3 ms·

My point is coronavirus will still be here in six months or two years. So if we agree that less restrictive measures will be in place in the future, I would as

My point is coronavirus will still be here in six months or two years. So if we agree that less restrictive measures will be in place in the future, I would ask why such measures aren't also sufficient today? I would argue that, given that this lockdown must end before we eliminate the virus, we should begin adapting and testing less restrictive measures as quickly as possible.

tptacek 7y ago
Your argument is specious. I said that the measures in place 2 years from now won't be the same as the ones we have now, not that things will simply be "less restrictive". Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. The reason they aren't different now is that it takes time to adapt. The reason we don't simply reduce restrictions right now is that doing so will kill people.
- leereeves 7y ago
  Not relaxing restrictions will also kill people from increased domestic violence, from depression and suicide due to business failure, unemployment, homelessness, etc, and from poor health due to inactivity. It's always a tradeoff. And now we're seeing data showing that the virus is more widespread and less dangerous than previously believed, so it's time to reevaluate that trade.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    Decisions are being made in light of the data. We'll know more in May than we did in March. As they say: in the best case, if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything. Your lips to God's ears! Meanwhile, the discussion here is about the Constitutionality of lockdown orders. From what I can tell, there's no serious argument about the lawfulness of orders that have actually occurred; the "debate", such as it is, is about hypothetical future orders that don't appear to be on the table anywhere.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      > if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything And ironically, if it turns out the virus is less dangerous than previously believed, and we actually overreacted, it will also look like we overreacted. But I agree; I don't dispute the Constitutionality of the orders given in March, when nothing was known and it was wise to be prudent. Now, more is known and orders can be much more carefully tailored and less restrictive, as required by strict scrutiny.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        The subtext of your comment, that "strict scrutiny" requires fine-grained analysis of every application of state police power, doesn't match up with my understanding of how any of this works. The reality is that almost any reasonable thing that governments do to combat C19, perhaps excepting things that are demonstrably and deliberately not viewpoint neutral, are going to be allowed.
        leereeves 7y ago
        > strict scrutiny requires fine-grained analysis of every application of state police power That's what strict scrutiny means, but it's a very high standard that certainly doesn't apply to every case. As I understand it, it's more likely to be applied when fundamental rights are infringed, but I would never try to predict how the Court might rule on any particular case.

tptacek 7y ago

Your argument is specious. I said that the measures in place 2 years from now won't be the same as the ones we have now, not that things will simply be "less restrictive". Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. The reason they aren't different now is that it takes time to adapt. The reason we don't simply reduce restrictions right now is that doing so will kill people.

leereeves 7y ago
Not relaxing restrictions will also kill people from increased domestic violence, from depression and suicide due to business failure, unemployment, homelessness, etc, and from poor health due to inactivity. It's always a tradeoff. And now we're seeing data showing that the virus is more widespread and less dangerous than previously believed, so it's time to reevaluate that trade.
- tptacek 7y ago
  Decisions are being made in light of the data. We'll know more in May than we did in March. As they say: in the best case, if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything. Your lips to God's ears! Meanwhile, the discussion here is about the Constitutionality of lockdown orders. From what I can tell, there's no serious argument about the lawfulness of orders that have actually occurred; the "debate", such as it is, is about hypothetical future orders that don't appear to be on the table anywhere.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    > if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything And ironically, if it turns out the virus is less dangerous than previously believed, and we actually overreacted, it will also look like we overreacted. But I agree; I don't dispute the Constitutionality of the orders given in March, when nothing was known and it was wise to be prudent. Now, more is known and orders can be much more carefully tailored and less restrictive, as required by strict scrutiny.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      The subtext of your comment, that "strict scrutiny" requires fine-grained analysis of every application of state police power, doesn't match up with my understanding of how any of this works. The reality is that almost any reasonable thing that governments do to combat C19, perhaps excepting things that are demonstrably and deliberately not viewpoint neutral, are going to be allowed.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        > strict scrutiny requires fine-grained analysis of every application of state police power That's what strict scrutiny means, but it's a very high standard that certainly doesn't apply to every case. As I understand it, it's more likely to be applied when fundamental rights are infringed, but I would never try to predict how the Court might rule on any particular case.