[jeffbee]

H1N1 2009 only killed 12000 Americans. COVID-19 killed 12000 Americans last week. People are avoiding restaurants because their own self-interest keeps them away. They don't want to get a fatal disease that's already killed 1‰ of the country. This aversion has little or nothing to do with government directives.

[Mediterraneo10]

People are not avoiding restaurants. After each temporary lockdown has been lifted in my country, restaurants and pubs immediately went back to full capacity. Also, this summer I found that overlander hotspots -- the places where elderly Europeans go in their camping cars -- were as packed as in any other year with little distancing observed. Certainly some are worried about the virus, but many others are not.

[trhway]

>People are avoiding restaurants

not in Bay Area. These new nice outdoor areas with heaters etc. have been packed all these months.

> This aversion has little or nothing to do with government directives.

the businesses closure is direct result of the government orders. It is evidenced by how people flocked back to businesses when they [partially] opened. A well beyond middle age neighbor drove to San Mateo county for a gym and only 1 hour long line prevented her from going there more.

In Russia they came up with a new word - Coronoia, ie. "Corona + Paranoia", and your post is typical Coronoia style in that it ignores the straight reality and facts which are staring right into the face.

[atweiden]

This is simply illustrative of the fact people are driven by self-interest, and virtually never take group outcomes into consideration when making choices unless forced to under the threat of violence.

[curryst]

Or they simply have a different level of risk tolerance than you. I'm comfortable going out to eat. I live alone, the only people I physically interact with these days are all under the age of 28, anyone in a risk group that I would interact with is back home a thousand or so miles away.

> virtually never take group outcomes into consideration when making choices unless forced to under the threat of violence.

Group outcomes are effectively a moot point. That presumes that the group, as a whole, has an agreed upon preferential outcome, and an agreed upon means of getting there. We do not (and basically never do, when it comes to the group). Some people want more stringent lockdowns, some people just want the lockdowns to be lifted. People who want more stringent lockdowns are averse to the risk of COVID, and are willing to sacrifice some of the joy of life to avoid it. People who want to lift the lockdowns are unperturbed by the risk, or are okay with allowing people to assume that risk to be able to go on with their lives. I don't see a clear winner from a utilitarian perspective; either really bad things happen to a small ratio of people, or mildly bad things happen to everyone. I certainly don't think the gap in net happiness is wide enough to warrant condescension about people ignoring group outcomes.

[atweiden]

I think it's fair to say the Covid-free world of 2019 is preferable to the Covid-endemic world of 2020.

Melbourne AU — which is comparable to many European and American cities — eradicated Covid after 4 months of hard lockdown [1] combined with federal financial support.

Covid is the "endemic malaria problem" of 2020: just like malaria can be eradicated through water management, Covid can be eradicated through Australian-style government intervention. Today, both diseases are problems with clear and proven solutions.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25343640

[trhway]

you have to show what is specific self-interest here and how it conflicts with specific group outcome. Otherwise it is just an old Soviet style propaganda where people were coerced into doing senseless things because of supposed great common good.