Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Preparedness Paradox

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 130 posts

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#71

Post by Andaith »

I've seen this so much regarding covid-19 in Australia, especially at the start. Everyone I know complained bitterly at the restrictions we had in Sydney, even when they weren't that strict, saying "but only 5 people have died" or whatever. I'd say "Yeah, because what we're doing is working. Look at Italy, or the UK, or France, or the USA".

Interestingly, there was a clear divide between people(like me) who had family & friends overseas, and worried about them, and people(like my in-laws) who didn't.

Eventually we had to stop discussing it because my in-laws refused to consider anything happening outside of Australia as relevant input.

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#72

Post by barking_biscuit »

makeitdouble wrote: post #70
anonporridge wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why it's often good resource management to wait until something breaks before committing resources to fix it. Especially true in software systems. One might think that constant firefighting is a waste of resources, and we'd be better off solving problems before they happen. That's true if and only if you know for sure that the problem and eventual breakage is really going to happen AND that it's worth fixing.…

This is the no-brainer choice for anything that can be immediately replaced/ordered. Most of us aren’t keeping a stash of computer monitors in case of failure. On firefighting…huge swaths of burned down land can’t be reordered on Amazon and delivered next day. People quip “just replant the trees” but of course that doesn’t rebuild an ecosystem, we might not even replant the right trees, and the things that lived ther…

Sources of resilience operate on three different timescales. The first is foresight. The ability to use feedforward to predict potential problems and avoid them. The second is coping. The ability to stop a bad thing from getting worse. The third is recovery. The ability to recover to a normal state once disaster has struck.

You need all three.

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#73

Post by tshaddox »

huetius wrote: post #8

Not doubting this, but it seems to cut both ways. I can just as easily justify an overreaction by claiming to have averted some worse outcome. It seems to be a general problem of counterfactuals.

I mean, it’s not some unique problem of counterfactuals, right? It doesn’t seem like counterfactuals have some unique epistemological status. You can use reason to propose and criticize counterfactuals the same as any other kinds of explanations.

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#74

Post by photochemsyn »

In the modern world, a good fraction of potential problems can be estimated using good computer models. Examples include building design parameters for withstanding earthquakes and hurricanes, river flow models for projecting potential flooding, aircraft design models that discover problems before planes start crashing, climate models that show the results of burning fossil fuels for decades, etc.

Yes, many people don't trust models, because they worry something might have been left out, but there's all kinds of ways of running real-world tests on models to get around those issues. For example, climate models accurately predicted the effects of the Pinatubo eruption in 1991, so there was no reason to distrust their predictions by the late 1990s.

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#75

Post by tpolm »

Andaith wrote: post #71

I've seen this so much regarding covid-19 in Australia, especially at the start. Everyone I know complained bitterly at the restrictions we had in Sydney, even when they weren't that strict, saying "but only 5 people have died" or whatever. I'd say "Yeah, because what we're doing is working. Look at Italy, or the UK, or France, or the USA". Interestingly, there was a clear divide between people(like me) who had famil…

Well, why not "look at Sweden", then?

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#76

Post by Izkata »

aaron695 wrote: post #2

Incoherent. How can there be a levee paradox. You can see the water it holds back. More people build because there are less floods. No idea what they are talking about with Fukushima The Millennial Bug is a good prospect. But that's a debate in itself.

> How can there be a levee paradox.

> You can see the water it holds back.

> More people build because there are less floods.

And then because of that, when the levee breaks, more damage is done than it the levee wasn't there in the first place. The paradox is that trying to be safe can cause more harm.

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#77

Post by brewdad »

tunesmith wrote: post #29
pbreit wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reverse may also be true: that the "preparedness" truly was unnecessary. No one will ever know.

I guess that gets me closer to understanding it, thanks. If we consider an example where the potential outcome is truly unknowable. If we don't prepare, it might happen; if we do, it might not have ever happened. So in that sense, the Y2K bug isn't a good example, but perhaps preparing for catastrophic low-probability events like "AI paper-clip doom" is.

I saw this playing out in the California Super-storm stories that went out late last week. Some of the headlines made it sound like a mega storm that would bring 10 feet of rain was just off shore. Only reading the article led to to the possibility that such a storm could happen sometime in the next 50-500 years.

No real indication of what anyone should DO with such information.

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#78

Post by Grimburger »

Andaith wrote: post #71

I've seen this so much regarding covid-19 in Australia, especially at the start. Everyone I know complained bitterly at the restrictions we had in Sydney, even when they weren't that strict, saying "but only 5 people have died" or whatever. I'd say "Yeah, because what we're doing is working. Look at Italy, or the UK, or France, or the USA". Interestingly, there was a clear divide between people(like me) who had famil…

Australia is on track to have similar per capita death rates as Norway which had far fewer restrictions. If it hits that point, will you still think the heavyhanded response was worth it in the end?

The Australian response in general was over the top:

* Postcode based restrictions targeting poor areas and not always related to actual case numbers

* Locking healthy people in their homes under 24hr police guard, all deliveries to their house inspected (people are shipping in covid apparently?), alcohol purchases limited.

* Banning outdoor playgrounds, exercise and confining people in their homes instead of allowing them fresh air.

* Flying polair choppers hundreds of km's to fine people camping in remote wilderness.

* Protesting made illegal.

* Nearly all laws made by decree and never actually facing a democratically elected parliament to debate.

* Making it illegal for a citizen to return home from India under threat of jailtime.

* Essentially banning citizens from returning home by drastically limiting flight numbers.

* Forcing all returnees to quarantine in 5 star hotels not fit for purpose while foreign celebrities and sport stars could choose to go to B&B's in the countryside.

It was a dark time for Australia in my opinion, yet somehow many seem to agree with it. Locking out our own citizens was one of the most popular policies ever, it consistently polled 90+% for over a year. I find something like that terrifying and speaks volumes to the mindset of the average Australian who loves to harp on about mateship.

Post reply on HN