[s1artibartfast]

To quote PHPisthebest "I think you have confused ignoring the government orders with "doing the opposite".

Are you claiming that government orders are optimal 100% of the time in 100% of situations? If not, then sometimes it is wrong, and it might be wrong for you.

>How would going out lower your risk in this case? You obviously increased your risk, if only so slightly.

Being alone miles from anyone else has zero covid risk. Covid risk doesn't kick in when you leave the door of your house. In my case, I also had roommates who worked, like me and interacted with other people.

[cmh89]

>Are you claiming that government orders are optimal 100% of the time in 100% of situations? If not, then sometimes it is wrong, and it might be wrong for you.

Of course not. Your example was just not a situation where not following orders was individually optimal. You and your friends are suffering from confirmation bias. They did something incredibly stupid and dangerous and put their lives at risk and more importantly, increased risk for the firefighters working the job. It happened to work out but that doesn't mean it was wise. They could have just as easily died or killed a firefighter who was trying to rescue them.

Why don't you reach out to a wildland firefighters outfit and see their perspective on what bullshit they have to deal with when dumbasses don't evacuate.

For the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time, following emergency instructions is the optimal outcome. Even in this case, the folks who went around the barrier didn't know that going around was safer than going back. They gambled and it worked out.

>Being alone miles from anyone else has zero covid risk. Covid risk doesn't kick in when you leave the door of your house. In my case, I also had roommates who worked, like me and interacted with other people.

Ah yes, I'm sure you magically went from your bedroom to wilderness miles away from anyone else without stopping or interacting with anyone!

Look, I'm not saying going out in the wilderness was wrong, its just silly to think it lowered your risk at all.

[s1artibartfast]

I think that you are approaching this is making the mistake of treating each instance as identical when they are not. Different situations have different risks and you can't claim that a choice was wrong or stupid without understanding the specific situation. This is the difference between the usefulness of a heuristic in general, and the usefulness of a heuristic in a specific situation.

You can't claim that they put their lives at risk and made a stupid mistake without that information.

The same holds true for the covid example. You don't know the specifics and are making a generalization. It is in fact possible to go camping without interacting with people.

[phpisthebest]

Why you believe outsourcing your thinking is the best course of action? Why has government done to earn such blind loyalty from you? As someone who has pretty in depth knowledge of history I can not fathom the level of trust you have placed in government. it is almost theological ...