The problem with the driving analogy stems from a flaw in thinking about this that goes all the way back to OAM's post in response to me re: quarantine fatigue:
And on fatigue....I understand frivolous fatigue about BS that doesn't matter. I reeeeeally don't understand fatigue about something that's killing X% of people. I'd probably have that fatigue if I was 20 years old or something, but no, I'm not getting fatigue while my restrained actions and lifestyle are keeping me safe.
While this will sound strange coming from a libertarian and hardcore individualist, if we ALL think about our own individual risk of getting COVID rather than thinking about R0, we'll each individually take actions which result in increasing R0.
The better analogy with driving would be saying I feel perfectly safe accepting the risk to myself of driving while heavily buzzed on tequila, zonked out on some painkillers, on zero sleep and while texting, at night, with my headlights off. *I* have deemed that an acceptable risk, so why should someone tell me I can't?
The reason is simple... Even if you will get home safely 95 times out of 100 doing that, you create an unacceptable risk to others through your actions. Your bad decision isn't only risk to yourself; it's risk to everyone else. Even granny at home, if you drive through her living room wall because you passed out behind the wheel.
This virus spreads easily enough that the Great Barrington Declaration and the goal of "Focused Protection" is impossible. There are too many vulnerable people and it's frankly impossible for them to self-quarantine severely enough to keep them safe if the virus is just ripping through society with the healthy. But if we keep R0 down, those people can take reasonable precautions and their likelihood of coming in contact with the virus is much lower.
We're not going back on lockdown. People will not accept it. But people need to think less about their
individual risk and more about whether their actions are good or bad for R0.
That's where quarantine fatigue becomes an example of cognitive dissonance. We're thinking about our individual risk when the policies in place to reduce the spread are about collective R0. People get fatigued when they are told to deny themselves gratification to protect others, because they don't think their own risk is high.
The message has to be, as it actually is in Sweden: "We're going to remain open but we're relying on ALL of you to be vigilant and contain the spread. You're adults, so act like it."
