3 ms·

I don't think authoritarian tactics like that, while effective, would fly in the US. I for one would not be ok with that. Once the government takes that authori

I don't think authoritarian tactics like that, while effective, would fly in the US. I for one would not be ok with that. Once the government takes that authority once, who knows what they end up doing with it when they see they can get away with it.

sodafountan 7y ago
I agree, as alarming as it sounds I think we'd need something much higher than a 2% fatality rate to justify completely giving up our civil liberties. If anything it should be the elderly and vulnerable that are forced to isolate while the rest of society slows down for awhile, but even that I think is too egregious at this point.
- redisman 7y ago
  You're not gonna get 2% fatality rate without serious quarantine measures. That rate assumes you can get all the serious cases to the ICU and into a ventilator. If you let it grow exponentially, we need to start imagining what is the fatality rate basically without any hospital care. Scaling hospitals will be absolutely impossible once the cases start heading into six and seven figures.
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Imperial College doesn’t think that’s going to do enough good
- mokus 7y ago
  Lincoln used marshal law during the civil war and even that was deemed unconstitutional in some areas. As long as there are functioning civil courts, marshal law is not considered justified, as I understand it.
  - schoen 7y ago
    It's "martial" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/martial#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/martial#English) rather than "marshal" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marshal#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marshal#English). The two are homophones, but the first means 'military' and the second is a particular rank or role within an army or government.
coffeefirst 7y ago
Yeah... America is a big and weird place, and has large swatches of people who deeply distrust the police or the government for some reason or another. And literally everyone is already on edge. My neighborhood might comply, but there's a real risk that police state tactics would lead to massive social unrest, rioting, and total economic collapse in pockets across the country. If anyone thinks this is impossible, may I refer you to the 1960's. On the other hand, what the authoritarian minded commenters seem to miss is how powerful social pressure and distributed decision making can actually be.
larosalia 7y ago
who cares abt you though
y-c-o-m-b 7y ago
I don't disagree, but we seem to be approaching that end in little stages anyway all the while extending the financial losses felt by households across the nation. I'm saying if we're heading to that outcome, might as well make it quick short and stern.
mokus 7y ago
Something like that should come with a massive political cost - maybe after the crisis, all sitting politicians become ineligible for re-election on the basis that they shouldn’t have let it come to that point in the first place.
fennecfoxen 7y ago
> I don't think authoritarian tactics like that, while effective, would fly in the US. Much of this hinges on how it's done. First, you can't take away rights unless there's a compelling governmental interest. This interest clearly exists; however, it still doesn't fly UNLESS you restrict rights by the least restrictive means possible. By trying voluntary restrictions first, they can demonstrate that these lesser restrictions were ineffective, and then successfully defend the more aggressive mandates in court if necessary, later.
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  Postscript: For more on this, see https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/10/21171464/coronavirus-us-lockdown-travel-restriction-italy https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/10/21171464/co...

sodafountan 7y ago

I agree, as alarming as it sounds I think we'd need something much higher than a 2% fatality rate to justify completely giving up our civil liberties. If anything it should be the elderly and vulnerable that are forced to isolate while the rest of society slows down for awhile, but even that I think is too egregious at this point.

redisman 7y ago
You're not gonna get 2% fatality rate without serious quarantine measures. That rate assumes you can get all the serious cases to the ICU and into a ventilator. If you let it grow exponentially, we need to start imagining what is the fatality rate basically without any hospital care. Scaling hospitals will be absolutely impossible once the cases start heading into six and seven figures.
selimthegrim 7y ago
Imperial College doesn’t think that’s going to do enough good
mokus 7y ago
Lincoln used marshal law during the civil war and even that was deemed unconstitutional in some areas. As long as there are functioning civil courts, marshal law is not considered justified, as I understand it.
- schoen 7y ago
  It's "martial" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/martial#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/martial#English) rather than "marshal" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marshal#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marshal#English). The two are homophones, but the first means 'military' and the second is a particular rank or role within an army or government.

coffeefirst 7y ago

Yeah... America is a big and weird place, and has large swatches of people who deeply distrust the police or the government for some reason or another. And literally everyone is already on edge. My neighborhood might comply, but there's a real risk that police state tactics would lead to massive social unrest, rioting, and total economic collapse in pockets across the country. If anyone thinks this is impossible, may I refer you to the 1960's. On the other hand, what the authoritarian minded commenters seem to miss is how powerful social pressure and distributed decision making can actually be.

larosalia 7y ago

who cares abt you though

y-c-o-m-b 7y ago

I don't disagree, but we seem to be approaching that end in little stages anyway all the while extending the financial losses felt by households across the nation. I'm saying if we're heading to that outcome, might as well make it quick short and stern.

mokus 7y ago

Something like that should come with a massive political cost - maybe after the crisis, all sitting politicians become ineligible for re-election on the basis that they shouldn’t have let it come to that point in the first place.

fennecfoxen 7y ago

> I don't think authoritarian tactics like that, while effective, would fly in the US. Much of this hinges on how it's done. First, you can't take away rights unless there's a compelling governmental interest. This interest clearly exists; however, it still doesn't fly UNLESS you restrict rights by the least restrictive means possible. By trying voluntary restrictions first, they can demonstrate that these lesser restrictions were ineffective, and then successfully defend the more aggressive mandates in court if necessary, later.

fennecfoxen 7y ago
Postscript: For more on this, see https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/10/21171464/coronavirus-us-lockdown-travel-restriction-italy https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/10/21171464/co...