3 ms·
I think they are not enough, and that instead everyone should be forced to stay home and only go out if it's essential for their own or for other people's survi
by devit 7y ago
I think they are not enough, and that instead everyone should be forced to stay home and only go out if it's essential for their own or for other people's survival (e.g. buying food, working at jobs related to medicine, food, utilities, etc.); furthermore all non-essential travel (i.e. pretty much everything except delivering supplies) should also be blocked.
Currently people are, in part, still going to work even at non-essential jobs, non-essential shops are still open and enforcement is very limited.
- jshevek 7y agoI agree this would be a good policy in this case, but in my opinion the real issue is "what should our general policy be for empowering leaders to make this decision, and on what basis." I support the lock down in Italy because I am convinced of the threat of the virus. However, I can imagine an alternative scenario in which a viral threat is exaggerated and a lock down is used to consolidate political power.
- devit 7y agoA transmissible disease that has already overwhelmed hospitals in another country and is spreading uncontrollably in yours seems a good criteria.
- jshevek 7y agoYes, and we would need to either clearly, objectively define "overwhelmed" and "uncontrollably" or designate people authorized to make this categorization. (Or both).