5 ms·

> hilariously late in imposing lockdown > Really is shameful It's shameful that any country put practically their entire citizenry under house arrest. If som

> hilariously late in imposing lockdown > Really is shameful It's shameful that any country put practically their entire citizenry under house arrest. If someone is scared of catching something, they should stay home. If they want, they can live their life in a full-body condom, covered in bubble-wrap, soaking their hands in chlorhexidine, sipping O2 from a tank. Nobody is or should be putting a gun to their head to come out. The UK government, and governments around the world, have indeed failed. They've failed to protect the liberty of the people, and in fact have become tyrannical.

cycrutchfield 6y ago
Your liberty doesn’t give you the right to make other people sick. Equating quarantine with tyranny is a hilariously hot take and is only something that the lunatic fringe would actually believe.
- balnaphone 6y ago
  No one is advocating the right to break into homes to make others sick. Anyone who wants to stay home alone, absolutely should. I am advocating freedom of movement and freedom of association. Quarantine is for the sick, not the healthy. I'm equating lockdowns with tyranny, yes. Shutting down the global economy has resulted in hundreds of millions of people experiencing food insecurity. It will result in an enormous cost in terms of deaths, morbidity, and impaired mental well-being, for people in the UK and around the world.
  - jhayward 6y ago
    > Quarantine is for the sick, not the healthy No, quarantine is literally for the “potentially exposed”, not the known sick. Once a person is sick, they are then isolated, not quarantined.
    - balnaphone 6y ago
      The majority of people in the UK have not been exposed, even potentially. Therefore, this is not a traditional quarantine, by the standard definition. Prior to the lockdown, quarantine was already in effect for foreign travellers and so on. This is a novel policy. Some definitions below. ==== From the Cambridge English Dictionary: lockdown noun [ C or U ] mainly US UK /ˈlɒk.daʊn/ US /ˈlɑːk.daʊn/ a situation in which people are not allowed to enter or leave a building or area freely because of an emergency. From the Oxford dictionary: quarantine noun /ˈkwɔrənˌtin/ , /ˈkwɑrənˌtin/ [uncountable] a period of time when an animal or a person that has or may have a disease is kept away from others in order to prevent the disease from spreading From the American CDC: "Isolation" separates sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick. "Quarantine" separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.
  - cycrutchfield 6y ago
    Your freedoms are not unlimited. Just as you have no right to unlimited freedom of speech by shouting fire in a crowded theater, you have no right to unlimited freedom of association by visiting your grandma in a nursing home during a pandemic and killing scores of people. >Shutting down the global economy This implies that the global economy would not have taken a hit had we not enforced more stringent quarantine policies. Do you really think that people were going to be flying, eating out at restaurants, or going to their local movie theater or mall while their local community is dropping like flies around them? >hundreds of millions of people experiencing food insecurity Citation needed. And, by the way, this is not an argument against quarantine policies, this is an argument for better social services from the government. >It will result in an enormous cost in terms of deaths, morbidity, and impaired mental well-being, for people in the UK and around the world. Citation needed. Are you going to just continue to throw around unsubstantiated claims?
    - balnaphone 6y ago
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/emanuelabarbiroglio/2020/04/23/covid-19-is-expected-to-be-a-key-driver-of-acute-food-insecurity/#3475b44178ef https://www.forbes.com/sites/emanuelabarbiroglio/2020/04/23/... > COVID-19 will double the number of people suffering from a food crisis, pushing it to 265 million, estimates the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). You can read the report to see the effects of policy versus the effects of the burden of disease. I don't need to cite anything regarding the other claims. The people who have assaulted human dignity by putting half of humanity under house arrest are the ones who need to prove that this draconian intervention will result in a net benefit, vis a vis the concerns I've pointed out. Cite your sources that it will -- I'm sure to hear crickets chirping on that one.
      - cycrutchfield 6y ago
        Note how your quote says "COVID-19 will double", not "Draconian lockdowns will double"? There would be a food crisis, with or without lockdown policies in place. You are conflating the consequences of the pandemic to the consequences of policies in response to the pandemic. It's a simple mistake, yet you continue to make it throughout this thread.
jhayward 6y ago
> If someone is scared of catching something, they should stay home Implicit in this description of your “rights” trumping public health authority is that you believe you have a right to infect anyone who is unfortunate enough to touch some surface you’ve previously contaminated, or breath air you’ve breathed while infectious. What principle, moral, or ethic tells you this is your right?
- balnaphone 6y ago
  Your "implicit" statement is a false inference. The public health authority's decision is the very thing that I'm objecting to. Secondly, since that unfortunate soul is locked in their home, how are they touching anything I've touched, and how are they breathing the air I breathe? Lastly, why did you decide to make this about me personally?
  - jhayward 6y ago
    Yes, you object to the public health authority’s action, on what principle, moral, or ethical basis? And am I to assume that you do not assert that contrary to accepted public health science, you have a right to simply go about as you please regardless, so that others may be forced to seek shelter from your infectiousness? What is it about the science of public health epidemiological abatement measures that you object to, and on what principle?
    - balnaphone 6y ago
      I object on the basis that (a) the given data doesn't support the policy conclusion, (b) the policy of lockdowns causes extreme harm, and (c) this policy severely impinges on human liberty. The lack of intellectual integrity here is astonishing. The OP, the BBC claiming these "excess deaths" are automatically COVID-19 deaths, is just more evidence of this. If any person locks another person up, it is legally recognized as a harm done to the victim. The government is the party that needs to justify itself. The constant shifting of policy, predictions, and rationale of the government's policy itself is an indication of the shaky basis of this action. Specifically, the justification of not overwhelming the health care system, which is chronically overwhelmed anyway, is not compelling. The policy came first, with aspirational goals rather than scientific thinking, which was then back-filled. The government has put itself into a win-win situation: if lots of people die, that provides the justification for the action; and if few people do (which won't be known for a year or more), then the credit for "saving the people" goes to the policy makers. I happen to see it the other way around: if many people die, it shows these measures are useless; and if few do, then the government has caused the people massive harm for no just cause. The veneration of the health care workers is also disgusting, this ridiculous clapping and so on. These people aren't slaves, they go of their own free will, and there are many jobs ("essential" jobs) that are far more dangerous. The purpose of life is living, not being safe. More mind-programming for the masses. Regarding your assumption, you didn't respond to my point at all. Nobody needs to seek shelter from me, if they've already decided to barricade themselves in their home.
mritun 6y ago
You and your friends can totally agree to do a knife fight. However as soon as someone dies you can’t get out of the jail free saying you all agreed. You and others can’t make a pact to get infected with a deadly virus. If you do and someone dies others should be ready to go to prison! As long as you understand that, it’s cool. Mostly people expect heath care workers to take deadly risk of getting infected themselves and working without PPE that’s no lockdown is basically a ruse from entitled people who want others to risk their life and liberty for them.
- balnaphone 6y ago
  Reserving freedom of association for "essential workers" shows the flaw in your thinking. The reason for the carve-out in the lockdown is so they can do their "essential" job. Well, every job is an essential job, to the person who depends on it for their livelihood and well-being. The mental state of a person attacking another person with a knife, or a virus, is not at all comparable to a person going to bake sweets, cut hair, or any of the other productive employments people engage in. Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
  - cozzyd 6y ago
    The problem is only a small fraction of society can have "freedom of association" without R_0 getting out of control. We have decided to allocate fraction to essential workers, which is probably not the worst possible decision.
    - balnaphone 6y ago
      This may be true, but is not materially relevant. For people without underlying risk factors, the illness is generally quite minor. Those at risk should stay home, and avoid contact with the potentially infected. For those who share accommodations, mixed risk factor domestic populations, perhaps systemic help could aid in sorting that out. I decided to post here only to demonstrate that people exist with other views. I'm satisfied that anyone reading this will understand that these views are not unheard of.

cycrutchfield 6y ago

Your liberty doesn’t give you the right to make other people sick. Equating quarantine with tyranny is a hilariously hot take and is only something that the lunatic fringe would actually believe.

balnaphone 6y ago
No one is advocating the right to break into homes to make others sick. Anyone who wants to stay home alone, absolutely should. I am advocating freedom of movement and freedom of association. Quarantine is for the sick, not the healthy. I'm equating lockdowns with tyranny, yes. Shutting down the global economy has resulted in hundreds of millions of people experiencing food insecurity. It will result in an enormous cost in terms of deaths, morbidity, and impaired mental well-being, for people in the UK and around the world.
- jhayward 6y ago
  > Quarantine is for the sick, not the healthy No, quarantine is literally for the “potentially exposed”, not the known sick. Once a person is sick, they are then isolated, not quarantined.
  - balnaphone 6y ago
    The majority of people in the UK have not been exposed, even potentially. Therefore, this is not a traditional quarantine, by the standard definition. Prior to the lockdown, quarantine was already in effect for foreign travellers and so on. This is a novel policy. Some definitions below. ==== From the Cambridge English Dictionary: lockdown noun [ C or U ] mainly US UK /ˈlɒk.daʊn/ US /ˈlɑːk.daʊn/ a situation in which people are not allowed to enter or leave a building or area freely because of an emergency. From the Oxford dictionary: quarantine noun /ˈkwɔrənˌtin/ , /ˈkwɑrənˌtin/ [uncountable] a period of time when an animal or a person that has or may have a disease is kept away from others in order to prevent the disease from spreading From the American CDC: "Isolation" separates sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick. "Quarantine" separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  Your freedoms are not unlimited. Just as you have no right to unlimited freedom of speech by shouting fire in a crowded theater, you have no right to unlimited freedom of association by visiting your grandma in a nursing home during a pandemic and killing scores of people. >Shutting down the global economy This implies that the global economy would not have taken a hit had we not enforced more stringent quarantine policies. Do you really think that people were going to be flying, eating out at restaurants, or going to their local movie theater or mall while their local community is dropping like flies around them? >hundreds of millions of people experiencing food insecurity Citation needed. And, by the way, this is not an argument against quarantine policies, this is an argument for better social services from the government. >It will result in an enormous cost in terms of deaths, morbidity, and impaired mental well-being, for people in the UK and around the world. Citation needed. Are you going to just continue to throw around unsubstantiated claims?
  - balnaphone 6y ago
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/emanuelabarbiroglio/2020/04/23/covid-19-is-expected-to-be-a-key-driver-of-acute-food-insecurity/#3475b44178ef https://www.forbes.com/sites/emanuelabarbiroglio/2020/04/23/... > COVID-19 will double the number of people suffering from a food crisis, pushing it to 265 million, estimates the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). You can read the report to see the effects of policy versus the effects of the burden of disease. I don't need to cite anything regarding the other claims. The people who have assaulted human dignity by putting half of humanity under house arrest are the ones who need to prove that this draconian intervention will result in a net benefit, vis a vis the concerns I've pointed out. Cite your sources that it will -- I'm sure to hear crickets chirping on that one.
    - cycrutchfield 6y ago
      Note how your quote says "COVID-19 will double", not "Draconian lockdowns will double"? There would be a food crisis, with or without lockdown policies in place. You are conflating the consequences of the pandemic to the consequences of policies in response to the pandemic. It's a simple mistake, yet you continue to make it throughout this thread.

jhayward 6y ago

> If someone is scared of catching something, they should stay home Implicit in this description of your “rights” trumping public health authority is that you believe you have a right to infect anyone who is unfortunate enough to touch some surface you’ve previously contaminated, or breath air you’ve breathed while infectious. What principle, moral, or ethic tells you this is your right?

balnaphone 6y ago
Your "implicit" statement is a false inference. The public health authority's decision is the very thing that I'm objecting to. Secondly, since that unfortunate soul is locked in their home, how are they touching anything I've touched, and how are they breathing the air I breathe? Lastly, why did you decide to make this about me personally?
- jhayward 6y ago
  Yes, you object to the public health authority’s action, on what principle, moral, or ethical basis? And am I to assume that you do not assert that contrary to accepted public health science, you have a right to simply go about as you please regardless, so that others may be forced to seek shelter from your infectiousness? What is it about the science of public health epidemiological abatement measures that you object to, and on what principle?
  - balnaphone 6y ago
    I object on the basis that (a) the given data doesn't support the policy conclusion, (b) the policy of lockdowns causes extreme harm, and (c) this policy severely impinges on human liberty. The lack of intellectual integrity here is astonishing. The OP, the BBC claiming these "excess deaths" are automatically COVID-19 deaths, is just more evidence of this. If any person locks another person up, it is legally recognized as a harm done to the victim. The government is the party that needs to justify itself. The constant shifting of policy, predictions, and rationale of the government's policy itself is an indication of the shaky basis of this action. Specifically, the justification of not overwhelming the health care system, which is chronically overwhelmed anyway, is not compelling. The policy came first, with aspirational goals rather than scientific thinking, which was then back-filled. The government has put itself into a win-win situation: if lots of people die, that provides the justification for the action; and if few people do (which won't be known for a year or more), then the credit for "saving the people" goes to the policy makers. I happen to see it the other way around: if many people die, it shows these measures are useless; and if few do, then the government has caused the people massive harm for no just cause. The veneration of the health care workers is also disgusting, this ridiculous clapping and so on. These people aren't slaves, they go of their own free will, and there are many jobs ("essential" jobs) that are far more dangerous. The purpose of life is living, not being safe. More mind-programming for the masses. Regarding your assumption, you didn't respond to my point at all. Nobody needs to seek shelter from me, if they've already decided to barricade themselves in their home.

mritun 6y ago

You and your friends can totally agree to do a knife fight. However as soon as someone dies you can’t get out of the jail free saying you all agreed. You and others can’t make a pact to get infected with a deadly virus. If you do and someone dies others should be ready to go to prison! As long as you understand that, it’s cool. Mostly people expect heath care workers to take deadly risk of getting infected themselves and working without PPE that’s no lockdown is basically a ruse from entitled people who want others to risk their life and liberty for them.

balnaphone 6y ago
Reserving freedom of association for "essential workers" shows the flaw in your thinking. The reason for the carve-out in the lockdown is so they can do their "essential" job. Well, every job is an essential job, to the person who depends on it for their livelihood and well-being. The mental state of a person attacking another person with a knife, or a virus, is not at all comparable to a person going to bake sweets, cut hair, or any of the other productive employments people engage in. Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
- cozzyd 6y ago
  The problem is only a small fraction of society can have "freedom of association" without R_0 getting out of control. We have decided to allocate fraction to essential workers, which is probably not the worst possible decision.
  - balnaphone 6y ago
    This may be true, but is not materially relevant. For people without underlying risk factors, the illness is generally quite minor. Those at risk should stay home, and avoid contact with the potentially infected. For those who share accommodations, mixed risk factor domestic populations, perhaps systemic help could aid in sorting that out. I decided to post here only to demonstrate that people exist with other views. I'm satisfied that anyone reading this will understand that these views are not unheard of.