4 ms·

(Not GP) I think you’re being incredibly cavalier with other people’s personal freedoms if you’re advocating China-style totalitarian lockdown in response. N

(Not GP) I think you’re being incredibly cavalier with other people’s personal freedoms if you’re advocating China-style totalitarian lockdown in response. No, I don’t think having the national guard enforce a national quarantine is a good thing. Lots of people seem to have this delusion that we will eradicate this virus, or that we cam hold off until the vaccine is ready. That’s a fantasy. The entire world will be exposed, and thus our job is just to slow the rate enough that we do not run out of medical capacity. That’s all. —- Seriously tho, it shocks me that people are acting that this is an extinction event. It’s not. My layperson napkin math makes me predict around 1-3 million dead in America by the time this has run its course. That’s a terrible figure but it’s very different from losing 100 million. Again, I support social distancing and flattening the curve, but I oppose all forms of compulsion in this matter. People seem to really be losing their sanity here...

JamesBarney 7y ago
No they just think that 1 to 8 million dead is really bad, and are willing to give up some freedom to save a ton of lives.
- __blockcipher__ 7y ago
  I understand that. I will note that the phrase “some freedom” is slippery. Really we’re talking about ceding the fundamental freedom of movement.
  - yibg 7y ago
    We already have these limitations in place now don't we? I mean we can't go into private property, because it's someone else's property. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins kind of deal. If you're free to move around while sick, doesn't that in essence limit my freedom to go to the same place? If you're infected you are in fact a danger to those around you.
  - objectivetruth 7y ago
    You should note that: * quarantine laws and powers have existed for thousands of years in all forms of governments, and much more draconian steps have been taken in this country in the past -- which were obviously reversed after the crisis. * speaking of, these laws & powers have been on the books for quite some time -- not exactly in a sub-basement with a burnt-out lightbulb and a sign reading "Beware the Leopard" :-) * the majority of people are OK with lawful extreme public health measures in the face of an extreme pandemic; that number increases as more people get sick and die from the disease. * most people also uniformly agree that we don't have time right now to re-litigate the hundred years of legal analysis, court decisions, and public health science that led to modern public health law just for the benefit of the latest generation of libertarians. * most importantly -- flippantly shrugging off the death of a million (or THREE million) of your countrymen as an argument against closing restaurants is going to make most people think you're a sociopath. Unless you're in an impermeable bunker with a literal lifetime supply of every need and no human relationships, the rapid death of millions of Americans and the attendant culture and economic shocks should upset you, or at least make you anxious about the future. Stay healthy, and good luck with those back-of-the-napkin epidemiology and civil rights analyses!
    - __blockcipher__ 7y ago
      Sorry for the late response here. I appreciate the points you raised, but could do without the snarky comments. They distract from the argument, IMO. Particularly when you utilize strawmans like so: > flippantly shrugging off the death of a million (or THREE million) of your countrymen as an argument against closing restaurants The above is a blatant mischaracterization of my position. You really did show that straw effigy who was boss though :P

JamesBarney 7y ago

No they just think that 1 to 8 million dead is really bad, and are willing to give up some freedom to save a ton of lives.

__blockcipher__ 7y ago
I understand that. I will note that the phrase “some freedom” is slippery. Really we’re talking about ceding the fundamental freedom of movement.
- yibg 7y ago
  We already have these limitations in place now don't we? I mean we can't go into private property, because it's someone else's property. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins kind of deal. If you're free to move around while sick, doesn't that in essence limit my freedom to go to the same place? If you're infected you are in fact a danger to those around you.
- objectivetruth 7y ago
  You should note that: * quarantine laws and powers have existed for thousands of years in all forms of governments, and much more draconian steps have been taken in this country in the past -- which were obviously reversed after the crisis. * speaking of, these laws & powers have been on the books for quite some time -- not exactly in a sub-basement with a burnt-out lightbulb and a sign reading "Beware the Leopard" :-) * the majority of people are OK with lawful extreme public health measures in the face of an extreme pandemic; that number increases as more people get sick and die from the disease. * most people also uniformly agree that we don't have time right now to re-litigate the hundred years of legal analysis, court decisions, and public health science that led to modern public health law just for the benefit of the latest generation of libertarians. * most importantly -- flippantly shrugging off the death of a million (or THREE million) of your countrymen as an argument against closing restaurants is going to make most people think you're a sociopath. Unless you're in an impermeable bunker with a literal lifetime supply of every need and no human relationships, the rapid death of millions of Americans and the attendant culture and economic shocks should upset you, or at least make you anxious about the future. Stay healthy, and good luck with those back-of-the-napkin epidemiology and civil rights analyses!
  - __blockcipher__ 7y ago
    Sorry for the late response here. I appreciate the points you raised, but could do without the snarky comments. They distract from the argument, IMO. Particularly when you utilize strawmans like so: > flippantly shrugging off the death of a million (or THREE million) of your countrymen as an argument against closing restaurants The above is a blatant mischaracterization of my position. You really did show that straw effigy who was boss though :P