This Medium article has been approvingly linked to several times throughout the internet. I’ve read it, and found it well written and sourced. However, I do have one rather large quibble with it-the following line:
No. No. No. There will be a large segment of the populace who will never understand the measures taken, will think them unnecessary (even in the worst outcome), misplace blame, etc. There is a very good chance that leaders who undertake the suggestions in the article will be punished electorally.
Not that this changes the right thing to do, of course. But to suggest that these measures will be easy to make and popular is actually dangerous, IMO, especially to the average reader, by setting expectations for general reaction and ease of compliance that I think are rather outlandish. If the powers that be do everything right to ease the severity of what’s happening, they will have to do it DESPITE what the public things and wants, and that won’t be easy. There’s a chance you’ll be in disgrace and out of a job at the end of it. And I don’t think this kind of patently false reassurance does anyone any favors.
Agree. People don’t appreciate things that don’t happen. What is prevented always holds much less weight, in people’s minds, than things that do happen.
That being said…the ***reverse ***of his statement may be true. “People may thank you now (for not taking tough measures,) but they will blame you later.”
Agree. People don’t appreciate things that don’t happen. What is prevented always holds much less weight, in people’s minds, than things that do happen.
That being said…the ***reverse ***of his statement may be true. “People may thank you now (for not taking tough measures,) but they will blame you later.”
Forget politicians and leaders! It’s even harder for the little guy to do the right thing.
I’m thinking about all the 20-somethings who want do the usual college spring break thing. They want to stay home as recommended, but their friends are begging them to come. And they know they will have serious FOMO if they stay.
I’m also thinking about all the weddings that people have scheduled for the next month or so. Canceling would be doing the right thing but it would also be throwing away thousands of dollars and years’ worth of planning. And then there’s all the fall-out waiting from disappointed family.
I spent an hour talking to my sister about the pandemic, trying to impress upon her the importance of staying away from crowds. Right before she hung up the phone, she said she needed to get ready for a date. She said the original plan was for the two of them to hang out at her place, but she suddenly wanted to go to Dave and Buster’s. It was like everything I had just told her had gone right out of her ears. Or maybe she rapidly did the calculus in her head and decided her chances of getting sick were less than her chances of her date rejecting her if she suggested they stay home? The whole thing made me realize that for some people, it really is hard for them to think beyond their immediate wants and needs. They need leaders to do that kind of thinking for them because they are simply incapable of doing it themselves if the threats facing them are too abstract for them.
I think people are going through the stages of grief: denial, bargaining, anger, depression. Lots of people are still at one or two. (Bargaining is “I will wash my hands really well” and “only old people will get it”, when they themselves are fragile or have loved ones that are fragile)
I have heard many people say what a waste of time updating things to fix Y2K problems was, because the actual rollover to 2000 was such a non-event. They don’t seem to get that fixing software and hardware in advance of the rollover is WHY it was not a big deal when the date did roll over.