The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
acesfull86
Well-known member
So much for being the city that never sleeps. Maybe when Cuomo gets done polishing his Emmy he can speed this up..
sturg33
I
Why can't you be bothered to lecture us on NY and California?
Cuomo throwing vaccines in the garbage and California can't stop their spread despite your favored totalitarianism
What gives??
Oh right... its temp drops.
Lol
Go on with your Dakota updates.
Someone once said agenda > facts.
About the only thing he was ever right about
Cuomo throwing vaccines in the garbage and California can't stop their spread despite your favored totalitarianism
What gives??
Oh right... its temp drops.
Lol
Go on with your Dakota updates.
Someone once said agenda > facts.
About the only thing he was ever right about
acesfull86
Well-known member
sturg33
I
Ministry of truth is a moving target
sturg33
I
Yes yes of course it is trumps fault.
He should be injecting them himself. I'm reminded what a liar he was about having a vaccine in 2020.
Now that theyre here a year early,, New York gotta take weekends off under the leadership of tyrant Cuomo.
Thats when he's not ordering them in the trash bc they went out of priority.
Of course it is trumps fault.
Runnin
Well-known member
Those are not direct quotes and lack context.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.aier.org/article/study-highlights-blinding-moral-bias-against-questioning-lockdowns/
A press release from the University of Otago in New Zealand puts it more eloquently,
“A collaborative study led by the University of Otago has shown that COVID-19 containment and elimination efforts have become moralised. As a result, people are more likely to accept collateral damage from these efforts, such as social shaming, lost lives and illnesses, and police abuse of power. This moralisation was so strong that people reacted negatively even when COVID-19 restrictions were merely questioned.
Published in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, the study, Moralization of COVID-19 Health Response: Asymmetry in Tolerance for Human Costs, examined how likely people were to overlook the harmful by-products of the elimination response, compared to similar actions unrelated to COVID-19 (e.g., reducing road deaths) or those addressing the economic impact of COVID-19.”
Rather than treating the Covid-19 pandemic like any other policy concern such as building a road, where the tradeoffs and expenses are weighed with a steady hand, many people have opted to treat it like a religion. This is problematic because policy decisions have real-life consequences and they ought to be made with proper discussion, not dogma and fervor to cleanse. Collateral damage among many other factors such as long-term economic health, human rights, and the general efficacy of a policy matter. Viewing Covid-19 in moral terms inevitably hampers our ability to have productive discussions and ultimately support the general welfare of society.
The authors of the study: Maja Graso of the University of Otago, Fan Xuan of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, and Tania Reynolds of the University of New Mexico write,
“We hypothesized that because Covid-19 (C19) remains an urgent and visible threat, efforts to combat its negative health consequences have become moralized. This moralization of health-based efforts may generate asymmetries in judgement, whereby harmful by-products of those efforts (i.e., instrumental harm) are perceived as more acceptable than harm resulting from non-C19 efforts, such as prioritizing the economy or non-C19 issues.”
The authors explain that moralization can be a problem because
“When attitudes, including those regarding C19, are held with strong moral conviction, (known as moral mandates), they are perceived as objectively true and universally obligatory (Skitka, 2002; Skitka & Houston, 2001)…
If Control-C19 (refers to policies that seek to contain or eliminate Covid-19) efforts have risen to the level of a sacred value, merely questioning them should evoke strong moral outrage and opprobrium.”
Their research concludes that
“Altogether, results suggest reducing or eliminating C19 have become moralized, generating asymmetries in evaluations of human suffering.”
-------------
Further down:
For the first study, a sample size of 500 then filtered down to 487 individuals in the United States who were randomly assigned to respond to a variety of scenarios. They had to respond on a scale of 1 to 7 on how they felt about a certain situation. Those scenarios included how accepting they would be of the shaming of a public health expert, inaccuracies in a Covid-19 disease model, and acceptance of police misconduct. The experiment further divides the scenarios into more specific contexts such as police misconduct to enforce Covid-related restrictions and misconduct to enforce road safety, acceptance of public shaming for pro-lockdown opinions vs anti-lockdown opinions.
The study also noted differences in responses based on the perceived danger of Covid-19 and political ideology. It concluded that those of liberal or left-leaning political ideology were more likely to view Covid through a moralized lens and exhibit an asymmetric tolerance on various issues.
------
In the second experiment, 180 individuals in New Zealand were randomly assigned to evaluate a proposal suggesting that lockdowns should be discontinued; the other suggesting the opposite. Both proposals were identical in structure and contained established data. They were told to evaluate the proposal on a numerical scale of 1 (strongly disagree) – 7 (strongly agree) on factors such as perceived accuracy of the information, moral outrage, and prestige of researchers.
One of the striking data points is that Liberals tended to have a more extreme stance on the opposing viewpoint whereas Conservatives tended to be more moderate in their reception. This supports the earlier assertion that Liberals tended to view Covid-19 through a more moralized lens which generates asymmetrical tolerances. That is all things being constant, actions taken to forward a favored goal are more tolerated than the same actions taken in a different direction. This should not be construed to suggest that the authors believed one side is better than the other.
Liberals tended to view the pro-lockdown proposal as having more accurate information, lower moral outrage, higher research team prestige, better research methods, and better writing. Conservatives tended to exhibit the reverse except with a less noticeable difference in reception to the opposing viewpoint. Both studies were identical in structure and contained established information.
A press release from the University of Otago in New Zealand puts it more eloquently,
“A collaborative study led by the University of Otago has shown that COVID-19 containment and elimination efforts have become moralised. As a result, people are more likely to accept collateral damage from these efforts, such as social shaming, lost lives and illnesses, and police abuse of power. This moralisation was so strong that people reacted negatively even when COVID-19 restrictions were merely questioned.
Published in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, the study, Moralization of COVID-19 Health Response: Asymmetry in Tolerance for Human Costs, examined how likely people were to overlook the harmful by-products of the elimination response, compared to similar actions unrelated to COVID-19 (e.g., reducing road deaths) or those addressing the economic impact of COVID-19.”
Rather than treating the Covid-19 pandemic like any other policy concern such as building a road, where the tradeoffs and expenses are weighed with a steady hand, many people have opted to treat it like a religion. This is problematic because policy decisions have real-life consequences and they ought to be made with proper discussion, not dogma and fervor to cleanse. Collateral damage among many other factors such as long-term economic health, human rights, and the general efficacy of a policy matter. Viewing Covid-19 in moral terms inevitably hampers our ability to have productive discussions and ultimately support the general welfare of society.
The authors of the study: Maja Graso of the University of Otago, Fan Xuan of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, and Tania Reynolds of the University of New Mexico write,
“We hypothesized that because Covid-19 (C19) remains an urgent and visible threat, efforts to combat its negative health consequences have become moralized. This moralization of health-based efforts may generate asymmetries in judgement, whereby harmful by-products of those efforts (i.e., instrumental harm) are perceived as more acceptable than harm resulting from non-C19 efforts, such as prioritizing the economy or non-C19 issues.”
The authors explain that moralization can be a problem because
“When attitudes, including those regarding C19, are held with strong moral conviction, (known as moral mandates), they are perceived as objectively true and universally obligatory (Skitka, 2002; Skitka & Houston, 2001)…
If Control-C19 (refers to policies that seek to contain or eliminate Covid-19) efforts have risen to the level of a sacred value, merely questioning them should evoke strong moral outrage and opprobrium.”
Their research concludes that
“Altogether, results suggest reducing or eliminating C19 have become moralized, generating asymmetries in evaluations of human suffering.”
-------------
Further down:
For the first study, a sample size of 500 then filtered down to 487 individuals in the United States who were randomly assigned to respond to a variety of scenarios. They had to respond on a scale of 1 to 7 on how they felt about a certain situation. Those scenarios included how accepting they would be of the shaming of a public health expert, inaccuracies in a Covid-19 disease model, and acceptance of police misconduct. The experiment further divides the scenarios into more specific contexts such as police misconduct to enforce Covid-related restrictions and misconduct to enforce road safety, acceptance of public shaming for pro-lockdown opinions vs anti-lockdown opinions.
The study also noted differences in responses based on the perceived danger of Covid-19 and political ideology. It concluded that those of liberal or left-leaning political ideology were more likely to view Covid through a moralized lens and exhibit an asymmetric tolerance on various issues.
------
In the second experiment, 180 individuals in New Zealand were randomly assigned to evaluate a proposal suggesting that lockdowns should be discontinued; the other suggesting the opposite. Both proposals were identical in structure and contained established data. They were told to evaluate the proposal on a numerical scale of 1 (strongly disagree) – 7 (strongly agree) on factors such as perceived accuracy of the information, moral outrage, and prestige of researchers.
One of the striking data points is that Liberals tended to have a more extreme stance on the opposing viewpoint whereas Conservatives tended to be more moderate in their reception. This supports the earlier assertion that Liberals tended to view Covid-19 through a more moralized lens which generates asymmetrical tolerances. That is all things being constant, actions taken to forward a favored goal are more tolerated than the same actions taken in a different direction. This should not be construed to suggest that the authors believed one side is better than the other.
Liberals tended to view the pro-lockdown proposal as having more accurate information, lower moral outrage, higher research team prestige, better research methods, and better writing. Conservatives tended to exhibit the reverse except with a less noticeable difference in reception to the opposing viewpoint. Both studies were identical in structure and contained established information.
Last edited:
sturg33
I
They could have gotten to the same conclusion by studying this thread.
The only thing liberals struggled with was the BLM protests, which obviously is a higher moralized issue in their religion
Tapate50
Well-known member
That you think this has anything to do with Trump, shows a lot.
It’s state run 100%.
People are getting it but aren’t waiting in line to do so.