[showdeadtest]

I think you are arguing against a man made out of straw. People do not want to live like this, regardless of economics or theory. You can shout argument after argument; it won’t change that more and more people are going to mingle.

[kbenson]

> People do not want to live like this, regardless of economics or theory.

That's fine. People are going to do what they're going to do. I'm not quite willing to let them do it behind nonsense arguments and justifications though.

If someone's unwilling to give up going to the gym, so be it. When they couch it (as some have here) as them actually doing it for the benefit of everyone else by helping the economy, I'm going to loudly and vehemently call bullshit.

If they say they just aren't willing to change and don't care about any of the data, well as long as they actually know the data, then I'll have nothing more to discuss with them.

[showdeadtest]

We need policy that works for people, not policy that wins debates. That’s all I’m saying.

[kbenson]

What I'm saying is that if someone shows they are completely unwilling to either look at the facts, or just don't care that their actions have such an outsized negative impact, what can I do? They are literally holding everyone else hostage because they don't want to change. That's not negotiation, and the only "policy" that will work for them is "whatever they want".

That said, I don't think this is how people are. I think people are living in a deep cognitive dissonance and refusing to see the facts, not acknowledging them and saying they don't care.

That's not a policy problem, that a problem of educating people that do not want to be educated. Should the rest of the populace just shift our views away from reality so people that don't want to face it can get a better deal out of some policy? That won't lead to an acceptable outcome either, when the policy in question is about public safety.

[throwout_covid]

To clarify, your original argument was made in bad faith. You don't like sacrificing for the greater good, so you'll make arguments to appear substantive, but really, you want to 'mingle'.

[showdeadtest]

The original idea was that there was no way that policy was being informed by the trade-off described by parent, so it was a moot point. I think I was not clear enough.