What's a parents' risk of having children that eventually die? What's your risk of driving and having a seizure at the same time and wiping out kids on the sidewalk? What's your risk that while leaving Home Depot you dropped a few nails on the ground and someone's car tire picked them up and now they'll have a blowout on the highway?

We can take this stupid premise to its logical end and never do anything out of fear that we might eventually harm someone else, but that's not how life has gone on for millennia. We have the vaccine which is the solution, by and large the data supports that the sustained overreaction is now disproportionate to the actual risks, time to let the science we supposedly all believe in aka natural selection run its course.

No way, the 6th booster will definitely do it! Or maybe the 7th!

We can take a realistic look at the increased risks involved with particular behaviors and the relative gains.

There are people who don't have kids of their own because of the high risk of passing potentially fatal genetic defects to their children. If you are an at risk epileptic, driving regularly is something you should avoid.

If an you are contemplating an activity that has a significant risk of causing harm to others, you have a moral obligation to consider if the benefits are big enough to be worth that risk.

If you have a higher than average level of contact with vulnerable populations, you should take higher than normal precautions to reduce your chances of infection. This is just basic moral common sense.

If we're going to run society this way, we're going to need much more difficult driving tests.

I understand the point you meant to make, but to be honest I've always found it horrifying whenever I have to sit in the DMV and see who all they allow to pilot steel missiles around. Our "licensing" for drivers in the US is abhorrent.

Sounds sensible to me.

The US in general has super lax driving tests. Here in Denmark it's about 3 months of theoretical classes side-by-side with driving with a certified driving instructor. We also learn the basics of cars on a closed track, and later learn to drive in slippery conditions on the same closed tracks. The closed-track tests include being able to catch the car after pulling the handbrake in a turn while going 80 km/h (50 mph).

Oh, and to actually get your license you also have to drive 45 minutes with a police official checking your every move.

My friend living in Denmark, with a driver’s license from a corrupt country where literally anyone can get it, would render your whole 3-months intensive system useless. He is in fact driving, and could cause quite a crash, with all this amazing procedure you describe.

We are a somewhat globalized civilization and the same as this security theatre about keeping airports open with countries with 2% vaccination rate can be said about driving.

But Mum, Kevin does drugs and he is fine, why cant I?

Why would you want to pull the handbrake in a turn while going 50 mph? And what is going to happen if you pull the handbrake at 50 mph other than the handbrake burning out? I have not had a car with a handbrake at all but I drove a few rentals with one and they drove normally even when I forgot to take them off the handbrake, the thing is just a lever with a wire, it cannot stop the car even on idle. Or do they use a rally car with a hydraulic handbrake that does something at that speed?

The point of pulling the handbrake is to artificially trigger a slide in a controlled environment in order to verify that the student driver has the vehicle control skills necessary to recover. It's similar to what can happen driving on ice.

So the car is supposed to slide when you pull the handbrake? This will be hard to pull off in the US where most cars have an electronic parking brake and the ones that have the actual lever have it connected to a weak drum brake that cannot lock wheels when the engine is running.

Also, the whole test seems to be set up like a gold rush for lawyers - if you actually managed to slide the car and roll over at 50 mph you are almost certain to have some injuries not to mention the damage to the car. Who is liable for those, the government that ordered the driver to execute a dangerous maneuver in order to obtain a driving license? What if the driver dies from the injuries?

> So the car is supposed to slide when you pull the handbrake?

Yes, that's what will happen if you brake the rear wheels (what the handbrake does) in a turn.

The point isn't that you'd ever do that, of course, but to simulate the rear end of the car sliding which can happen if you hit ice, oil or even uneven water patches. Can you control that slide? It's really awesome if Denmark is including car control in the test. The US should do the same.

I strongly encourage you (everyone) to find a car control clinic in your area and participate. Even a single weekend will raise your car control skills significantly if you've never had any instruction before.

Newer cars have a lot of traction control magic that try to save you and often do, but there's still no substitute for the driver having skills as well.

Sure the DMV manual will tell you to steer into the skid, but there's no way to learn this muscle memory without practice and the most productive practice is with a good instructor.

(I used to instruct the BMW club car control clinics (open to all cars) before life got too busy, hopefully will take it up again in the future.)

> Also, the whole test seems to be set up like a gold rush for lawyers

OP said this was in Denmark, so presumably every little thing isn't a "gold rush for lawyers" unlike in the USA.

Handbrakes do not always break rear wheels for one, some cars have front parking breaks. I am pretty sure you will be off the road if you locked your front wheels in a turn no matter how much muscle memory you have, you cannot steer with locked wheels.

And I have not seen a car where a handbrake could lock wheels even on idle, least on driving in gear at 50 mph. I don't doubt such breaks exist, rally cars supposed to have them, but on my car, for instance, all that is going to happen if I pull the handbrake flap in gear is nothing and if I hold it for 5 seconds it will do an emergency stop using its ESC,ABS and all kinds of smart technology (I think it's also supposed to move to the shoulder and turn on hazards but I never really tried it). It won't slide for sure. How am I supposed to pass a test like that? Rent a 500K rally car?

>OP said this was in Denmark, so presumably every little thing isn't a "gold rush for lawyers" unlike in the USA

People can just kill themselves on orders from government in Denmark? Sounds like the country not to take as an example to me.

Even if you could not lock the rear wheels on a regular manual car with the handbrake, these cars are always modified for instructive use. Think additional mirrors/pedals for the passenger.

An upgraded handbrake doesn't seem far-fetched.

> Even if you could not lock the rear wheels on a regular manual car with the handbrake

Mind you, you don't need to lock the rear wheels to induce oversteer (rear sliding out).

All you need to do is to make the rear wheel braking force be higher than the front wheel braking force while turning. Which in this case, since there is zero braking force on the front wheels, doesn't take much at all. A very quick pull on the handbrake will do it.

If you ever drive a race car with an adjustable brake bias control (changes percentage of braking force front/rear) it's easy to experience it doesn't take much rear bias to induce a spin if braking in a turn, even though none of the wheels ever lock.

So every time I drove off with the engaged parking brake I had my car sliding in the turns? Great news: I appear to have so much muscle memory that I was able to drive without even noticing that.

So you use an instructor car's to pass the driving test in Denmark? It's not how the things in the US work. People cry bloody murder if a state requires to show ID to vote because of unmanageable costs of getting a 20ish dollar/5ish years ID, imagine you had to rent a specially modified car to get a DL or not being able to get a job/buy food?

> Handbrakes do not always break rear wheels for one, some cars have front parking breaks.

Which one specifically? I've never encountered one and a brief web search didn't find any. I'm sure it can exist, but seems exceedingly rare at best.

I mean this in the most encouraging way possible: your comments (this and previous) suggest you have zero experience with car control. I greatly encourage you to find and participate in a few car control clinics to see how cars actually behave on the edge of adhesion and beyond. It's a great learning experience and also just fun. Most importantly, if you ever do hit ice/oil/etc, it might just save you from a crash.

> People can just kill themselves on orders from government in Denmark?

No need to be silly. Surely these tests are done in a suitable location, and there's zero risk from a bit of a slide or spin. Again, something you could experience and learn in a car control class so it stops becoming scary.

Coming back in late here.

> No need to be silly. Surely these tests are done in a suitable location

My tests were done in the middle of a former cold war airstrip. This link should show the complex in a satellite view: https://www.google.com/maps/place/K%C3%B8reteknisk+Anl%C3%A6...

Notice the darker patch of tarmac. That is extra-slippery when wet and has a sprinkler system on the grass next to it.

Wiki article on the handbrake points at the brands, also ZF makes this https://press.zf.com/press/en/media/media_15682.html not for the parts collectors I imagine. It is hard to check parking brake locations on the cars via internet though.

And thanks for your concern about my car control, you don't seem to be talking about the things I mentioned though: the lack of parking brakes on many cars and the lack of parking brake capable to lock wheels on many more. I am not going to go to your clinic anyways so if you don't want to talk on the topic I will bow out.

Besides, you just informed me that spinning out is completely safe and won't harm me so why again I need to train for that?

So there's about 4 cars with front parking brake based on wikipedia, all of them very old and esoteric. They are so rare they can be ignored as outliers. If you show up at the driving test in one of those I guess you'll have to rent another car.

> Besides, you just informed me that spinning out is completely safe and won't harm me so why again I need to train for that?

You're not discussing in good faith so I won't continue.

Spinning out in a training facility (generally a large parking lot) is perfectly safe, it's a training area. Spinning out in traffic on a windy road, not so much. That's why you should train first in a safe space with instructors, before driving on public roads.

4 car brands, each brand makes multiple car models, Citoën is by no means a rare make. I've seen them even in the US and in Europe (where Denmark is with its test) it's one of the popular brands

Spinning out at 50 mph is not safe anywhere as you can easily rollover, I pity people who go into your clinic as you don't seem to have a slightest clue.

> we're going to need much more difficult driving tests.

Sounds good to me. Let's require regular re-testing while we're at it.

While we are at it, mandatory breathalyzers in all cars, and all cell phones should be locked while traveling over 10 MPH. Let’s do this!

Unless bad driving is an infectious airborne pathogen, I'm not following this analogy.

Come on - obviously bad driving is not primarily an infectious airborne pathogen. Bad driving is something you can unilaterally inflict on other people to permanently ruin their lives, as is an infectious airborne pathogen.

Indeed, driving lorries and buses requires an advanced license, with far more stringent testing, presumably because, like in the analogy, you could kill a lot more people behind the wheel of those?

Well I certainly do think people should consider others when they get behind the wheel.

Similarly I think people should consider the risk to others if they get this pathogen rather than just the risk to themselves.

The problem is, 73% of drivers think they're above-average drivers[1]. So just as you can't know whether you're the one spreading COVID, you can't know if you're the bad driver.

The solution is to get rid of cars as a primary mode of transport, and I really do think we should do that!

1: https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-overconfident-...

> So just as you can't know whether you're the one spreading COVID, you can't know if you're the bad the driver.

This really isn't remotely analogous, particularly since you absolutely can know you're at risk of spreading COVID.

You added the "at risk" part, not me! :)

Your version applies to cars too! By driving a car, you are at risk of causing a car crash!

You said "you can't know"

With COVID, you can. Pretty easily.

Sorry, I might not be understanding where you're going with this. I initially thought you meant "you can know you're at risk of spreading COVID, because everyone is at risk of spreading COVID."

Certainly, anyone who receives a positive PCR test for COVID should quarantine ASAP. But if you're incubating COVID, but not infectious yet, the tests will return negative. A test only tells you whether you were infectious at the time of the test, so by the time you've seen the results, the information is already outdated.

> I initially thought you meant "you can know you're at risk of spreading COVID, because everyone is at risk of spreading COVID."

No. That wouldn't be a particularly useful statement.

Dismissing the aggregate risks solely based on your own is short sighted.

Bad driving begets bad driving. Some jackass cuts you up dangerously, your adrenaline is pumping and you then follow too close behind a third driver repeat ad nauseam

Sure seems to be in the mid Atlantic region of the US. Also, I’m sure you get the point they were making, why be unreasonable about it?

Is there a better name for the "playing dumb" style of argument?

Your analogy doesn't really make sense to me.

It's not like we are aware that there are certain drivers that are 100x more likely to kill certain members of the population.

And if we were aware that certain ways of driving made you 100x more likely to kill someone, people would AT LEAST be talking about banning them.

Like, if teenagers could drive around drunk just find and not kill themselves or other teenagers somehow - they probably wouldn't care if only old, sick people ended up dead from their driving. People would probably make rules or at least talk about making rules to prevent this.

But that's not how driving really works.

also tiny, since they have rigorous procedures and properly-deployed ppe for all sorts of transmissible infections, not just covid (and where masks can actually help, unlike most mask usage).

the treatment risk calculation is also entirely different, since "someone with a much, much greater risk of death" is already flirting with death in other material ways.

You’re making uninformed assumptions and obviously don’t work at a Covid center in the USA. Personnel are now careless, many are fatigued and/or disillusioned, protocolsuu are not universal or enforced, many buy into the political drama and don’t mask when outside the facility and patients have become argumentative about masking. The moment I have another career option is the moment I quit. PPE use / enforcement and availability is also spotty. People are tired of arguing with their coworkers about it, too.

buddhism suggests we focus on the things we can control, like perception and attitude in the face of otherwise uncontrollable circumstances. i've no doubt the situation for many medical professionals is quite frustrating, even infuriating, but it would have been so in any of the myriad of realistic scenarios. the virus is, and was always going to be, endemic, which means hospitalization and death rates are pretty well bounded no matter what we realistically did. the frustration comes from believing that this isn't true, that there was something that could be done to significantly reduce these rates, but that's mediopolitical messaging, not realistic possibility. accepting this could possibly relieve some of your frustration.

also, no assumption was involved, just the simple logic of multiplying two tiny numbers resulting in another tiny number.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Should we stop having nurses treat covid patients so they don't spread it to people who are more likely to have severe reactions? Should we stop having nurses treat people with compromised immune systems and other health issues so they can treat covid patients?

The website doesn't have that info.