3 ms·

Lockdowns have to be executed differently next time. It's fine to require people to work from home if they can and close schools. But you cannot decide that onl

Lockdowns have to be executed differently next time. It's fine to require people to work from home if they can and close schools. But you cannot decide that only food is essential and shut down everything else. That leads to a lot of problems. They key is not having many people gathering in one place. There are many ways to ensure that without shutting down everything.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Why should we even allow our government to tell us ever again what products are “essential” and what are not? Not only was that distinction pointless, but it was actively harmful. Another example, a ban on plant nursery right at the time people should be planting their own food. Large stores, allowed to stay open, will be gobbling up smaller, closed competitors for pennies on the dollar. Private practice hospitals will never be the same again. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/04/27/michigan-reverses-ban-lets-garden-centers-greenhouses-reopen/#236c18e358f3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/04/27/michigan...
- nucleardog 6y ago
  > Why should we even allow our government to tell us ever again what products are “essential” and what are not? Because, on average, the calculation for each individual does not line up with the calculation for society as a whole and people are going to make decisions that harm others. Yes, you going to your dentist is not likely to make a difference. Everyone going to their dentist, hair dresser, etc as if it's business as usual will, and the negative impacts of your actions will not only be felt by you. If government's role is to protect us from each other, then this is well in line with what they should be doing. I'd agree that specifically how they've done it in the US is... not good. But I don't see the general concept as being without merit.
  - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    > Because, on average, the calculation for each individual does not line up with the calculation for society as a whole and people are going to make decisions that harm others. Absolutely. But that's the problem with these thoughts. They're aren't wrong, but using them as a foundation for limiting a population can have an outsized negative impact worse than the thing they're trying to prevent. In this case with hindsight we can now say it wasn't wise, as some states dramatically limited what items a person could buy, and some didn't. In some place you had "critical personnel" driving across state lines just to buy work boots.
vannevar 6y ago
The only reason we had to resort to indiscriminate lockdowns here in the US was that we failed to prepare for the eventuality of an epidemic back in January. Had we deployed robust testing to our major urban areas in late February or early March, we could've taken much more targeted action and avoided the broad economic repercussions that we are suffering now. So in a sense, yes, we would do the lockdowns differently in the future: we would act earlier and more intelligently, and avoid them altogether.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

Why should we even allow our government to tell us ever again what products are “essential” and what are not? Not only was that distinction pointless, but it was actively harmful. Another example, a ban on plant nursery right at the time people should be planting their own food. Large stores, allowed to stay open, will be gobbling up smaller, closed competitors for pennies on the dollar. Private practice hospitals will never be the same again. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/04/27/michigan-reverses-ban-lets-garden-centers-greenhouses-reopen/#236c18e358f3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/04/27/michigan...

nucleardog 6y ago
> Why should we even allow our government to tell us ever again what products are “essential” and what are not? Because, on average, the calculation for each individual does not line up with the calculation for society as a whole and people are going to make decisions that harm others. Yes, you going to your dentist is not likely to make a difference. Everyone going to their dentist, hair dresser, etc as if it's business as usual will, and the negative impacts of your actions will not only be felt by you. If government's role is to protect us from each other, then this is well in line with what they should be doing. I'd agree that specifically how they've done it in the US is... not good. But I don't see the general concept as being without merit.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  > Because, on average, the calculation for each individual does not line up with the calculation for society as a whole and people are going to make decisions that harm others. Absolutely. But that's the problem with these thoughts. They're aren't wrong, but using them as a foundation for limiting a population can have an outsized negative impact worse than the thing they're trying to prevent. In this case with hindsight we can now say it wasn't wise, as some states dramatically limited what items a person could buy, and some didn't. In some place you had "critical personnel" driving across state lines just to buy work boots.

vannevar 6y ago

The only reason we had to resort to indiscriminate lockdowns here in the US was that we failed to prepare for the eventuality of an epidemic back in January. Had we deployed robust testing to our major urban areas in late February or early March, we could've taken much more targeted action and avoided the broad economic repercussions that we are suffering now. So in a sense, yes, we would do the lockdowns differently in the future: we would act earlier and more intelligently, and avoid them altogether.