I dont see that at all. I am sure that is not what Chronos meant. Maybe his post could have been worded better, but I dont read that in either post.
That entire thread puts bible-thumpers into such an underclass. In my opinion, Chronos’ post is no worse than any other.
Let me spell it out more explicitly.
Let’s hypothesize 6 months of extreme lockdown - no socializing whatsoever, you can’t leave home except to buy food, you can’t go more than 3 miles from home, all non-essential businesses are closed. Obviously a major “inconvenience” - loss of income, very substantial reduction in quality of life.
And let’s oversimplify, let’s assume that we know for sure that a vaccine will be available after those 6 months; and scenarios where the lockdown will save either 10% or 1% of the population from certain death.
Consider first a scenario where the people who will die are all children. If the mortality rate is 10%, should 100 people endure this reduced quality of life for 6 months to save the lives of 10 children? Yes, of course, that’s a no-brainer. Even with a mortality rate of 1%, if the 1% are all healthy children with their whole life ahead of them, most people would agree that 100 people should make that sacrifice to save 1 child.
Now consider a scenario where the great majority of people who will die are either old or sick, so that the average life expectancy of a victim is 3 years, and it’s 3 years with fairly poor quality of life. With a 10% mortality rate, should 100 people endure the reduced quality of life of a lockdown for 6 months to save 10 victims? Yes, that’s 50 person-years of reduced quality of life vs 30 person-years saved, I think that’s a sacrifice all decent people would be prepared to make. But what if it’s a mortality rate of 1%? Should 100 people endure 6 months of lockdown to allow just one old or sick person to live another 3 years? That’s 50 person-years vs 3 person-years.
It clearly is a trade-off, it’s a calculus, and one in which the life expectancy of the average victim is a critical input.
I’m not for a moment suggesting that a lockdown is not justified given the facts of COVID-19. All the evidence says it is. And it’s a much more complex analysis than I’ve laid out above. But ultimately it is a cost-benefit calculus, no life has infinite value, and not all lives have equal value.
Moderating
I don’t think we need to turn this thread into a debate on this issue. That should be taken to another thread. The question is whether statements like the one referenced should be prohibited. I think the obvious answer to that question is “no.” We don’t need to complicate this.
Colibri
Moderator
I’ll agree that OP seems to be over-reacting in his response here, but he’s not totally pulling this out of nowhere. I’ve also noticed what MrDibble has noticed:
I don’t have cites right at my fingertips, but it does seem that Chronos has been making a lot of remarks that seem to downplay or minimize this pandemic, or question the need to make a more vigorous response to it – and he has also been criticized for it by other posters too.
I don’t recall seeing anything that I would go so far as banning. But we do argue and debate things on this board, and some of his posts are getting some debate and pushback. I’m not aware if he’s been Pitted yet, but I wouldn’t find it out of the question.
Just more.
Why pick one of his most innocuous posts? If I were someone trying to defend the guy, I couldn’t do better trying to inoculate him–picking something that sounds perfectly fine without context.
He has said much more horrible things. I see MrDibble has linked the thread that made me think so poorly of him, so I won’t do so myself. But I will quote the posts therein, to show how bad they are.
Here he is perpetuating the myth that this is just at the level of a flu, asking a rhetorical question without realizing the answer is “yes” if it was one of the bad ones, and perpetuating the myth that is it is about the individual’s assessment of risk, ignoring that they will put other people at high risk by spreading it.
This was so uncharacteristic of his usual thoughtful posts that people assumed he was joking to make make sense that a moderator on a board about fighting ignorance would post something so ignorant and seemingly troll-like.
But he eventually came back in, and doubled down.
You have the first paragraph where the answer was YES, and that anyone following the virus knew that. The recommendations were to limit gatherings. And it applied in all the places where there were beaches. People were even specifically told not to go to them on spring break.
Then you have the second paragraph where he’s once again trying to argue that it’s up to individuals to determine their risk, once again ignoring the risk they impact others.
When people pointed out that both of his statements were wrong, here is what he said:
This sounds okay in isolation, but remember that the thread was about people going to beaches on spring break, and his responses were about those who went to beaches, and that this was the thing that was too restrictive. Furthermore, he ignored more facts: at the time, most people were still allowed to go to work at their jobs. And those losing their jobs would get paid unemployment right away. He talks of people dying from not going to work for a month.
As I said at the time, this combination of posts were the worst thing I’d ever seen a mod say, and the most dangerous thing I’d seen any poster advocate without moderation admonistion. I reported Chronos, with the proviso that I didn’t think he’d be moderated (because y’all don’t mod mods) but at least that the mods should talk to him. However, I got no indication that such happened, and at no point did Chronos apologize for his misinformation.
The only reason I didn’t make an ATMB thread is that I got sick soon after, and by the time I was well enough, it seemed that nobody cared. Even though he still popped into Pit threads and would lecture people about COVID-19, I seemed to be the only poster pushing back.
I decided that I would bring it up in ATMB only if I saw him say something as bad again (admittedly, he hasn’t, though he’s gotten close), or another poster finally brought this up.
Now that they have, I hope their choice of something far less bad doesn’t tank this thread. This is a problem. If it’s bad enough that two posters got their threads closed and wound up banned, then it should be bad enough that a mod should not be doing it.
And, frankly, do we want the SDMB to be about letting people with the appearance of being an authority (being a mod, being unable to be moderated) spreading the lies that not only would but ACTUALLY DID get people killed? Shouldn’t we have a responsibility both our motto and our fellow humans to not have mod-endorsed spread of ignorance that kills?
Wondering if you missed post #13 above while you were writing this.
Me personally, I think I’m seeing a pattern where Chronos is getting a bit out of touch with reality to a concerning level.
Consider this post
This is a remarkably bizarre position to be held by someone who wears an SDMB moderator hat; it’s more in line with something you’d expect from someone who faxes out newsletters about how Belarus is an ascendant world power because they’re about to corner the market on manganese.
MrDibble hit the nail squarely on the head.
The most cogent response of the thread, ISTM.
Regards,
Shodan
He’s using a contrarian definition of pro-life based on what he seems to view as Republican hypocrisy.
Mods get to post as regular posters all they want. And frankly, his meta-point is right: there’s no bright line here, we’re all trying to figure out what the right balance point is between social distancing and keeping some sort of functioning society. Erring too far in either direction is going to result in deaths and lives falling short of their potential. I think Chronos is wrong about where to draw that line, but I can’t imagine why you’d want to shut down discussion about that. Well, I know why you would, but I don’t know why any reasonable person would agree with you.
If you want to Pit him for remarks he has made as a poster, that is allowed. If you want to debate the substance of the remarks, the place for that is Great Debates.
That being so, I’m not sure why this thread is still open.
The average prior life expectancy of victims is obviously highly relevant to any discussion of the pandemic, it’s a critical factor in ethical policy choices and ethical personal choices. OP’s suggestion appears to be that it’s not only irrelevant, but unethical to even mention it, to a point of being beyond the pale of what’s acceptable to talk about on a civilized discussion forum.
OP’s position is preposterous. What exactly remains to be discussed in this thread?
I agree. I’ve already given my position as a forum moderator on the question in the OP. The discussion at this point consists of criticism of Chronos as a poster, which belongs in the Pit; or debate on the substance of his remarks, which belongs in Great Debates. Neither of these discussions belong in ATMB. If you wish to continue this, please take it to the appropriate forum.