Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
Disagreeing and deriding are two different things, and arguments are different from opinions. I offer arguments that people can assess for themselves, that don't rely on appeals to my expertise (which I expect people to give ~0 weight since I'm just somebody posting on the internet).
My argument is:
1) The best experts struggle to accurately predict future COVID-19 outcomes or what activities are high or low risk. We know this because they have said this, their models have high uncertainty and have proven so far to have poor predictive power, and they have been conservative with their shutdown policies.
2) Therefore we cannot say conclusively that high density alone is a significant risk factor or, if it is a risk factor, that its risk isn't easy to mitigate.
Others in this thread made perfectly valid points about the concept of population density (people per unit of land area) being different from overcrowding (people per unit of housing). A lot of claims about density really have to do with overcrowding or poverty, and mix up cause and effect. For example you might find that high density correlates with lung cancer, because poor people smoke more and poor people live in smaller houses or apartments. That doesn't mean that high density causes lung cancer.
|
Fair points. While I wasn't singling out you (or anyone else) in my post, I will say that you appear to possess a high level of skill in terms of being able to express yourself, while others may not be able to express their ideas as well on an internet board such as this. It doesn't mean that their ideas are not valid, even though they may not have the time or inclination to develop a detailed case argument. Internet boards in general, seem to flow into a sort of online debate, where everybody must bring the highest level of argument to the table and if they don't then 'you win'. My view, however, is that it should be more about conversation and mutual respect. If somebody presents an idea, it's reasonable to at least consider it. I know I can't shape the way discussions occur on this forum, but it's how I would like to frame discussions that I am involved in. That said, I'm only human and can be affected emotionally when discussing certain topics that may be affecting my life or the lives of those I care about. As long as we all try to keep it positive, it will always be better than going the other way IMHO.
In terms of this particular discussion, there are aspects of dense urban living that are promoted by those who are proponents of such a lifestyle, that have been mentioned by a few members (including myself) and not actually addressed in counterargument. Instead we read things, like... "but Hong Kong".
These aspects include (followed by my argument as to why they are valid in this conversation):
1) Personal cars are bad, mass transit is good. - Mass transit presents higher risk of exposure than a personal car.
2) Tall residential buildings are good, single family homes are bad - As mentioned apartment/condo buildings have unavoidable situations such as hallways, elevators, lobbies, etc. which have higher risk of exposure than a single family home.
3) In general, it doesn't seem like a stretch to say that more people using a smaller area will increase risk of exposure. More people on the sidewalks with less room to move away, more corners to unexpectedly meet another pedestrian, etc.
4) Etc. you get the idea...
Comparing financial status is not a valid point IMHO, in every case people who are more well off financially have greater ability to separate themselves from the general population - it's a fact, no matter where you live. You could be a billionaire living in a Manhattan condo and pay people to do all of your errands for you, so you never have to go outside if you don't want to. People of lesser financial means do not have that choice, and in this case are often the ones who have to work in grocery stores and other essential service industry jobs.
But if you want to use overcrowding, it is still a real-world side effect of density. Dense city areas tend to be more expensive to live in, so somebody who lives there in the lower echelons of financial income will have to live in circumstances where they must come into contact with people. In the more extreme case, homeless people tend to live in the denser areas of cities, and they have almost no means to protect themselves, save for the efforts of those who are trying to run shelters safely. One could conclude by this that dense areas create greater exposure risks by these means as well.
But, as everybody understands, I think, there are so many variables that it is very difficult to do a case-to-case comparison, to come to any sort of conclusion.
To be honest, though, the argument seems silly and nonproductive, and certainly doesn't serve much purpose in the current circumstances. We are all dealing with this, and we are all doing the best we can to get through it.
One could argue that the governments have been too conservative in this case, but given the circumstances I think the Canadian government has done a good job, the NS government has done a very good job - better than most IMHO. The US is a case study where there are many differing philosophies and levels of protocols and varying ideas on when it is safe to start going back to normal, etc. With some of the horrific stories coming from various parts of the country I think there will be some very interesting (though heartbreaking) situations that will reveal that Canada could have done much worse than it has. Of course we are still somewhat early in the process of figuring things out, so time will grant us the wisdom of how to best deal with these situations in the future.