11 ms·

It's a false choice. But even if it were true, yes, over lives. People already died fighting for my liberal rights, I'm not willing to trade any of that for so

It's a false choice. But even if it were true, yes, over lives. People already died fighting for my liberal rights, I'm not willing to trade any of that for some temporary safety. I'm from a Warsaw pact country. Seeing westerners so willing to give up their rights these days is so deeply disappointing.

FreeFull 6y ago
It's easy to give something up when you don't understand the danger of losing it. And we live in times where it's easier to give up your privacy than ever before.
- meristem 6y ago
  This resonates with my experience having grown up in a dictatorship. The loss of privacy can be insidious and feel ‘not a big deal’.
Barrin92 6y ago
The false choice here is actually that you can sacrifice lives and still expect to have freedom. The alternative to not giving up privacy for contact tracing or similar measures is to be locked into your home medieval style while the plague runs wild in the streets, which is a significantly stronger limitation of freedoms. The choice isn't between liberty or safety, just as it isn't between economic health and lockdown, it's between intelligent and proactive measures or carnage. Without public health there's no liberty. If our systems fail to protect the health of our populations those rights will go out the door sooner or later because it proves that those values are useless. It's completely paradoxical to argue that I'm free although I can't go to work, I can't safely go to the restaurant, I can't meet my friends without being afraid of contracting a deadly disease, but I'm free because I have privacy.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Locking yourself up for fear of a <1% chance of dying is very much a choice.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    The chance of ending up in a hospital is much higher (about 15 times higher), and so are the chances for complications in general like loss of smell or neurological or heart/lung damage. And if you have pre-existing conditions (like a sizeable amount of people) those risks only go up. As can be seen in slumping economic stats many people are avoiding that risk which makes complete sense. It's absurd to frame this as a 'choice', it's a gigantic societal and civilisational failure to not be able to stop this disease. In particular in the US though framing collective failure of preventable harm as cost for freedom has become the norm. You can pick anything that doesn't work or that could have been prevented and within five seconds someone will tell you it's the price for freedom. I think the real explanation is much more sinister. As a society people have given up, so now every harm or burden is rationalised in this way.
  - azinman2 6y ago
    That 1% depends on a wide variety of contexts. It isn’t 1% for everyone, 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating persistent problems, and even if everything is fine with you, you can pass it to someone who passes it to someone who dies from your unwillingness to act for the greater good. To do anything but protect yourself is fundamentally selfish.
    - orangecat 6y ago
      It isn’t 1% for everyone True. If you're younger (really, under 60) and healthy it's much less than 1%. 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating persistent problems Unclear if you mean 1/3 of all infections, which is far too high, or 1 to 3 percent, which is possibly reasonable, although again it's going to be skewed towards older and unhealthy people. even if everything is fine with you, you can pass it to someone who passes it to someone who dies from your unwillingness to act for the greater good At some point people have to be responsible for themselves. If you're severely allergic to peanuts, then that's something that you have to watch out for; we don't ban peanuts for the general public. If you're at high risk for COVID then you should take appropriate precautions, but it's unreasonable to demand that everyone else be forbidden from seeing their friends and family for months or years.
- bad_user 6y ago
  While I understood lockdown measures, know that this is your privilege talking. You can stay in lockdown because you're middle class living in a wealthy country. In countries like India lockdown can cost far more than what Covid-19 can do. I'm not arguing against public health measures, when the cost to me is low or when accompanied by evidence. So where's the evidence that tracing apps work? That South Korea does it and South Korea manages to keep Covid-19 under control, that's not evidence. Plenty of confounders like the massive testing they did, their discipline in wearing masks, etc. And note that I'm not a denier. I do think 1% mortality is unacceptable, plus it appears that's not the only problem. High hospitalization rates, permanent heart and lung damage, etc. Still not willing to trade my privacy away, sorry. You're free to do that but I'm willing to fight for mine.
  - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
    > 'm not arguing against public health measures, when the cost to me is low or when accompanied by evidence. Sometime there are no clear evidences, just suppositions - or the individual cost is not insignificant. In that case you should not be surprised to be forced to stay at home, similarly to not being allowed in a school when not vaccinated. You decide to pose a risk to society - you must face the consequences. My wife is immuno-depressed so people, for their comfort and freedom decide to be a danger are my personal enemies. I want to make sure they are forced to stay at home with their liberty with them. Only when you cooperate with society "for the greater good" then you are free to express your freedom publicly. This is not something philosophical - it is life at stake for some people.
    - bad_user 6y ago
      I'm sorry for your immuno-depressed wife. I also have family members over 60 that would be at higher risk if they contacted Covid-19. And I'm an asthmatic and asthmatics are at higher risk. But that's still not a reason to have my privacy traded away. And if you're going to treat me like the enemy, willing to trade my freedoms away, for your safety, then don't be surprised if I'm going to treat you like an enemy too. --- I'm totally fine with vaccination btw. That's a really poor analogy b/c vaccination is the best evidence-based strategy we have for fighting viruses and it's a one time cost to pay. To be honest, even if contact tracing apps had evidence that they work somewhat, I'd still not trade my privacy away. I only pointed out the lack of evidence because it is absurd to give up your freedoms on something that may or may not work. In any case, I'd rather catch the virus.
- patrick451 6y ago
  > The false choice here is actually that you can sacrifice lives and still expect to have freedom. To the contrary, lives sacrificed is necessary for liberty. Personally, I would rather die of covid (or terrorists) than be locked in my house (or have my movements surveilled) by a government that fetishizes safety above all else. To hell with safety.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Why is it a false choice? The article mentions the success of South Korea’s system, and China has also had a lot more success controlling COVID-19 than most western countries. I very much do not want to become China—yes, even at the cost of lives—but it’s worth looking seriously at what we’re giving up, and where we might (!) meet in the middle in times of extraordinary crisis.

FreeFull 6y ago

It's easy to give something up when you don't understand the danger of losing it. And we live in times where it's easier to give up your privacy than ever before.

meristem 6y ago
This resonates with my experience having grown up in a dictatorship. The loss of privacy can be insidious and feel ‘not a big deal’.

Barrin92 6y ago

The false choice here is actually that you can sacrifice lives and still expect to have freedom. The alternative to not giving up privacy for contact tracing or similar measures is to be locked into your home medieval style while the plague runs wild in the streets, which is a significantly stronger limitation of freedoms. The choice isn't between liberty or safety, just as it isn't between economic health and lockdown, it's between intelligent and proactive measures or carnage. Without public health there's no liberty. If our systems fail to protect the health of our populations those rights will go out the door sooner or later because it proves that those values are useless. It's completely paradoxical to argue that I'm free although I can't go to work, I can't safely go to the restaurant, I can't meet my friends without being afraid of contracting a deadly disease, but I'm free because I have privacy.

anoncake 6y ago
Locking yourself up for fear of a <1% chance of dying is very much a choice.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  The chance of ending up in a hospital is much higher (about 15 times higher), and so are the chances for complications in general like loss of smell or neurological or heart/lung damage. And if you have pre-existing conditions (like a sizeable amount of people) those risks only go up. As can be seen in slumping economic stats many people are avoiding that risk which makes complete sense. It's absurd to frame this as a 'choice', it's a gigantic societal and civilisational failure to not be able to stop this disease. In particular in the US though framing collective failure of preventable harm as cost for freedom has become the norm. You can pick anything that doesn't work or that could have been prevented and within five seconds someone will tell you it's the price for freedom. I think the real explanation is much more sinister. As a society people have given up, so now every harm or burden is rationalised in this way.
- azinman2 6y ago
  That 1% depends on a wide variety of contexts. It isn’t 1% for everyone, 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating persistent problems, and even if everything is fine with you, you can pass it to someone who passes it to someone who dies from your unwillingness to act for the greater good. To do anything but protect yourself is fundamentally selfish.
  - orangecat 6y ago
    It isn’t 1% for everyone True. If you're younger (really, under 60) and healthy it's much less than 1%. 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating persistent problems Unclear if you mean 1/3 of all infections, which is far too high, or 1 to 3 percent, which is possibly reasonable, although again it's going to be skewed towards older and unhealthy people. even if everything is fine with you, you can pass it to someone who passes it to someone who dies from your unwillingness to act for the greater good At some point people have to be responsible for themselves. If you're severely allergic to peanuts, then that's something that you have to watch out for; we don't ban peanuts for the general public. If you're at high risk for COVID then you should take appropriate precautions, but it's unreasonable to demand that everyone else be forbidden from seeing their friends and family for months or years.
bad_user 6y ago
While I understood lockdown measures, know that this is your privilege talking. You can stay in lockdown because you're middle class living in a wealthy country. In countries like India lockdown can cost far more than what Covid-19 can do. I'm not arguing against public health measures, when the cost to me is low or when accompanied by evidence. So where's the evidence that tracing apps work? That South Korea does it and South Korea manages to keep Covid-19 under control, that's not evidence. Plenty of confounders like the massive testing they did, their discipline in wearing masks, etc. And note that I'm not a denier. I do think 1% mortality is unacceptable, plus it appears that's not the only problem. High hospitalization rates, permanent heart and lung damage, etc. Still not willing to trade my privacy away, sorry. You're free to do that but I'm willing to fight for mine.
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  > 'm not arguing against public health measures, when the cost to me is low or when accompanied by evidence. Sometime there are no clear evidences, just suppositions - or the individual cost is not insignificant. In that case you should not be surprised to be forced to stay at home, similarly to not being allowed in a school when not vaccinated. You decide to pose a risk to society - you must face the consequences. My wife is immuno-depressed so people, for their comfort and freedom decide to be a danger are my personal enemies. I want to make sure they are forced to stay at home with their liberty with them. Only when you cooperate with society "for the greater good" then you are free to express your freedom publicly. This is not something philosophical - it is life at stake for some people.
  - bad_user 6y ago
    I'm sorry for your immuno-depressed wife. I also have family members over 60 that would be at higher risk if they contacted Covid-19. And I'm an asthmatic and asthmatics are at higher risk. But that's still not a reason to have my privacy traded away. And if you're going to treat me like the enemy, willing to trade my freedoms away, for your safety, then don't be surprised if I'm going to treat you like an enemy too. --- I'm totally fine with vaccination btw. That's a really poor analogy b/c vaccination is the best evidence-based strategy we have for fighting viruses and it's a one time cost to pay. To be honest, even if contact tracing apps had evidence that they work somewhat, I'd still not trade my privacy away. I only pointed out the lack of evidence because it is absurd to give up your freedoms on something that may or may not work. In any case, I'd rather catch the virus.
patrick451 6y ago
> The false choice here is actually that you can sacrifice lives and still expect to have freedom. To the contrary, lives sacrificed is necessary for liberty. Personally, I would rather die of covid (or terrorists) than be locked in my house (or have my movements surveilled) by a government that fetishizes safety above all else. To hell with safety.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

Why is it a false choice? The article mentions the success of South Korea’s system, and China has also had a lot more success controlling COVID-19 than most western countries. I very much do not want to become China—yes, even at the cost of lives—but it’s worth looking seriously at what we’re giving up, and where we might (!) meet in the middle in times of extraordinary crisis.