3 ms·

> Nobody is suggesting the creation of a police state. That's explicitly what's being suggested. What else is a centrally-planned, police-enforced, compulsory

> Nobody is suggesting the creation of a police state. That's explicitly what's being suggested. What else is a centrally-planned, police-enforced, compulsory lockdown and shutdown of the civilian economy? What's worse is indefinite house confinement.

pmiller2 6y ago
What's being suggested is a temporary public health measure. Please point out where I suggested otherwise. Again, I repeat temporary, public health measure, where criteria for lifting said measures are specified in advance. Your rights have no bearing on this. You have no right to endanger me or my family. You have no right to promote the spread of a disease that's already killed 60,000+ people. You have no right to force people back to work to be so endangered.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > You have no right to endanger me or my family. I can walk outside and practice social distance. That doesn't endanger you or your family. I think that's what's so weird about the unreasonable risk-aversion some people are advocating. It's like healthy people have become complete OCD agoraphobes. The air isn't poison and humans won't be exterminated. Have a sense of proportion: the consensus upper range of the IFR (1%) means an overwhelming majority will survive, and beyond that, most of the deaths will be older people and the unhealthy. I'm not proposing that all lockdowns be abolished completely across the country. I'm arguing that there's severe consequences and precedents set with lockdown and that reasonable precautions and practices could effectively mitigate disease spread and allow economic activity and reasonable freedom.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    > I can walk outside and practice social distance. That doesn't endanger you or your family. That's correct. And, to my knowledge, none of the lockdown measures in the US prohibit walking outside. Your previous claims of "indefinite house confinement" were made in bad faith. > most of the deaths will be older people and the unhealthy. So, these people are somehow worth less to you than young, healthy people? > ...reasonable precautions and practices could effectively mitigate disease spread.... And, what are these "reasonable precautions and practices"? >... and allow economic activity and reasonable freedom. Economic activity is not prohibited. What is prohibited is unnecessary face to face interaction. Your freedom is not relevant here. What is relevant is containing the spread of the most serious public health threat in a century, and you're coming dangerously close to saying we should sacrifice certain "useless" people because you feel protecting them infringes your "freedom." You have a civic obligation here. Take it seriously.

pmiller2 6y ago

What's being suggested is a temporary public health measure. Please point out where I suggested otherwise. Again, I repeat temporary, public health measure, where criteria for lifting said measures are specified in advance. Your rights have no bearing on this. You have no right to endanger me or my family. You have no right to promote the spread of a disease that's already killed 60,000+ people. You have no right to force people back to work to be so endangered.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> You have no right to endanger me or my family. I can walk outside and practice social distance. That doesn't endanger you or your family. I think that's what's so weird about the unreasonable risk-aversion some people are advocating. It's like healthy people have become complete OCD agoraphobes. The air isn't poison and humans won't be exterminated. Have a sense of proportion: the consensus upper range of the IFR (1%) means an overwhelming majority will survive, and beyond that, most of the deaths will be older people and the unhealthy. I'm not proposing that all lockdowns be abolished completely across the country. I'm arguing that there's severe consequences and precedents set with lockdown and that reasonable precautions and practices could effectively mitigate disease spread and allow economic activity and reasonable freedom.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  > I can walk outside and practice social distance. That doesn't endanger you or your family. That's correct. And, to my knowledge, none of the lockdown measures in the US prohibit walking outside. Your previous claims of "indefinite house confinement" were made in bad faith. > most of the deaths will be older people and the unhealthy. So, these people are somehow worth less to you than young, healthy people? > ...reasonable precautions and practices could effectively mitigate disease spread.... And, what are these "reasonable precautions and practices"? >... and allow economic activity and reasonable freedom. Economic activity is not prohibited. What is prohibited is unnecessary face to face interaction. Your freedom is not relevant here. What is relevant is containing the spread of the most serious public health threat in a century, and you're coming dangerously close to saying we should sacrifice certain "useless" people because you feel protecting them infringes your "freedom." You have a civic obligation here. Take it seriously.