your snoot in the air, who you have not cultivated relationship with or been kind to, may be the very person you need to help you jump start your Lexus when the tow truck won't respond. Unless your SO rich you can afford to retreat to your underground bunker with private security guards in Kansas or New Zealand, at some point your lack of regard for your fellow man will manifest itself as the liability it actually is.
I think it's that way with rational self interest calculus of any kind -- if you discount all the inputs into what's relevant to your self-interest both now and in the likely future, then you will tend to behave in ways that cut you off from others you can presently afford not to give a fig about. You're a hyper social creature who ultimately can't survive without the cooperation of the rest of society. One day, either the easy or the hard way, you will realize that.
Rationalizing any response will vary according to what you include in your calculus. If you ignore your level of connection and interdependence on others and on society as a whole, you may be in for a surprise at some point in the future, when those connections fail you.
To put it into a different but related context, what we're discussing is similar to how the wealthier a person is, the less empathy they tend to have. This has been studied and documented quite conclusively -- money serves as a kind of substitute for good will, but has its limitations. From Scientific American:
So the less well-off person you may have passed for years with your snoot in the air, who you have not cultivated relationship with or been kind to, may be the very person you need to help you jump start your Lexus when the tow truck won't respond. Unless your SO rich you can afford to retreat to your underground bunker with private security guards in Kansas or New Zealand, at some point your lack of regard for your fellow man will manifest itself as the liability it actually is.
I think it's that way with rational self interest calculus of any kind -- if you discount all the inputs into what's relevant to your self-interest both now and in the likely future, then you will tend to behave in ways that cut you off from others you can presently afford not to give a fig about. You're a hyper social creature who ultimately can't survive without the cooperation of the rest of society. One day, either the easy or the hard way, you will realize that.
Reciprocity between us and our fellows in society is a subtle issue. Assuredly, there should be a symmetry and a fairness, where those of us who are presently weak, get support from the strong, so that the latter, when it’s their turn at weakness, are justly succored. Emotionally we feel that this is the decent thing, even if in individual circumstances, some people take excessive advantage, while others seemingly always get the shorter-end.
But in the current situation with the virus, passage from abstraction of a Golden Rule to actionable things, like masks or distancing or whatnot, is murky. The effectiveness of the various methods of mitigation is uncertain and controversial. Cost-benefit ratios are contentious. How much we ought to do, with uncertain benefit to others but substantial discomfort to ourselves, comes down more to emotional soothing, or if you like a feeling of righteousness, than to a sincere and good understanding of the consequences of what we’re doing.
Let me give a specific example. The father of a friend of mine died from Covid. He was 71, obese and at high risk. He was careful about masking and distancing. One day, his sister-in-law knocks on the front door of their condo. He lets her in. They sit down for tea. She was infected, contagious – and she knew it. She embraced this guy, and gave him a kiss on the cheek… also his wife (her sister). They sat in the dining room, perhaps for hours, chatting. Some days later, both husband and wife came down with symptoms. After a heavy illness, the wife recovered. The husband ended up in the ICU, and then the morgue. The sister-in-law recovered just fine. This vignette, I think we can agree, is a clear example of negligence our even outright malice, where the perpetrator can justly be faulted. But in regular life, how often so such examples arise?
I could always do more, to help alleviate poverty in our city, or landmine eradication in Africa. I could always do more, to reduce my carbon-consumption and hence to improve the lives of future generations yet to be born. Should I? Beyond what point?
We can and we should take precautions and limit our natural rapacity in specific cases. But what of abstract ones, especially where causal relationship is unclear?
And there’s another consideration. It’s good to help the little old lady to cross the street. But what if an executive order is enacted, obligating us to do so? Then charitable and solicitous behavior becomes not just the decent or the morally righteous thing, but a requirement. Well, is it a good thing, to actually have such requirements? Is this a society in which we’d like to live?
Reciprocity between us and our fellows in society is a subtle issue. Assuredly, there should be a symmetry and a fairness, where those of us who are presently weak, get support from the strong, so that the latter, when it’s their turn at weakness, are justly succored. Emotionally we feel that this is the decent thing, even if in individual circumstances, some people take excessive advantage, while others seemingly always get the shorter-end.
One of our Jewish prayers before the closing Mourner's Kaddish, goes something like "from strength to weakness and hopefully back to strength" or words to that effect. Words to live by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
And there’s another consideration. It’s good to help the little old lady to cross the street. But what if an executive order is enacted, obligating us to do so? Then charitable and solicitous behavior becomes not just the decent or the morally righteous thing, but a requirement. Well, is it a good thing, to actually have such requirements? Is this a society in which we’d like to live?
One of the best posts I have read, anywhere. Too bad I can't rep you.
=========================================
The occasion of my coming on is that my synagogue is reopening tomorrow night after the scourge of yet another lockdown.
I don't know anyone like that, nobody on City-Data comes across like that, and I picture a meek woman with a bossy husband (or maybe vice versa) and not someone wanting government to play that role.
I don't know anybody like that either. Who are these people the OP is hanging around with?
It's a risk vs. reward thing. I know I have the "freedom" to sky-dive or bungee-jump but yeah, I'm scared. I decided long ago I didn't like being in huge, uncontrollable crowds though I have the "freedom" to do that. I have always chosen to go to movies, for example, when it's less crowded. Long before Covid.
At the end of the day everyone gets to decide, to a great extent for themselves, how to treat their fellow man, how much responsibility to (not) take, etc., and believe it or not I really don't monitor or attempt to police or even all that much to judge other's calculus, partly because it's not my place, and partly because it's not going to make a difference. No one really cares what you or I think, for the most part.
All I know is that vaccines, masking, social distancing, hand sanitizing, imperfect though they are, seem to me to be reasonable responses to a very serious pandemic which has killed over 900,000 people in this country alone, and in terms of excess deaths over past norms, that is probably under-reported significantly. If we as a country hadn't marched on state capitals with automatic weapons after just a month or so of lockdowns in the beginning, we might have nipped this in the bud or slowed it down enough for vaccines to keep up or any number of things, but we're to selfish and lazy and so we didn't. The end. What it boils down to is that we gave up a long time ago and this whole conversation is mostly a waste of time because the people who want us working and going to school and "back to normal" (whatever that even was to begin with) consider the resulting casualties (both deaths, lost productivity, and long term disability) to be acceptable.
I had to take my car down to the shop today and I asked the kid who drove me home, how things are going with Covid at the dealership. He said, oh, not bad. I mean a few mechanics and a couple of people in the parts counter and oh yeah, several of the salespersons all caught it ... but not enough to shut us down. I guess that's the things we care about, just keeping the machinery of capitalism grinding over the top of people no matter what. So be it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
