4 ms·

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 severe

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.

orwin 6y ago
(a) Why would you think that? Compare Sweden to Norway exess mortality here [0] and reformulate your argument. Similar country, similar population density. Similar population in metropolitan area. Please explain to me what are the differences between those countries. I won't even talk about how Australia and NZ support the lockdown policies as those countries are island. (b) Citation needed. Again [0], why doesn't countries under lockdowns such as israel and norway do not have excess death if lockdowns causes extrem harm? And before the "rich country" argument, why South africa does not have any excess death and even way less death than expected? Those three countries are under sever lockdown. Unless you think it will cause longterm damage to those countries and more time is needed. I guarantee you i had once an asthma strong enough to cause moderate hypoxemia, i will remember this all my life even if it did not last more than a day. I think the lockdown is really easy if im honest. And i know for a fact that at least in France, most cooks and chef de partie are pretty happy with the lockdown too even if they will be the most impacted by the lockdown (75% pay for learning new tricks and doing homestay culinary contests might be the reason why) (c) Good argument. > The lack of... shaky basis of this action [0]. Explain (a) and (b) then > Specifically, .... which was then back-filled. Untrue for France [1] (might need google translate for that) > The government has put itself into a win-win situation. Yes, agreed but i don't understand why does this matters. > The veneration of the health care workers is also disgusting, this ridiculous clapping and so on. Yes, but this is a personnal opinion (i REALLY agree with) and no argument at all. > More mind-programming for the masses. Just wanted to point it out: if you read this sentence in a text you don't agree with (like a 9/11 or moonlanding conspiracy theory), what would you think of the person writing this? If you really care about being rationnal, the question you should always ask is "why do i think this". Why would you think this is programming for the masses and not just herd-like comportment that also happens to fulfill a psychological need? [0] https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441 https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06... [1] https://www.vie-publique.fr/discours/273933-emmanuel-macron-16-mars-2020-coronavirus-confinement-municipales https://www.vie-publique.fr/discours/273933-emmanuel-macron-...
- balnaphone 6y ago
  Re (a) the comparison doesn't hold much weight because despite their close geography and culture, there are major differences between Norway and Sweden. The most significant is that the elder care homes in Sweden are much higher density than in Norway. A huge portion of the reported deaths are from elder care facilities in most countries. No citation -- my knowledge comes from a study I worked on 7 years back. Anyone interested can easily verify on their own. Re (b) No citation is needed. I answered this elsewhere, that depriving a human of their liberties, putting people under house arrest, is in itself a harm. Forcing your neighbour to stay in a box is an assault, and to commit that violence against another person requires the highest level of justification. As for the physical health and other measurable harms, those will be recognized over time. I'm quite sure that "deaths of despair" issue will eventually be covered in mainstream programming, if not already. Lastly, the "rational" mind (which I never claimed to be) has to acknowledge the response of humans to fear-inducing stimulus, and other mechanisms that lead to Stockholm Syndrome type behaviours. By enforcing this "prayer" to the NHS, the state has induced the public to see their captor as their liberator. It is totally perverse, but is the air we breathe these days. Thank you for the thoughtful response!

orwin 6y ago

(a) Why would you think that? Compare Sweden to Norway exess mortality here [0] and reformulate your argument. Similar country, similar population density. Similar population in metropolitan area. Please explain to me what are the differences between those countries. I won't even talk about how Australia and NZ support the lockdown policies as those countries are island. (b) Citation needed. Again [0], why doesn't countries under lockdowns such as israel and norway do not have excess death if lockdowns causes extrem harm? And before the "rich country" argument, why South africa does not have any excess death and even way less death than expected? Those three countries are under sever lockdown. Unless you think it will cause longterm damage to those countries and more time is needed. I guarantee you i had once an asthma strong enough to cause moderate hypoxemia, i will remember this all my life even if it did not last more than a day. I think the lockdown is really easy if im honest. And i know for a fact that at least in France, most cooks and chef de partie are pretty happy with the lockdown too even if they will be the most impacted by the lockdown (75% pay for learning new tricks and doing homestay culinary contests might be the reason why) (c) Good argument. > The lack of... shaky basis of this action [0]. Explain (a) and (b) then > Specifically, .... which was then back-filled. Untrue for France [1] (might need google translate for that) > The government has put itself into a win-win situation. Yes, agreed but i don't understand why does this matters. > The veneration of the health care workers is also disgusting, this ridiculous clapping and so on. Yes, but this is a personnal opinion (i REALLY agree with) and no argument at all. > More mind-programming for the masses. Just wanted to point it out: if you read this sentence in a text you don't agree with (like a 9/11 or moonlanding conspiracy theory), what would you think of the person writing this? If you really care about being rationnal, the question you should always ask is "why do i think this". Why would you think this is programming for the masses and not just herd-like comportment that also happens to fulfill a psychological need? [0] https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441 https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06... [1] https://www.vie-publique.fr/discours/273933-emmanuel-macron-16-mars-2020-coronavirus-confinement-municipales https://www.vie-publique.fr/discours/273933-emmanuel-macron-...

balnaphone 6y ago
Re (a) the comparison doesn't hold much weight because despite their close geography and culture, there are major differences between Norway and Sweden. The most significant is that the elder care homes in Sweden are much higher density than in Norway. A huge portion of the reported deaths are from elder care facilities in most countries. No citation -- my knowledge comes from a study I worked on 7 years back. Anyone interested can easily verify on their own. Re (b) No citation is needed. I answered this elsewhere, that depriving a human of their liberties, putting people under house arrest, is in itself a harm. Forcing your neighbour to stay in a box is an assault, and to commit that violence against another person requires the highest level of justification. As for the physical health and other measurable harms, those will be recognized over time. I'm quite sure that "deaths of despair" issue will eventually be covered in mainstream programming, if not already. Lastly, the "rational" mind (which I never claimed to be) has to acknowledge the response of humans to fear-inducing stimulus, and other mechanisms that lead to Stockholm Syndrome type behaviours. By enforcing this "prayer" to the NHS, the state has induced the public to see their captor as their liberator. It is totally perverse, but is the air we breathe these days. Thank you for the thoughtful response!