4 ms·

That's simply false. If we force people to stay home without providing them with compensation, then yes, people will go hungry and homeless. We have enough weal

That's simply false. If we force people to stay home without providing them with compensation, then yes, people will go hungry and homeless. We have enough wealth to provide for people to make sure that doesn't happen, though. Whether the government will step up is an open question, but this doesn't have to go the way you are suggesting.

deathgrips 6y ago
This is much like saying "No one will go homeless if we institute universal basic income". You're completely correct but you're missing the point. I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so. It seems to me that is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for lifting measures aimed at protecting people.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong controlled the virus without imprisoning everyone at home. More forced sacrifice and pain does not equal better policy. Worth adding that keeping asymptomatic people at home, which an indiscriminate blanket house containment does, prevents the virus from mutating to become less deadly, which is the typical evolution of viruses. The opposite, of sick soldiers being transferred to hospitals where they spread their viral infection, and asymptomatic soldiers remaining in trenches where they couldn't spread their less deadly strain, led to the second wave of the Spanish flu being far more deadly than the first.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong controlled the virus without imprisoning everyone at home. South Korea imposes far more intrusive and arguably totalitarian measures such as tracking each and everyone's every movement and impose compulsive tests on anyone suspected of contacting suspected cases. If you were genuinely concerned about restrictions on individual freedom then you would never even dare mention those cases as examples of desirae practices. Even then, looking at the practicality of your cherry picked examples, those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. Well, you really don't, do you? So what other options are on the table? Only social distancing, isn't it? So please stop abusing cherry-picked half truths to spread your disinformation. Results are due to processes, and you're complaining about the lesser of all evils while at the same time desiring a specific outcome while disingenuously omitting what was trampled to be able to get to them.
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
        >>South Korea imposes far more intrusive and arguably totalitarian measures such as tracking each and everyone's every movement and impose compulsive tests on anyone suspected of contacting suspected cases. South Korea's measures are far less draconian than imprisoning everyone at home. Banning people from engaging in communal economic and social activity without complying with surveillance and safety measures, and having mandatory testing != less authoritarian than banning people from engaging in communal economic and social under all circumstances, or even leaving their homes. Granted that under house imprisonment, you get more location privacy, with no phone tracking, but everything else is more restricted, and on par with house arrest, and the tracking privacy is irrelevant, since the authorities know you're home anyway. >>Even then, looking at the practicality of your cherry picked examples, those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. You wrote above: >>It seems to me that is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for lifting measures aimed at protecting people. This was in reference to not having a massive social welfare safety net that costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year, necessitates income tax rates of over 50%, and requires an extensive bureaucracy to administer, that typically decades to set up. It seems to me overcoming the challenges of imposing South Korea or Hong Kong's hygiene rules for being outside the home, mandatory testing and phone tracking, is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for creating vast forcible income redistribution schemes or keeping millions imprisoned at home in the name of protecting them. >>So please stop abusing cherry-picked half truths to spread your disinformation >>those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. Please stop some promoting mass-house-imprisonment, which means giving the state the power to imprison innocent people for months in the name of the public good, and your social welfare agenda, which includes imposing 50% income rates indefinitely, under the guise of fighting the virus. People in some places, including where I am now, have been under house arrest for over two months now. And there are people like you advocating that it continue, while brushing aside alternative ways to stop viral transmission with hardly any critical analysis. Meanwhile, you characterize my comments as 'disinformation', merely because they disagree with your house imprisonment policy. You're disingenuously implying that it's less challenging to setup a $500 billion / year welfare bureaucracy, than an infrastructure for phone location tracking, and that phone tracking and mandatory testing are more restrictive than forcing everyone to shut everything down and stay imprisoned in their house.
zajio1am 6y ago
For short term (say month or two) that may work. But any wealth redistribution cannot work without wealth production. And uncertainty about government restrictions already starts to disrupt food production in Europe, as farmers may not sew vegetables if they do not know whether they can get enough workers for harvest.

deathgrips 6y ago

This is much like saying "No one will go homeless if we institute universal basic income". You're completely correct but you're missing the point. I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so.

rumanator 6y ago
> I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so. It seems to me that is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for lifting measures aimed at protecting people.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong controlled the virus without imprisoning everyone at home. More forced sacrifice and pain does not equal better policy. Worth adding that keeping asymptomatic people at home, which an indiscriminate blanket house containment does, prevents the virus from mutating to become less deadly, which is the typical evolution of viruses. The opposite, of sick soldiers being transferred to hospitals where they spread their viral infection, and asymptomatic soldiers remaining in trenches where they couldn't spread their less deadly strain, led to the second wave of the Spanish flu being far more deadly than the first.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong controlled the virus without imprisoning everyone at home. South Korea imposes far more intrusive and arguably totalitarian measures such as tracking each and everyone's every movement and impose compulsive tests on anyone suspected of contacting suspected cases. If you were genuinely concerned about restrictions on individual freedom then you would never even dare mention those cases as examples of desirae practices. Even then, looking at the practicality of your cherry picked examples, those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. Well, you really don't, do you? So what other options are on the table? Only social distancing, isn't it? So please stop abusing cherry-picked half truths to spread your disinformation. Results are due to processes, and you're complaining about the lesser of all evils while at the same time desiring a specific outcome while disingenuously omitting what was trampled to be able to get to them.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      >>South Korea imposes far more intrusive and arguably totalitarian measures such as tracking each and everyone's every movement and impose compulsive tests on anyone suspected of contacting suspected cases. South Korea's measures are far less draconian than imprisoning everyone at home. Banning people from engaging in communal economic and social activity without complying with surveillance and safety measures, and having mandatory testing != less authoritarian than banning people from engaging in communal economic and social under all circumstances, or even leaving their homes. Granted that under house imprisonment, you get more location privacy, with no phone tracking, but everything else is more restricted, and on par with house arrest, and the tracking privacy is irrelevant, since the authorities know you're home anyway. >>Even then, looking at the practicality of your cherry picked examples, those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. You wrote above: >>It seems to me that is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for lifting measures aimed at protecting people. This was in reference to not having a massive social welfare safety net that costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year, necessitates income tax rates of over 50%, and requires an extensive bureaucracy to administer, that typically decades to set up. It seems to me overcoming the challenges of imposing South Korea or Hong Kong's hygiene rules for being outside the home, mandatory testing and phone tracking, is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for creating vast forcible income redistribution schemes or keeping millions imprisoned at home in the name of protecting them. >>So please stop abusing cherry-picked half truths to spread your disinformation >>those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. Please stop some promoting mass-house-imprisonment, which means giving the state the power to imprison innocent people for months in the name of the public good, and your social welfare agenda, which includes imposing 50% income rates indefinitely, under the guise of fighting the virus. People in some places, including where I am now, have been under house arrest for over two months now. And there are people like you advocating that it continue, while brushing aside alternative ways to stop viral transmission with hardly any critical analysis. Meanwhile, you characterize my comments as 'disinformation', merely because they disagree with your house imprisonment policy. You're disingenuously implying that it's less challenging to setup a $500 billion / year welfare bureaucracy, than an infrastructure for phone location tracking, and that phone tracking and mandatory testing are more restrictive than forcing everyone to shut everything down and stay imprisoned in their house.

zajio1am 6y ago

For short term (say month or two) that may work. But any wealth redistribution cannot work without wealth production. And uncertainty about government restrictions already starts to disrupt food production in Europe, as farmers may not sew vegetables if they do not know whether they can get enough workers for harvest.