4 ms·

It's absolutley frustrating that this is even necessary - after all that's happening worldwide, people should just stay at home and avoid meeting people. A lot

It's absolutley frustrating that this is even necessary - after all that's happening worldwide, people should just stay at home and avoid meeting people. A lot of us are not THAT relevant for society to not collapse at an instant, and a lot of our pasttime are even less so. Still, a few think that all this wouldn't apply to them. Or think this is the problem of the risk groups, who should stay at home while all others act as if nothing happened. Just had that discussion with a friend, who wanted to host a game night and used that very "argument". Well, egoism rules supreme :( Thanks to people like these, some of our basic rights now have to be suspended.

knocte 7y ago
I agree with what you're saying but then there's the other example of Asian countries that are not China, who have flattened the exponential curve without forced lockdowns. Governments in the west should just speedup mass production of masks because this is IMO the key to this flattening (and even if they still prefer forced lockdown, masks would be a good measure for when the lockdown is lifted).
- aledalgrande 7y ago
  I think the key is massive testing and ability to track cases fast and efficiently. If we could do that in the West, people could go out tomorrow. Perfection would be self testing at home, with self reporting on a gov website. But we're faaar from that...
- archi42 7y ago
  I agree with you: We could have impactful measures without a forced lockdown. However, people in these other countries, did they act like usual or did they practice a strict regime of (voluntary) social distancing? After all, as long as the data is lacking, social distancing is one of the most simple, yet impactful measures. This makes a huge difference. Though I am seeing a non-negligible portion of the population believing they could just act as if nothing happened. I know it sucks, but not meeting people for a while isn't the end of the world. And it would be easily possible without any laws, giving law- & policy-makers time to gather data and make a better, well-informed decision. I see this (voluntary, not-enforced-via-the-law-like-this-lockdown) as my democratic responsibility. Edit: I see two interpretations for this lockdown: 1. "Shit, this is out of control and oh god, plenty of our people will die". (as a side note, the parties in power tend to be strong with the elderly; though I believe this isn't a major factor for this decision) 2. "Oh, what a nice chance to fk democracy and get more power". I'm tending to the 1., as long as the measures are not enacted for too long. Problem is: Relaxing too early will be bad for the people, relaxing to late will bad for getting re-elected. So I'm very happy right now I didn't enter politics. (end edit) Also, the government can't just ramp up mask production. You need raw materials for that, factories, a supply chain. You need to make sure the masks are safe to various standards, else - even if you're the government - you're in a huge legal mess. Oh, and train people for all that. Germany isn't strictly free market economy, but it's not too far away from that ("social market economy"). And under that system, the state isn't meant to spontaneously interfere massively with markets by becoming a producer. So if they did, that would open just another pandoras box. Yes, we have food and other critical supplies, but masks and other medical equipment is a wholly different league. The "ruleset" is too complex, there is no obviously best decision right now :(
oezi 7y ago
Let's turn this around: if almost everybody stays at home (like in Italy, Spain, France for days/weeks) how does the virus still spread? That knowledge would help a lot in the current situation.
- pmlnr 7y ago
  2 weeks of incubation period, that's how.
  - poizan42 7y ago
    The median time is only around 5 days according to WHO[0]. The time from infection to hospitalization (when the case is bad enough) however has a longer median time which I have seen claimed to be around 11 days, but I can't find a good source. But it makes sense that we are seeing the longer lag when countries are only testing people with severe symptoms. [0]: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses
- ma2rten 7y ago
  Almost is the keyword here.
thinkingemote 7y ago
Don't blame others for the removal of basic rights whist secretly applauding their removal. "this is why we cant have nice things" where the nice things were actually harmful. Instead if you were actually upset about basic rights being removed, try to defend these rights before they are taken away. Or perhaps be honest about actually liking less freedoms for the greater good (after all it will save lives). But please don't pretend. For those of us old enough to remember 9/11 - we should remember that everyone wanted their rights and liberties to be removed because they were hurting. They applauded authoritarian measures then, just as we are now. And it did save lives (at the expense of brown ones). The outrage revealed by Snowden and Assange happened years and years after everyone was happy to have sign away their basic rights to have some control over the crisis.
- axguscbklp 7y ago
  I know that the word "everyone" is now often used to mean "the vast majority of people", but I'm not even sure that the vast majority of people would have voted for reducing civil liberties in the aftermath of 9/11, had they been given a vote. The mainstream media did a good job of manufacturing the illusion of consent, but that does not mean that actual consent would have been given had it been asked for. For example, I often read people say thay the 2003 Iraq War was overwhelmingly supported by the US population, whereas polls from the time show that it was not even supported by a majority of poll responders.
  - thinkingemote 7y ago
    Isn't that even more of a warning against the danger? Even the best case for the erosion of our liberties I could come up with was less popular than the current support for removing basic rights?
    - axguscbklp 7y ago
      I don't think that the post-9/11 terrorism threat was actually anywhere close to a best case for the erosion of liberties. Until and unless terrorists gain access to weapons of mass destruction plus the ability to deploy them, terrorism is a very minor threat to America. Terrorists might well at some point in the future get access to weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deploy them to the US, but that was not the case 19 years ago and almost certainly is still not the case now.

knocte 7y ago

I agree with what you're saying but then there's the other example of Asian countries that are not China, who have flattened the exponential curve without forced lockdowns. Governments in the west should just speedup mass production of masks because this is IMO the key to this flattening (and even if they still prefer forced lockdown, masks would be a good measure for when the lockdown is lifted).

aledalgrande 7y ago
I think the key is massive testing and ability to track cases fast and efficiently. If we could do that in the West, people could go out tomorrow. Perfection would be self testing at home, with self reporting on a gov website. But we're faaar from that...
archi42 7y ago
I agree with you: We could have impactful measures without a forced lockdown. However, people in these other countries, did they act like usual or did they practice a strict regime of (voluntary) social distancing? After all, as long as the data is lacking, social distancing is one of the most simple, yet impactful measures. This makes a huge difference. Though I am seeing a non-negligible portion of the population believing they could just act as if nothing happened. I know it sucks, but not meeting people for a while isn't the end of the world. And it would be easily possible without any laws, giving law- & policy-makers time to gather data and make a better, well-informed decision. I see this (voluntary, not-enforced-via-the-law-like-this-lockdown) as my democratic responsibility. Edit: I see two interpretations for this lockdown: 1. "Shit, this is out of control and oh god, plenty of our people will die". (as a side note, the parties in power tend to be strong with the elderly; though I believe this isn't a major factor for this decision) 2. "Oh, what a nice chance to fk democracy and get more power". I'm tending to the 1., as long as the measures are not enacted for too long. Problem is: Relaxing too early will be bad for the people, relaxing to late will bad for getting re-elected. So I'm very happy right now I didn't enter politics. (end edit) Also, the government can't just ramp up mask production. You need raw materials for that, factories, a supply chain. You need to make sure the masks are safe to various standards, else - even if you're the government - you're in a huge legal mess. Oh, and train people for all that. Germany isn't strictly free market economy, but it's not too far away from that ("social market economy"). And under that system, the state isn't meant to spontaneously interfere massively with markets by becoming a producer. So if they did, that would open just another pandoras box. Yes, we have food and other critical supplies, but masks and other medical equipment is a wholly different league. The "ruleset" is too complex, there is no obviously best decision right now :(

oezi 7y ago

Let's turn this around: if almost everybody stays at home (like in Italy, Spain, France for days/weeks) how does the virus still spread? That knowledge would help a lot in the current situation.

pmlnr 7y ago
2 weeks of incubation period, that's how.
- poizan42 7y ago
  The median time is only around 5 days according to WHO[0]. The time from infection to hospitalization (when the case is bad enough) however has a longer median time which I have seen claimed to be around 11 days, but I can't find a good source. But it makes sense that we are seeing the longer lag when countries are only testing people with severe symptoms. [0]: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses
ma2rten 7y ago
Almost is the keyword here.

thinkingemote 7y ago

Don't blame others for the removal of basic rights whist secretly applauding their removal. "this is why we cant have nice things" where the nice things were actually harmful. Instead if you were actually upset about basic rights being removed, try to defend these rights before they are taken away. Or perhaps be honest about actually liking less freedoms for the greater good (after all it will save lives). But please don't pretend. For those of us old enough to remember 9/11 - we should remember that everyone wanted their rights and liberties to be removed because they were hurting. They applauded authoritarian measures then, just as we are now. And it did save lives (at the expense of brown ones). The outrage revealed by Snowden and Assange happened years and years after everyone was happy to have sign away their basic rights to have some control over the crisis.

axguscbklp 7y ago
I know that the word "everyone" is now often used to mean "the vast majority of people", but I'm not even sure that the vast majority of people would have voted for reducing civil liberties in the aftermath of 9/11, had they been given a vote. The mainstream media did a good job of manufacturing the illusion of consent, but that does not mean that actual consent would have been given had it been asked for. For example, I often read people say thay the 2003 Iraq War was overwhelmingly supported by the US population, whereas polls from the time show that it was not even supported by a majority of poll responders.
- thinkingemote 7y ago
  Isn't that even more of a warning against the danger? Even the best case for the erosion of our liberties I could come up with was less popular than the current support for removing basic rights?
  - axguscbklp 7y ago
    I don't think that the post-9/11 terrorism threat was actually anywhere close to a best case for the erosion of liberties. Until and unless terrorists gain access to weapons of mass destruction plus the ability to deploy them, terrorism is a very minor threat to America. Terrorists might well at some point in the future get access to weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deploy them to the US, but that was not the case 19 years ago and almost certainly is still not the case now.