COVID-19 and the Trolley Problem

I'm curious about something I noticed this week, both at work and at home. Did I look at people strangely this week? Or did people look at me strangely? Was it real or might it have been my subconscious mind? How would I know without anyone saying anything? I did notice the strangeness increased over the week. Not the number of friends and strangers. But everyone seemed a little different. Were they scared, confused, happy or sad? How was I feeling? I don't know. Maybe each person had a different combinations of each emotion.

We are getting bombarded with different types of messages each day from multiple sources with different biases. Even both the latest and the old messages are constantly changing. I found an article to be a very interesting read.

https://fee.org/articles/covid-19-and-the-trolley-problem-you-re-on-the-...

The COVID-19 pandemic is a question of philosophy and ethics as much as economics and medicine.

 

BTW. I do have sour dough starter to share if you'd like some.

I think it's more of a Troll problem.  Please stop the bombardment.

Yes, it’s interesting speculate regarding a truly rational public policy response, but identiflying the cognitive biases preventing this doesn’t eliminate them. I hope you’re doing ok through these weird and isolating times. 

Thanks for sharing this article, I thought it was interesting.

Interesting read! Thanks for sharing. I too had wondered about many ideas mentioned.

Small business are suffering due to closures, and many will certianly be perminant, due to government or social pressure. But drive past big box stores and see how busy they are. I try to question the motives of government actions and have a hard time seeing the trade off. Burden the health care system, or the economic system? Quantification is challenging (impossible?). So how can such drastic measures be so easily justified and absolutly enforced?

Interesting read. Well unfortunately, the health care system is made of real people.  These people are having to decide who lives and who dies.  Would that be an interesting choice for any of you to make?  I guess everyone has they personal bias as the article states. The economic system is of our construct, trillions of dollars are appearing out of the woodwork for people. Magic.  We can't just print new parents and grandparent.  The more circulation you give these articles, the more people will defy staying home.  I don't want my wife, who is an ER nurse having to say sorry we don't have enough ventalators for your mom. 

Economic System v Health Care WORKERS.

I find these sorts of shallow articles disheartening, at best. The entire premise breaks down when the article represents life as equal to livelihood. It's not equal. This isn't about some deep-state government control. This isn't about repressing poor (but it certainly highlights the rich/poor disparity in a broken system). This crisis is truly about protecting the vulnerable and minimizing the virus impacts to assist the very people tasked with protecting the vulnerable (my blood boiled at the ascertain that people with underlying conditions were the ones dying - as if they are worth less anyways, so why lose income over it). 

If we want to talk trolley thought experiments then we need a more relevant one. I propose this...

...You see someone less able to move than you, standing on tracks in front of an oncoming trolley. Both of you see the trolley. What do you do? Do you; 1) know you're not scared of the trolley so you watch the inevitable, or 2) despite knowing you're not scared of the trolley, you tackle the person, saving them while sustaining some bruises and a broken ankle. Which do you do? 1 or 2?

This isn't about government choosing who lives or dies, it's about each of us choosing to help someone live and lessening the impact on those who really would have to choose who lives or dies. 

Very interesting read, thank you for sharing.

I think it is really important to think critically right now, and this isn’t shallow at all.

Millions of people have lost their livelihood, and this will surely result in the loss of life. Are these lives of any less value than the lives of the people who may become severely sick or die from COVID 19?

Why does the government get to decide this, while taking away freedoms from society to enforce this decision?

What would happen if the vulnerable people in our society were protected by strict isolation, while the rest of society who are not vulnerable were permitted to continue as normal, at their own risk?

This article is not stating whose lives are more important.

Its questioning the necessity of shutting down society as we know it, ruining people’s lives and everything they have worked for, in an attempt to minimize the impact of something that will severely affect a very small percentage of our population.

These are good questions. And this discussion is important.

Millions of people have lost their livelihoods temporarily, most will get that back. This part is about keeping communities resilient. I've not seen anything other than theoretical evidence that more lives would be lost this way (and there are plans to help the most at risk, and as always some that will take advantage when they don't need it). 

With the extraoridnary measures to control the virus there are still lives being lost. Without the extraordinary measures how many lives would have been lost?

This article plays into the false notion that "hey, it's not that bad, why did we do this?" - when we should be acknowledging that it's not that bad (yet) precisely because we did do this.

They are living a nightmare in Italy because they didn't take this as seriously as they needed to - and the nightmare continues despite extraordinary measures now in place. With the measures now in place their hospitals are over run. People are now dying for all sorts of reasons due to a lack of available healthcare. How many Italians are thinking, "bah, it's just 11,000 of our vulnerable dead, so far, - let's get back to work!"

The infection rate south of us is 2-3 times as high as ours and the death rate is similarly high - all because they fuddled about and waited too long to put extraoridnary measures in place. The reactive measures they have in place are significantly stricter than what we have here. 

This is most likely a short term measure meant to manage an otherwise unmanageable virus. At the end of this we will all have learned a lot in our personal lives, and in our social lives. I hope we can use what we've learned to build a more resilient society in the meantime.

This will happen again, only more lives will be lost. We best be ready. Our finite resources are dwindling, we see that coming. Our population continues to grow, we see that coming. And we know that in any biological system a lack of resources and growing population always results in more disease, more fighting, and higher death rate. No doubt that this is a trial run. How well we do now will determine how well we do the next time.

Done right, as we seem to be doing, this should seem like it was pointless. 

Please don’t take offence to this, but you nor anyone else has the tools to predict the actual impact of this pandemic on society (not the health impacts).

You cannot say with certainty that most livelihoods will bounce back. There is no way to know this. People get crazy when they lose their income. How many suicides will there be? Thefts? Robberies? Murders? Arson attacks?

Nobody knows. Will it take months to bounce back? A year? Multiple years? Decades? Will people ever get their jobs back? How many businesses will not reopen ever again? 

There are so so many unknowns. But we know fairly accurately how many people might severely suffer or die from Covid 19. Why does the government get to decide that this damage is worse?

Yes infection rates are high in countries who have taken less strict measures. But we do not yet know if despite this, they may still fare better In the long run. Maybe they become immune, while we are just delaying and potentially making worse, the inevitable.

There are a lot of assumptions being made by our government these days...who really knows what is going to happen, and what the long run right answer will be. We won’t know for a long time.

Strange looks/feelings? Put it down to shock.

Being jobless is not as bad as being dead.

 

Do we know fairly accurately how many people would die without "less strict measures"?  If so as you claim we do, then if as you claim the countries that didn't take these measures are fairing far worse and your whole point becomes an invalid excuse to inflate your catastrophism and fearful nonsense on a public forum.

 

Unless you are an educated voice in the matter of either public policy or medicine lest I remind you your voice is only an opinion in the whole matter, and an opinion that seems to ruthlesslessly challenge the concept of society willingly (for most circumstances) has chosen to participate in for the sake of what seems to be reaction.  Unless you have something productive to offer...

Hey paydirt - no offence taken. I've appreciated your responses (and googled as a result - it's good to be questioned from time to time). I hope that I've come across as thoughtfully as you. And you're right - we can't say for certainty how many jobs will bounce back or how many people will feel that ending their lives is the only solution. The system that makes these things so precarious is topic for another, much longer, conversation. 

To me, the logical solution is to prevent people from dying (a rather terminal situation) and help people to come back from job/business loss. We have experienced depressions and recessions, and have a reasonably good idea what it takes to recover (but not enough foresight to prevent ourselves from "fixing" things by rebuilding the same system - that's why the "Bart Simpson repeatedly grabbing an electrified cupcake" joke goes over so well). 

We've also been tested by disease and have a pretty good understanding of the consequences of that. (Certainly, this crisis is going to highlight it.)

With all this considered, and a whole wack of time in a statistics rabbit hole that took entirely too long, I still feel that our current course of action is the correct one. 

Perhaps we can digest this whole thing over beers once it's over. Assuming beer is still a thing when it's over. I'm pretty easy to find. 

There's a flaw in the original 'trolley' analogue. In the Trolley Problem we are placed in the position of a random member of the public and asked to make an impossible decision. 

The writer of the article puts the government in the position of that member of the public and asks who gave the government the right to make  unilateral decisions, such as whether to close the economy or suffer more deaths. 

However, the government is more in the position of the person controlling the trolley - someone designated to make decisions and answer for them afterwards. So in answer to the question 'Who gave the government the right to make such sweeping decisions about how to respond to the epidemic?', the answer is 'We, the people, did'.

When we elected the government we knew - or should have known -  that the government is expected to react in extraordinary times as well as everyday situations.  And they will answer at the ballot box for their decisions. 

In the meantime, having someone make the hard decisions - right or wrong - is still a lot better than no-one doing so.

Although I'm not disagreeing that lockdowns are the incorrect approach to take by governments in our current situation (time will tell), I acknowledge that they are putting a lot of people around the world through pain and suffering - 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52063755

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52086274

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52093343

I meant 'correct approach' in my post above, not 'incorrect.'

Thanks for the conversation mosquito! And others who are willing to entertain the idea of asking questions, so that we can all hopefully learn more.

Here is something else to add in to this dialogue. Mosquitodirk you say that the logical solution is to prevent death, and while I agree that this is certainly a good goal to have, I still question the rationality behind all of this.

We shut down society. We strip away livelihoods. We condemn any socializing whatsoever, and promote staying inside tuned into screens. To protect a small percentage of people from dying, and a large percentage of people getting sick.

But when we compare this to something that nearly 50% of all Canadians will suffer from (yes, either you mosquito or I will get it, says science and the stats) and 25% of people who get it will die (we're talking 80,000+ Canadians dying every single year, roughly 8 per hour)..... and we get radio silence. Cancer is what I am talking about here. Nobody talks about it. The government certainly doesn't. Its not on the news. Society operates as normal, despite more than 100 people dying EVERYDAY from it. It will affect every single one of us. If you have a family of 4, statistics tell us 2 of you will get cancer, and at least one of you will die from it. Certainly at least some of the cause of cancer is environmental (speculation here, yes) so why doesn't the government shut down society until we figure out what is causing it?

Why is the government taking extreme measures to protect Canadians from something that is the leading killer of Canadians, and responsible for 30% of all deaths in Canada? Afterall, cancer.ca tells us "An estimated 225,800 new cases of cancer and 83,300 deaths from cancer will occur in Canada in 2020."

Just something else to think about. I just read in an article yesterday that we should expect to be on lockdown at least into May. I am very curious to see how the City of Rossland will propose to support its residents who no longer have an income. We live in one of the most expensive places in the entire Kootenay region, and many had an issue with this while they were earning an income. Whats going to happen when people leave town and move away because they literally cannot live here anymore, or when this is all over and businesses close down and our main street becomes barron and empty because small businesses cannot reopen.

Believe me, I do not want any death and suffering, but this all seems draconian, and fairly dramatic measures to be taking when there is at least one far greater beast that will profoundly affect us all. 

Typo correction:  **Why ISN'T the government.......

It seems some people are just dying to have a pandemic of any kind so they can put forward views that, in normal times, would be called out for what they are.  Callousness and Privilege. 

This pandemic has, of course, brought out the "I told you so" Libertarians.  It reminds me of Y2K or 2008 economic crash where the libertairan "i'm against and for everything" wannabe philosophers jump on a pulpit and take advantage of the complicated emotions and responses a pandemic like this brings to the forefront. I would remind you that are not, in fact, in ancient Greece, and the stakes are REAL PEOPLE, not numbers.

"The Foundation for Economic Education is a libertarian economic think-tank dedicated to the "economic, ethical and legal principles of a free society." FEE publishes books, daily articles, and hosts seminars and lectures." I feel like their kind of "Freedom" is to leave ethics behind with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.  Such an old, outdated document.  Too bad the views of the FEE remind me of brown shirts...they're older than the delaration, no?

Alex Jones, Hannity, Breitbart and their ilk, MAGA man all pursued this lingo for weeks while COVID was marching toward America, and now AT LEAST 100-240k American will now die because of the lack of a social compact in the USA, and the FEE and likeminded organizations just blow their horns.  Good for you, now go away, please. 

And for those that have been saying.....  "The flu kills so many every year, what's the big deal"?  And the smarter people would tell you "WAY MORE people are going to die from this than the FLU".  Did you listen? Of course not.  You are libertarian.  You aren't part of the problem, the problem is everyone else!  Don't worry.  Trump said we are in for 2 weeks of "very bad times" while only last week he was still comparing this to the flu.  Whatever fact bubble you folks reside in, it is so far removed from what is actually happening that i'm at a loss for how to explain it.  Does this help?

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-compared-seasonal-flu-in-the-us-death-rates-2020-3

I find it really hard to be open minded or sympathetic to views that are so grosly misguided such as what i see you, Howser, put forward on here.  You are often off topic, pressing your own agenda, and are so obviously privileged to have absolutely no idea what the real world is actually dealing with.  I am so glad you have the time and ability to wax philisophically about this but maybe, just maybe, you are the harbinger of a point of view that only becomes possible when a socitey is safe and comforatable enough to posit what it would be like to watch 100's of thousands of people die because they are no longer considered valid/viable because they are old, infirm, have an immunity deficiency (ie. fought off cancer, have to take strong meds, have lung infection like my 4 year old daughter). 

I am not censoring you - this is democracy and you have the right to your views - i'm just straight up telling you that I am through being polite.  Oh, you just thought this was such an interesting time and it has alowed you to reflect on how we are overpopulated and how we should just let the weak and vulnerable die?  I am so happy for you to have this time to reflect. 

I have no doubt that these views are dangerous - they have already proven to be so in the USA - and you can dress them however you like, as I am aware that you think you are somehow raising this discussion to a higher level....however...

....it only comes across as privilege and callousness

 

 

This has so far been an exceptionally civilized discussion by Bhubble standards. Let's try to keep it so, and keep personal attacks, insults and rants to a minimum.

On the issue of privilege, actually there's an argument that supporting the lockdown comes across as privilege After all, the people with hefty bank accounts and financial reserves are the ones who can get through a month without income better than restaurant staff, cleaners and others living paycheck to paycheck. If you are a homeowner you don't have to worry about meeting the rent. 

So there's a contrary argument that the lockdown greatly helps the well-off and privileges by depriving the poor and marginal workers of the money they need to survive - while most of them (being younger) have a considerably smaller chance of contracting a fatal infection.

Personally I think that the lockdown is an appropriate measure. However, I'm prepared to listen to another point of view, and I find that insulting people is a bad way to change their minds.

Yes unfortunately you cannot edit your comments once they've left the building.  I will admonish myself later after my coffee has worn off.   

I suppose i am not interested in enteratining points of view that i think are dangerous.  That's all.  When an idea crosses that line is in the eye of the behodler. 

I think people that hold the above point of view are responsible for a lot more people becoming sick and dying, and therefore i think it's dangerous and should called out as such, as have other comments made by the poster. 

There was a tacit agreement amongst the press during the "Spanish Flu" to "not print bad news", so a lot of the information that made its way into the public domain came through the Spanish media because they were a neutral power.  This lack of infomation led to further spread of the disease (and saddled the Spanish with the name of the flu, when it had originated in the USA or somewhere else in Europe. Not Spain)

COVID 19 does not suffer for a lack of information, but certain information (ie. like above) may lead to further health crises and an elongation of the present crisis, and more lives lost.  I am not one for curbing disenting views. but i think the privilege is where we live and how untouched we are by what is happening in, for example urban environments, and I believe that views as expressed above are dangerous and i'm not going to shy away from calling a spade a spade.

I have no pretense of changing anyone's mind as they made up their mind a long time ago.  I'm just not giving it any respect when it is so dangerous. 

I mentioned before, and I will say it again, I think discussing this is really important, and I am thankful to those of you who care to engage with this topic.

Jeff W - to be clear about my stance, I am not mind made up one way or another, and I do not want to see Covid 19 rampage our community leaving death and destruction behind. That is not my viewpoint just because I question what is happening to our society, and the large amount of people who are suffering due to government action to control the spread of this virus.

I could easily say that it is privilige and callousness that leads people to not care about businesses that will never reopen, the rise in suicides that is sure to happen, the spike in domestic abuse because people are trapped indoors with their abusers.... etc etc etc etc (again - this damage is unknown, not quantifiable as someone mentioned)..... But I don't want to say that, because these same people care enough to isolate themselves completely for an undetermined amount of time to save their grandma and elderly neighbours.

It is probably safe to say here, that nobody, not us nor the government, will know what will actually be the right answer until its all said and done. In the meantime, asking questions and having civil discourse about what IS happening is to me, not only healthy, but vital in a well functioning society.

 

 

Three points:

- Two weeks from now, everyone in Canada will have a lot more clarity as to why social distancing is so important. Science has clearly explained the exponential math, but the math seems so abstract and insignificant when it isn't unleashing its full exponential fury quite yet. The videos and images coming out of the US in two weeks' time should clear up any doubters. 

- As to the economics of this pandemic. I haven't met a single person who is happy this is happening. Everyone is concerned to some degree, and rightfully so. Nobody wants a virus. Nobody wants economic hardship. The essential businesses continue to operate, the non-essential businesses are closed. In the absence of a better plan, that's all we've got. 

- Very few people in our community have been in a position where they have to make nearly-instantaneous life or death decisions... several times per day... for weeks, and weeks, and weeks. Be thankful you don't ever have to be in that position! Because of this virus, some of our health care professionals will be facing life and death decisions like that in the very near future. If you are being careless in your approach to this pandemic, you are increasing the number of hard decisions that front-line healthcare providers will have to make. Why do that to them? 

@paydirt - Thank-you for your responses and for your courage to ask some of the more difficult questions around what harm is truly being done in the effort to avoid another type of harm.  We can never truly answer all the "what if" questions, though many will claim the ability to answer such questions with 100% certainty.  Much gratitude to you for engaging in the conversation!

Jeff W - I'm sorry to learn that your 4 year old daughter has a lung infection.  I hope that she recovers swiftly, and that you are able to get the support that you need for you and your family at this time.  While unacknowledged privilege can be dangerous, so can the act of making assumptions and then attacking others based on those assumptions (e.g. assumption that "they have made up their mind's a long time ago"). Navigating conversations around COVID-19 has been exceptionally challenging, because the simple act of questioning the narrative results in accusations of being uncaring, callous and insensitive to the fact that PEOPLE are dying.  In our grief illiterate, death phobic culture, conversation around such topics quickly become stifled, and instead we lash out when someone touches on our fear, uncertainty and guilt.  Acknowledge privilege can be a true gift in this world.  It is a privilege to have the opportunity to self-reflect and smash down old personal biases, judgements and limiting stories.  It is a privilege to have the opportunity to do deep personal, inner work that liberates ourselves and others.  It is a privilege to reclaim our right to be supported.  In a community that, in my opinion, is quite privileged, we also carry with that, a great responsibility to ourselves and to each other to have these difficult conversations and to keep growing.

Personally, my hope in all this is that we don't lose touch with the collective humanity that unites each and every one of us on this planet.  There are so, so, so many ways to look at this challenge that we are ALL facing right now.  A differing viewpoint does not imply a lack of morality.  Another hope of mine is that we all have the opportunity to be supported in our grief, and that the emergence from this crisis is one that we can all learn from, including from the darkest aspects that are revealed during this time.

Huh.  Well, we do all certainly find ourselves with more time to think nowdays, which is perhaps a privilige, but also could be a curse.

I find the discussion that links global public health during a pandemic, and economic development as two ends of the same spectrum dissonant.  I was disheartedned to hear my very hard working step-son parrot the opinion that" the cure might be worse than the disease".  If this discussion was strictly about philosophies and ethics, then perhaps that would be a statement of interest.  But this is a personal discussion, where we need to look around at our families and friends and neighbours and community and decide which one of them we are willing to lose to a disease to ensure the "cure" isn't worse.  I will ask him during our next conversation which member of the family he is willing to lose, but I'm pretty sure the evil step-mom will be the choice. ;-).

If we are going to include the "deep state" in the discussion, perhaps it is worth pondering the idea that the "deep state" may have already brainwashed the majority of the population into believeing that their value/worth/lives are best fulfilled as wage slaves supporting conglomerates/multi-nationals/the 1%, and as consumers of goods supporting an economy that provides major benefits to the few.  It would seem awfully convienient that when the scientists and governments take measures to save lives from a virulent and highly contagious virus, there is a proliferation of articles suggesting that "they" are trying to control us, and we should consider rebellion as an option.  Who would benefit the most if we all rushed back to our jobs, intermingling and passing a virus around that we know will kill people, but propped up the "economy"?  It seems like a massive example of deflection - ie: We're not trying to control you, THEY'RE trying to control you!  And who will consume all the economic output, if our population is decimated?  A bit short sighted ( quarterly profit reports, anyone?), if you ask me.

We're all going a little stir crazy, as we live in a community of active people, but perhaps instead of thinking about COVID-19 as a really bad flu, we should reframe it a Ebola.  That's an idea that keeps me physically distanced from others.  Humans are remarkable adaptors, and social creatures, so even this thread shows our ability to connect and interact with our fellow humans.  While I am not a heavy social media user normally, these are not normal times, and I'm thankful for the opportunity to connect with people in a safe manner.  

Look after yourselves and your loved ones, and we will adapt and recover from this situation.  Mmmm, sourdough.

This has been a really interesting string. I agree that the reason the gov is making the decisions is because we elected them. yup. That is democracy and it's generally a good thing. I think Canada in general and BC is particular is doing an excellent job. The irony, which I'm sure has not be lost on many, is that the heavy handed autocratic states (like China) were able to mobilize so fast and shut down entire segments of their country so quickly, that they were able to contain the virus much more effectively than the freer societies who value and highly prize individual rights. Being told what to do sits uncomfortably with us, but clearly, we have to think and act differently now. 

The "cure being worse than the disease", is a particularly awful and offensive statement for anyone to make. In reality there really is no choice. We have to tackle this pandemic, it's not like the flu, and the best way to do it is to stay home and keep our physical distance. The economy is going to take an unimaginably huge hit and we are going to have to pick up the pieces, innovate and learn to do things differently. Governments will have to act differently too.

As some might believe, if this disease really does just kill off old people with underlying health problems anyway, why should we care all that much? (and as Janice has said, they step right up to offer their parents, grandparents and evil-step mothers to be first on the chopping block) What are the consequences? That takes a very simplistic and selfish view of the situation. Even if you think those lives are somehow worth less than your own, being willing to let those people die and the rest of the population just hop right out there and get back to work, the problem will not be solved. In fact it will be exacerbated. Lots of people have or will get this virus, not all will get seriously sick but they can infect others, enough of them will require hospitalization, enough of those hospitalized will require intensive care. Exponential growth is staggering. (see Italy, or NYC or New Orleans if you doubt the impact of exponential anything) In short order hospital facilities will be overrun and even those younger folks with other medical concerns and needs will not be served. Those people are also at risk of dying. Back to "normal life", and the young 20 year old in a car accident may not be able to get the life saving care that was required to save her life because the emergency room and ICU is full of covid patients and we didn't think taking serious action to control this virus was worth it (since it "only" kills old folks). 

It goes on of course, the lack of PPE to protect health care workers and others out in the public realm, will struggle to keep up even if GM never makes another car and just concentrates on producing ventilators. Without proper PPE more and more of our health care workers will get sick, many will die. Then, even if that 20 year car accident victim could get into emerg, there'd be a shortage of medical professionals to help her. They've been killed off so we can make sure the "cure isn't worse than the disease". hmmm, maybe the addressing the pandemic with draconian methods is the right way to do it, eh?

I guess my point is that we are in a terrible situation, with no good options. Everywhere you look requires sacrifice and changes to our behavior on so many levels. All the choices are hard so the best option is that we have to spread the pain around- stay home, take a hit economicially, research what gov programs are there to help you and apply for them. Tragically many lives will be lost regardless of the best we can do, but we MUST flatten the curve so our health care service can survive this pandemic. This is also an opportunity for creativity and innovation. How can we make the best of this situation? What changes will we make in our lives that we can continue with once the crisis is behind us. This is an opportunity to really think about how we live our lives. 

When its all over, which it will be sooner or later, then we need to really examine what happened, how we could have done better and what we can do in the future to be prepared. 

A good refutation of the original article here by none other than the Economist magazine.

They argue that even if governments did not impose lockdowns, people would take self-protective action anyway (e.g. in Korea though cinemas have re-opened they have remained empty.) Would YOU go to the cinema even if you could?

So without an organized lockdown we would get the worst of both worlds - huge fatalities and economic devastation.  Anyway that's a very crude summary of a quite long and at times technical article. It's available here

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/04/03/the-hard-choices-covid-pol...

Gosh, I hope this thread catches COVID-19 and expires.