or, you could be angry that it became highly politicized and many media outlets absolutely overhyped the danger for clicks and political points.
if we'd been more levelheaded, we would have suggested the public should either
1) physically distance, or
2) wear a mask
in enclosed spaces and face-to-face situations.
if you're an essential worker or particularly vulnerable, you'd do both where possible. that's it. that likely would have provided all the risk reduction we needed to get the spread under control.
the message would have been simple, the effects likely as good, and we wouldn't have left a hundred million poeple on the edge of (or in) economic and psychological collapse.
but that doesn't punch the emotional and neurochemical pathways the way politicians and news peddlers want.
> but that doesn't punch the emotional and neurochemical pathways the way politicians and news peddlers want
Every discussion involving advertising or app marketing here inevitably attracts tons of comments adopting a let's-be-real-here, this-is-just-how-it-is tone about the realities of the industry. And yet these same people are also experts on the news industry and know the exact opposite is true there, that "de-politicized" or "balanced" news is somehow a thing that is not only possible but stupidly trivial to produce.
I mean, I get it, I utterly despise crabbed, shoddy, stupid journalism, too. But don't pretend there's some trivial fix. It is the way it is because of a combination of economic and ultimately social pressures. It is as much a symptom as a cause.
i certainly didn't suggest the systemic fix was trivial, and that the equilibrium we've reached around news and advertising isn't cogent and compelling.
but as individuals, we each have the capacity to center ourselves emotionally, clear our heads, and think critically about the coercive messages we're being fed. we have that power, and it is effective.
no, the virus didn't somehow get more contagious in march, it had just spread farther/deeper. the same measures would have reduced risk equally in either case. only the likelihood of need (that those measures would have non-trivially helped prevent spread) would have gone up on a per-interaction basis.
So did the WHO. They have been excoriated by millions for supposedly saying you shouldn't wear a mask. But from the beginning they were advising that you keep your distance from others, cough into your sleeve, and wear a mask if you get sick (otherwise, save them for health care workers).
Lockdowns were invented by panicking authoritarian politicians. The ruling class showed its true nature and was all too eager to copy China's brutal boot-on-throat approach to crisis management.
The idea that politicians wanted to lockdown and trash the economy is laughable. Even now politicians are eager to open up, even though plenty of states are still in the exponential growth stage.
Considering how Google and Apple are basically mandating WFH for the rest of this year, these lockdowns aren't for them; they're for all the other people who need a way to take care of themselves without giving their bosses the finger.
TBH, even if it was an overreaction, the effects were by and large positive, regardless of the pandemic. Work from home, less traffic, more family time, slowdown of economy, pausing of a lot of wasteful, useless activity. I really enjoyed walking around with almost no cars on the roads and listening to birds.
It fits perfectly if by privilege you mean not pursuing a career with high intensity and instead living a frugal, simple life that is less affected by a slowdown of the global economy.
I realize this, yet, the fact that I can afford this leisure is largely due to my personal choices of forgoing some of the luxuries these people afford.
I sympathize with those who are affected negatively by the situation, but I wish, for example, those who decide to buy a larger car would also sympathize with those who prefer clean air and less noise.
i agree that frugal living is the bee's knees (i do it myself!), but nobody likes a wagging finger over an extended hand, especially if you construct a dichotomy simply for that purpose.
in the US we still aren't even following these simple rules consistently (even in NYC where I live). I agree with your point, I blame the guy in charge of everything who's repeatedly tried to downplay the severity, causing the rest of the system to seemingly overreact to compensate for people refusing to follow the rules.
it's ok if we don't follow the rules perfectly and consistently for sufficient risk reduciton. but people absolutely flouting them is problematic, and the majority of that is likely a reaction to the overhyping in the first place.
regarding trump, luckily our governmental structures are designed to withstand such incompetence. i'm more concerned that the legislative process is torching money in the wrong places.
if we'd been more levelheaded, we would have suggested the public should either
1) physically distance, or
2) wear a mask
in enclosed spaces and face-to-face situations.
if you're an essential worker or particularly vulnerable, you'd do both where possible. that's it. that likely would have provided all the risk reduction we needed to get the spread under control.
the message would have been simple, the effects likely as good, and we wouldn't have left a hundred million poeple on the edge of (or in) economic and psychological collapse.
but that doesn't punch the emotional and neurochemical pathways the way politicians and news peddlers want.