Discussions about rules & loopholes illustrate what a cognitive mess we are in. Pro-Lockdowners (PLs) want tough, blunt Covid rules to avoid loopholes. Anti-Lockdowners (ALs) spot loopholes in every rule, or simply ignore them.
1/15

These are end-runs to an increased risk of death but both sides see them as somehow attractive.

You’d think the PLs could leave it to Darwin, but they insist paternalistically that ALs must be saved from themselves.
2/15

To push that water up the hill, they insist on draconian rules that make little sense unless the ALs will somehow find them more tolerable than more nuanced rules.

In reality, the severity of the rules reinforces the ALs’ belief that the rules are irrational.
3/15

For the ALs, this justifies the circumvention the rules are intended to frustrate.

The PLs reject a Darwinian approach because they fear the ALs will harm others as well as themselves. But that only makes sense if the draconian rules reduce the likelihood of circumvention.
4/15

In practice, the opposite seems the case.

People’s decision not to pursue a course that increases their risk ought to stem from simple self-preservation, not rule-compliance. The rules arguably diminish the thought people give to the actual risk.
5/15

IME there is a loose correlation between PL/AL and compliance. Most people are unclear on the rules, and make judgments on when they will stretch them. Their judgment is less risk-evaluation than weighing the desirability of the action against the the severity of non-conformance.

Attempting to suppress personal risk assessment with blunt rules not only has the effect of dulling the former & stimulating contrarianism; it also inhibits discovery.

By now, the idea that the experts know what’s right should be well-and-truly shot. But what’s the alternative?

We can’t literally run A/B experiments. If we think A is lower risk than B, that would be highly unethical. But accommodating differences of personal judgment is like infinite A/B experimentation. The experts can be clear that A is lower risk than B...
8/15

...but if this is guidance rather than a rule, people can make judgments about utility vs risk in each circumstance. They will sometimes choose B. After a while, we will see the consequences or lack of them, and refine our knowledge.
9/15

“You’ve argued people will do that anyway, so what’s the difference?”

There’s a difference between breaking the law & ignoring guidance. They are more likely to conceal the truth, which inhibits learning. And judgment will be skewed by a focus on compliance rather than risk.
10/

“That’s pretty cynical to let people make potentially fatal judgments for the greater good.”

But they will anyway. We might as well minimise the miscalculation and maximise the learning benefits by focusing on risk rather than compliance.
11/15

I’m not a Covid minimiser, nor anti sensible govt measures. 54 & unfit, I’m q risk-averse. I stocked up in February for the lockdown I saw coming. Our parents began isolating before lockdown on my advice. We pulled our kids out of nursery before Xmas, seeing the 3rd wave coming.

I’m now feeling q smug, as nursery have emailed to say they’ve had a positive case, everyone who came into contact has to isolate, and not to worry as it’s mild in most kids. But what about their carers? How are you supposed to deal with toddlers without exposing yourself?
13/15

Are we better with govt deciding that schools should open, then shut, but nurseries should stay open (for now)? And prosecuting local councils who make a different judgment? Or is it better to provide advice and let every organisation and individual make their own judgment?
14/15

If the latter, govt’s role would be to ensure that people and organisations do not face a choice between destitution and risk, reducing but not eliminating the trade-off.

Govt has so far been as bad at that as the rest. I wonder if they’d do better if they focused on it?
15/15