I've talked about how governments are doubling down as denial that they might have been scammed. Let's talk about how individual persons react.

The constant panic mindset of these people may be chalked up to virtue signalling, but it's also an indication of implicit denial of the idea that their measures have little to no effect
This is the sunk cost effect to being scammed, and so we see the wider acceptance of this virus being more deadly than the alternative of NPI's having minimal effect
Think of it this way, you spent a lot of money on masks, followed every rule to your detriment, and you have nothing to show for it e.g., your neighbor not following measures hasn't died yet
You can cut your losses and be more proportional with your behavior, but tons of factors make justifying measures in the form of exaggerating virus damages a better option
The first of this is stigma, if at any point you oppose the measures you will be called a murderer. The strength of this accusation is enough for many to tow the line
Second is fear that the misfortune of infection will happen by not following. Every time someone doesn't comply and gets infected is amplifies to send the message: retribution comes to he who dares oppose the virus
I can list many more, but an overlooked aspect is really the sunk cost fallacy. If you read carefully to lockdowner points they assume measures ought to have an effect even if it's not empirically shown to be so
That is, it's impossible for measures not to be effecacious simply on the flawed assumption that the alternative is way worse: If we didn't do this we'd see more deaths so the measures do something
Like a gambler unable to stop himself, lockdowners will continue to follow rules however irrational on the basis that they will be spared from the virus
And thus the sight of anyone opposing measures breaks their illusion of safety, they cannot let anything show that they have been scammed
In conclusion, people who have been convinced of the deadliness of the virus will continue in this mindset as justification of all the resources they put into what they perceive as safety
Sorry for the messy train of thought, it's hard to find the right words

More from Life

You May Also Like

I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.