5 ms·

I think this is fair. The problem in most western democracies is, that it is nearly impossible to enforce a law that is not accepted by the people, at least not

I think this is fair. The problem in most western democracies is, that it is nearly impossible to enforce a law that is not accepted by the people, at least not for a long time. A complete shutdown in Wuhan-style may be more effective, but in any western country the people would, after two or three weeks, start to find loopholes. So i think its better to make a law that is a bit less effective but accepted by the people instead of a law that invites people to get "creative"

bobjob 7y ago
I think that this and our lack in 'hands on' experience with pandemics play a role in how western governments act. It is sad that the population has to learn via a death toll that certain things have to be done. I wish I could say it wetter, but I'm lacking the right words/phrases.
oaiey 7y ago
In Bavaria we have these rules already a few days. They are quite acceptable. It leaves options to go jogging alone, to go out with the kids and have a chat with the neighbors over the street. 1.5m is IMHO a bit too close, but it seems the recommendation. However, I live a villagers life. Wuhan is a huge city with much less public space. So I argue, it is not only democratic vs. Non democratic society but also depends on the location dramatically.
- pachico 7y ago
  In general, I think it also depends on society maturity (given there are many ways to get to that state). In Spain and Italy, the countries I know best, thousands of citizens are trying to cut corners and bypass any quarantine obligation.
  - oaiey 7y ago
    I would be very careful with the wording maturity in context of society. Italy and Spain have a society which is far more family friendly, elder friendly and outgoing culture than Germany. That is usually much better. Just not now.
    - pachico 7y ago
      By maturity, in this case, I mean to really understand the thread, act upon it and have the society backing up measures taken, even if they personally affect you. In Mediterranean countries this usually doesn't happen.
- RalfWausE 7y ago
  I know people who would argue if Bavaria really counts as a western democracy ;-) But i think you are right: The infection risk out in the countryside must be magnitudes smaller than in any major city (so long as mass-events are banned).
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  It's quite acceptable for a while. Non-compliance will increase the longer it goes on, I suspect. There's a reason isolation is used as punishment/torture in prisons.
  - Bombthecat 7y ago
    Absolutely. I suspect that 8 months or so we just accept dead people.
    - dathinab 7y ago
      Believe me this won't take 8 month. Especially given that in many areas the live of "old" people and "mid/young" people got sadly somewhat decoupled in the recent 30 or so years.
      - airstrike 7y ago
        The young which require hospitalization have a real chance to die if left untreated. There aren't enough beds to treat everyone if 80% of people get sick.
        Bombthecat 7y ago
        Downvotes wont change the fact that mass psychology is at play. Not invidual psychology, like people in jail. Those are two different things! Most people think they are the same, but they are not. Nonetheless,thats why i wrote, soon or later we accept the dead people as part of doing "business"
        airstrike 7y ago
        You're way off base. We're not going to "accept" the risk of dying tomorrow any more than we do today. This isn't about old people dying. It's about 40-80% getting infected, 17-20% needing hospitalization and there not being enough beds. Simple as that.
    - 7y ago
hutzlibu 7y ago
" The problem in most western democracies is, that it is nearly impossible to enforce a law that is not accepted by the people" It's not a bug, its a feature. Seriously, the very idea of democracy is to only have laws accepted by the people. So if there is no acceptance, there should be no law. Unless it is accepted to have emergency authorian rule, like in this case.
- tpetry 7y ago
  Would be nice if democracy would really work like that. In reality the ruling parties can make the laws how they like no matter if people will like it or not. Think for example on the current plan in the US to break all end-to-end encryption: people will not like it but it does not matter
  - vinay427 7y ago
    That's not a counterexample. The claim was about enforcement of a law, not proposed legislation. It hasn't worked very well for other governments that have tried a similar approach, so I have little reason to believe people would just stop using E2E encryption. For a more apt example, consider digital piracy laws which are IIRC in the US explicitly ignored up to a certain number of counted (far from actual!) abuses.
  - hutzlibu 7y ago
    "people will not like it but it does not matter" It does matter what the people like and not. The problem in this case is just, that most people do not at all understand the implications of breaking encryption. Actually most barley know what encryption is at all. Thats why there is no outrage.
    - DangitBobby 7y ago
      There was this analysis of bills passed and who supported them a while back by someone at Princeton. Turns out public opinion has a near negligible impact. https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/ https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/
pizza234 7y ago
Speaking about social behavior, I'm in contact with Italian people; they're pretty scared and they're respecting the rules (that is, staying home). I can definitely tell you that up to around a week ago, there was a certain anarchy, that is people carelessly meeting in crowded places (Italy has a mix of both strongly social behavior, and cultural aversion to rules), but things changed drastically. Until people is scared, they'll honor the rules (of course, one will always find exceptions); I think that it's not about acceptance, but fear. If this is true, then while the epidemic is (sadly) going strong, people will do what's necessary in an acceptable manner.
- haggy 7y ago
  I agree with you here. Fear is a core, primitive driver for human behavior.
- lbeltrame 7y ago
  > I can definitely tell you that up to around a week ago, there was a certain anarchy As one of the locked up people in Italy, I don't think it is completely true. The media did quite a nice job at cherry picking the bad apples. But if we go by the number of fines levied for breaking the rules, it's around 45K (figure taken from a day). A drop in the bucket compared to the population that's staying at home. And it's still not clear why the people were fined: were they breaking intentionally the rules, or were they not in possession of the required documents? (You have to go around with a piece of paper stating wh you're out of your house, and if not found truthful you risk a fine and an arrest).
  - pizza234 7y ago
    I've checked the chat logs with my Italian friends, and the discussion about people still carelessly gathering in social places (and in fact, photos were being posted on forums) was referring to March 9th. Therefore, the reference "around a week" that I've made is wrong, considering that March 9th was the lockdown date. My experience with another country with lockdown is still different - people started to be wary of social gatherings/interactions earlier, however, at this point, the anarchy argument is weaker :-)
gindely 7y ago
Try looking at traffic rules. No-one likes rules against speeding. But in places where there are hidden road safety cameras and significant fines that quickly arrive in the post, people speed much less. Rules can be enforced even in western democracies.
- vinay427 7y ago
  > No-one likes rules against speeding. I can't imagine this is true. Not many drivers overtly claim to support rules against speeding, but I expect most people would not campaign to remove them because it's not hard to imagine potential problems in their absence.
  - praeconium 7y ago
    Germans would not agree and neither would their road accident statistics.
- dathinab 7y ago
  This is not quite true I believe, it's more like no one like to be found out when overstepping regulations. But that doesn't mean they don't like the regulation in general. Most people would agree that most traffic regulations makes sense in general. Not just necessary in that specific situation. Like "yes speed limits make sense but in this street it should be 20km/h higher then it is". "Yes speeding cameras make sense when used at places where speeding is quite dangerous. But do they need to use them here where it's not really dangerous just to earn more money with fines" etc. Still you can enforce regulations the _population_ doesn't like, but it's really hard to do so effectively for more then just a short amount of time.
- odessacubbage 7y ago
  about that, >http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm common sense keeps people safe, over aggressive legalism creates learned helplessness at scale and reduces common sense.
pb060 7y ago
It is still possible to declare martial law in case of disaster, which I would welcome looking at how many "creative" people are there (at least here in Italy).
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  If you are right, then I forsee that some countries are going to have significant changes of government in the coming months and years.

bobjob 7y ago

I think that this and our lack in 'hands on' experience with pandemics play a role in how western governments act. It is sad that the population has to learn via a death toll that certain things have to be done. I wish I could say it wetter, but I'm lacking the right words/phrases.

oaiey 7y ago

In Bavaria we have these rules already a few days. They are quite acceptable. It leaves options to go jogging alone, to go out with the kids and have a chat with the neighbors over the street. 1.5m is IMHO a bit too close, but it seems the recommendation. However, I live a villagers life. Wuhan is a huge city with much less public space. So I argue, it is not only democratic vs. Non democratic society but also depends on the location dramatically.

pachico 7y ago
In general, I think it also depends on society maturity (given there are many ways to get to that state). In Spain and Italy, the countries I know best, thousands of citizens are trying to cut corners and bypass any quarantine obligation.
- oaiey 7y ago
  I would be very careful with the wording maturity in context of society. Italy and Spain have a society which is far more family friendly, elder friendly and outgoing culture than Germany. That is usually much better. Just not now.
  - pachico 7y ago
    By maturity, in this case, I mean to really understand the thread, act upon it and have the society backing up measures taken, even if they personally affect you. In Mediterranean countries this usually doesn't happen.
RalfWausE 7y ago
I know people who would argue if Bavaria really counts as a western democracy ;-) But i think you are right: The infection risk out in the countryside must be magnitudes smaller than in any major city (so long as mass-events are banned).
ceejayoz 7y ago
It's quite acceptable for a while. Non-compliance will increase the longer it goes on, I suspect. There's a reason isolation is used as punishment/torture in prisons.
- Bombthecat 7y ago
  Absolutely. I suspect that 8 months or so we just accept dead people.
  - dathinab 7y ago
    Believe me this won't take 8 month. Especially given that in many areas the live of "old" people and "mid/young" people got sadly somewhat decoupled in the recent 30 or so years.
    - airstrike 7y ago
      The young which require hospitalization have a real chance to die if left untreated. There aren't enough beds to treat everyone if 80% of people get sick.
      - Bombthecat 7y ago
        Downvotes wont change the fact that mass psychology is at play. Not invidual psychology, like people in jail. Those are two different things! Most people think they are the same, but they are not. Nonetheless,thats why i wrote, soon or later we accept the dead people as part of doing "business"
        airstrike 7y ago
        You're way off base. We're not going to "accept" the risk of dying tomorrow any more than we do today. This isn't about old people dying. It's about 40-80% getting infected, 17-20% needing hospitalization and there not being enough beds. Simple as that.
  - 7y ago

hutzlibu 7y ago

" The problem in most western democracies is, that it is nearly impossible to enforce a law that is not accepted by the people" It's not a bug, its a feature. Seriously, the very idea of democracy is to only have laws accepted by the people. So if there is no acceptance, there should be no law. Unless it is accepted to have emergency authorian rule, like in this case.

tpetry 7y ago
Would be nice if democracy would really work like that. In reality the ruling parties can make the laws how they like no matter if people will like it or not. Think for example on the current plan in the US to break all end-to-end encryption: people will not like it but it does not matter
- vinay427 7y ago
  That's not a counterexample. The claim was about enforcement of a law, not proposed legislation. It hasn't worked very well for other governments that have tried a similar approach, so I have little reason to believe people would just stop using E2E encryption. For a more apt example, consider digital piracy laws which are IIRC in the US explicitly ignored up to a certain number of counted (far from actual!) abuses.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  "people will not like it but it does not matter" It does matter what the people like and not. The problem in this case is just, that most people do not at all understand the implications of breaking encryption. Actually most barley know what encryption is at all. Thats why there is no outrage.
  - DangitBobby 7y ago
    There was this analysis of bills passed and who supported them a while back by someone at Princeton. Turns out public opinion has a near negligible impact. https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/ https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/

pizza234 7y ago

Speaking about social behavior, I'm in contact with Italian people; they're pretty scared and they're respecting the rules (that is, staying home). I can definitely tell you that up to around a week ago, there was a certain anarchy, that is people carelessly meeting in crowded places (Italy has a mix of both strongly social behavior, and cultural aversion to rules), but things changed drastically. Until people is scared, they'll honor the rules (of course, one will always find exceptions); I think that it's not about acceptance, but fear. If this is true, then while the epidemic is (sadly) going strong, people will do what's necessary in an acceptable manner.

haggy 7y ago
I agree with you here. Fear is a core, primitive driver for human behavior.
lbeltrame 7y ago
> I can definitely tell you that up to around a week ago, there was a certain anarchy As one of the locked up people in Italy, I don't think it is completely true. The media did quite a nice job at cherry picking the bad apples. But if we go by the number of fines levied for breaking the rules, it's around 45K (figure taken from a day). A drop in the bucket compared to the population that's staying at home. And it's still not clear why the people were fined: were they breaking intentionally the rules, or were they not in possession of the required documents? (You have to go around with a piece of paper stating wh you're out of your house, and if not found truthful you risk a fine and an arrest).
- pizza234 7y ago
  I've checked the chat logs with my Italian friends, and the discussion about people still carelessly gathering in social places (and in fact, photos were being posted on forums) was referring to March 9th. Therefore, the reference "around a week" that I've made is wrong, considering that March 9th was the lockdown date. My experience with another country with lockdown is still different - people started to be wary of social gatherings/interactions earlier, however, at this point, the anarchy argument is weaker :-)

gindely 7y ago

Try looking at traffic rules. No-one likes rules against speeding. But in places where there are hidden road safety cameras and significant fines that quickly arrive in the post, people speed much less. Rules can be enforced even in western democracies.

vinay427 7y ago
> No-one likes rules against speeding. I can't imagine this is true. Not many drivers overtly claim to support rules against speeding, but I expect most people would not campaign to remove them because it's not hard to imagine potential problems in their absence.
- praeconium 7y ago
  Germans would not agree and neither would their road accident statistics.
dathinab 7y ago
This is not quite true I believe, it's more like no one like to be found out when overstepping regulations. But that doesn't mean they don't like the regulation in general. Most people would agree that most traffic regulations makes sense in general. Not just necessary in that specific situation. Like "yes speed limits make sense but in this street it should be 20km/h higher then it is". "Yes speeding cameras make sense when used at places where speeding is quite dangerous. But do they need to use them here where it's not really dangerous just to earn more money with fines" etc. Still you can enforce regulations the _population_ doesn't like, but it's really hard to do so effectively for more then just a short amount of time.
odessacubbage 7y ago
about that, >http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm common sense keeps people safe, over aggressive legalism creates learned helplessness at scale and reduces common sense.

pb060 7y ago

It is still possible to declare martial law in case of disaster, which I would welcome looking at how many "creative" people are there (at least here in Italy).

rootusrootus 7y ago
If you are right, then I forsee that some countries are going to have significant changes of government in the coming months and years.