I find this sketch excellent because it illustrates the complexity of public policy and social science calculation in general. How much public money are you willing to dedicate to save lives? And is the money actually saving lives? How can we effectively measure this? And I'm not even going into the nanny-state debate that this produces.
@@GMovieSeeker I feel like the problem with this is the implication that it if you put enough effort into it, it will actually stop it. Realistically, a certain fraction of people are going to ignore any number of warnings and drown no matter what.
Although it is pretty logically unsound in itself. Surely if you're against drowning awareness going too far you're against cliff edge awareness going too far, and if nobody dies then you have no way of knowing quite how much you're overspending by
@@barryhomeowner9293 Yes, but as the interviewer says, 40 people dying in a mainly flat region shows a drastic underspend in awareness of cliffs. However, a very river, lake, and reservois heavy place such as they are talking about, some people should drown.
@@BachelorChowFlavour Yes it clearly does, though it's meaning differs depending on whether you think a particular government did too much or too little in response to the pandemic, respectively either because you think "local frogman" is did nothing wrong, or he's a valid satire.
The trouble is, the logic is irrefutable. You can’t prove a negative. If no money had been spent and there were still no drownings would mean all the money spent was wasted.
Petite think you're heartless of you accept that, yes, some people WILL die in unfortunate ways, but in reality, a certain number of deaths are inevitable, and stopping them often Congress at an excessive high cost to society. For example, here in the USA, we could save tens of thousands of lives a year by banning automobiles, but the result would be devastating to our society and economy. The final end result would probably mean MORE people would die in the long run, but they wouldn't be dying in *cars* anymore, and some people seriously think that's an improvement.
It was recorded in front of a live audience at BBC Radio Theatre. I find it jarring too, sometimes, but I think the conventional wisdom is that you get better performances from comedians when they're getting good feedback.
The really weird thing is that genuine audience laughter sounds so forced when you aren't there, in the moment. I know they have warmup guys getting them in the mood - maybe there's an element of mass hysteria going on?
@@robinverhagen-guest2173 Yeah, don't you experience this when you go to a live show? That you laugh more easily and enthusiastically because you're surrounded by other people laughing? I definitely feel that. Even in movie theaters, I find I enjoy the movie more if I'm watching with a "good" audience that laughs and gasps etc at the right places. Mass hysteria ... maybe a little dramatic, but there is definitely some kind of psychological group enhancement of the experience.
David should have played something like a "generic Tory," advocating for a heartless policy to save money, (because Tories are stereotypically heartless and obsessed with money), but then David's character comes across as sensible and persuasive, so it politically cancels out.
Isn't that literally the case? Remember during the pandemic where Lord Sumption got in trouble for saying that young peoples lives were "worth more" than the old, thats a good example of this sort of thing happening in real life. You can't actually advocate for sensible allocation of resources without someone calling you a heartless bastard, in reality.
Is it weird that I kind of agree with Mitchell's character here?
Not as weird as the fact that I agree with another youtube commenter.
I find this sketch excellent because it illustrates the complexity of public policy and social science calculation in general. How much public money are you willing to dedicate to save lives? And is the money actually saving lives? How can we effectively measure this? And I'm not even going into the nanny-state debate that this produces.
This is unironically correct, in terms of how a government has to rationally allocate resources to create the greatest benefit.
@@GMovieSeeker I feel like the problem with this is the implication that it if you put enough effort into it, it will actually stop it. Realistically, a certain fraction of people are going to ignore any number of warnings and drown no matter what.
Hey i here cause of you from the community post
I could imagine this being David's actual opinion
I am sure that this is David's actual opinion
"a disgrace for a fairly flat region"
Anyone else thinking that he actually does make a lot of sense?
Nathan Thompson that's the point. it's a very logical argument, despite being what could be considered immoral or heartless. and that's why it's funny
Except the last bit.
Very, but I tend toward pragmatism vs sympathy. (Plenty of empathy just don't let it get in the way if I can help it)
Although it is pretty logically unsound in itself. Surely if you're against drowning awareness going too far you're against cliff edge awareness going too far, and if nobody dies then you have no way of knowing quite how much you're overspending by
@@barryhomeowner9293 Yes, but as the interviewer says, 40 people dying in a mainly flat region shows a drastic underspend in awareness of cliffs. However, a very river, lake, and reservois heavy place such as they are talking about, some people should drown.
Oh god, it's true. This whole thing is true.
Such a Douglas-Adams-esque sketch
He's... he's got a point.
It's part of some Corona policies as well, so it aged well.
yes the hundreds millions a year spent on danger signs for swimming pools is truly a budget oversight
These two are so funny!
i love these guys
Not saying that he is entirely spot on, for sure, but he has some valid point on what he's saying..
I absolutely agree!
This takes on a whole new meaning in 2020 😬
Oh? How so? Guessing you're referring to covid
no it doesn't
@@BachelorChowFlavour Yes it clearly does, though it's meaning differs depending on whether you think a particular government did too much or too little in response to the pandemic, respectively either because you think "local frogman" is did nothing wrong, or he's a valid satire.
local frogman...jammy bastard more like...triple dot winkey face ;-)
The trouble is, the logic is irrefutable. You can’t prove a negative. If no money had been spent and there were still no drownings would mean all the money spent was wasted.
I'm with David on this one.
He's right, you know....
"The resourceful ones will pull through cemeteries
ah, social darwinism at work
Re: Ford Pinto.
Public policy wonks in a nutshell
I wish, lol
This isn’t comedy, it’s pure common sense (albeit expressed in an unsympathetic way for comic effect - so I suppose it is comedy then).
ahead of their time on trans rights, too
david maybe, rob… ehhh
...I'm sorry... what's the joke?
him providing a counter-intuitive yet well-reasoned/rationale argument.
It's been 5 years. How are you doing? Do you get it now?
It's been another 6 months. How about now?
@@IAMBIGLION And another six months
Petite think you're heartless of you accept that, yes, some people WILL die in unfortunate ways, but in reality, a certain number of deaths are inevitable, and stopping them often Congress at an excessive high cost to society.
For example, here in the USA, we could save tens of thousands of lives a year by banning automobiles, but the result would be devastating to our society and economy. The final end result would probably mean MORE people would die in the long run, but they wouldn't be dying in *cars* anymore, and some people seriously think that's an improvement.
this would be so much better without that awful laugh track. Why does there need to be a laugh track for a radio show?
It was recorded in front of a live audience at BBC Radio Theatre. I find it jarring too, sometimes, but I think the conventional wisdom is that you get better performances from comedians when they're getting good feedback.
The really weird thing is that genuine audience laughter sounds so forced when you aren't there, in the moment. I know they have warmup guys getting them in the mood - maybe there's an element of mass hysteria going on?
@@robinverhagen-guest2173 Yeah, don't you experience this when you go to a live show? That you laugh more easily and enthusiastically because you're surrounded by other people laughing? I definitely feel that. Even in movie theaters, I find I enjoy the movie more if I'm watching with a "good" audience that laughs and gasps etc at the right places. Mass hysteria ... maybe a little dramatic, but there is definitely some kind of psychological group enhancement of the experience.
David should have played something like a "generic Tory," advocating for a heartless policy to save money, (because Tories are stereotypically heartless and obsessed with money), but then David's character comes across as sensible and persuasive, so it politically cancels out.
Isn't that literally the case? Remember during the pandemic where Lord Sumption got in trouble for saying that young peoples lives were "worth more" than the old, thats a good example of this sort of thing happening in real life. You can't actually advocate for sensible allocation of resources without someone calling you a heartless bastard, in reality.
@@JT29501 I can't see what you were replying to.
But it's an interesting point. I guess a "generic Tory" wouldn't actually say that.