5 ms·

The point of a lockdown is to stop people who think like you from hurting others. If we could trust people to act responsibly we wouldn't need to lockdown so st

by ehnto 6y ago

The point of a lockdown is to stop people who think like you from hurting others. If we could trust people to act responsibly we wouldn't need to lockdown so strictly, but in example after example someone who thinks like you will ruin it for everyone. Regardless, the US has largely already decided to be on your side and let you make your own decision about how to act during a pandemic, and the results speak for themselves. A wholesale failure. Good job, you win, 200,000 people are dead, is that enough patriotism for you?

just-juan-post 6y ago
> The point of a lockdown is to stop people who think like you from hurting others. So is the point of banning alcohol, unprotected sex, smoking, and junk food. Drunk people can fight me and kill me while drunk driving. Unprotected sex may be more pleasurable but if we want to stop hurting others then condoms must be mandatory. Smoking is an easy one, I can smell that from like 30 feet away. It's clearly getting into my lungs. Ban it completely. It's been repeatedly shown that obesity is a social disease. What foods would be banned in your area of the country? I'm having a good Sunday, enjoy this with me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko Note that I'm a leftie and I love the video so I hope you and others can get over them poking fun at Elizabeth This is about choice. Stop the restrictions and let the people choose.
- ehnto 6y ago
  Drink driving is banned, smoking is banned in many situations and only thanks to tobacco lobbies and tax income is it not entirely banned. Having sex doesn't affect passers by, just the active participants. Junk food you choose to eat yourself, you don't hurt others with it. It can cost taxpayer dollars in medical funding though, if you want to take that angle. There are hundreds of laws to stop people from making choices that hurt others, so even if your examples weren't so flimsy they would still be moot. This is a once in a lifetime pandemic, it will pass, take it on the chin and accept that you might have to do something to help others. You will get your choice back soon enough. The choice to be a carrier during a pandemic affects everyone. Why is it individual liberty to choose to spread disease but public will when people die from it?
  - just-juan-post 6y ago
    > Drink driving is banned Yet it still happens and claims innocent victims. > smoking is banned in many situations Yet it still happens and claims innocent victims. > Having sex doesn't affect passers by, just the active participants By making protection mandatory we keep people safe and healthy. > Junk food you choose to eat yourself As stated earlier it has been repeatedly shown that obesity is a social disease. I haven't even brought up second order effects. How much police and health care costs would we need by banning alcohol? Can you think of other second order effects? > This is a once in a lifetime pandemic This is a once in a lifetime panicdemic. Is it a pandemic if governments and organizations are begging people to get tested? Is it a pandemic when less than 1% of populations are positive let alone in a hospital or morgue? This isn't a pandemic. It's a panicdemic. Please stop keeping us safe. I appreciate your effort but let me choose. This is about choice.
    - TomSwirly 6y ago
      > > Drink driving is banned > Yet it still happens and claims innocent victims. [...] This is about choice. So there should be no drunk driving laws "because choice"? Your argument really does seem to be, "Laws are worthless, because people break them", because you repeat it several times. > This isn't a pandemic. It's a panicdemic. I would be ashamed if I had written what you had written. Where are your rational arguments? Where are your links to peer reviewed papers? Where is the moral, rational or intellectual integrity here?
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  > Note that I'm a leftie and I love the video... Please don't explicitly state things like this, it only leads to more polarisation. Keep people guessing at your personal political preferences, they should not have any impact on whether what you say is deemed 'acceptable' or not.
  - just-juan-post 6y ago
    Unfortunately it's mandatory because without it I and others like me are quickly branded with assumptive labels.
    - Yetanfou 6y ago
      I realise this but the solution is not to wave the don't shoot, I'm with you flag. The real solution is to get the discussion to revolve around the message instead of the messenger. This is a culture change and as such it takes time and you'll have to suffer the (no so) occasional downvote-into-oblivion experience but so be it. Here comes some ethically questionable but effective advice to stay alive in the HN jungle: if you're low on karma points you just post a few karma-whoring replies to top up the counter. Once you can breathe again you can state your mind freely until that karma counter goes down towards the red zone again after which you need to top it up again. It is very unfortunate that this is needed to stay alive here for those who have not yet built up a sufficient buffer of points but things being the way they are there is no other way for those who like to speak their mind on the edge of the sometimes very narrow Overton window.
      - just-juan-post 6y ago
        Thanks. For me the big things are: - Journalists and individuals need to use FOIA actions against their state and local governments to see e-mails to see what the true numbers are. That Nashville situation is absurd and we all know it's happening at a bunch of other places. - Middle class / "regular people" need to start speaking openly and questioning and discussing the lifestyle restrictions and closures. - A message of safety indirectly spreads a message of fear. Stop with all of the unnecessary post-Covid new normal "safety" things. - It's about choice and we are pro choice.
ojhughes 6y ago
If mask usage was strictly mandated then lockdowns would be unnecessary. Instead, the topic of masks has been pulled into a ridiculous debate. I suspect most lockdown supporters live in a comfortable and spacious environment where they work from home. The cost of lockdown is huge for business owners, domestic abuse victims and those with mental illness. There is increasing research that points to the cost of lockdowns being greater than the benefit.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ojhughes 6y ago
  Studies such as this https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/widespread-facemask-use-could-shrink-the-r-number-and-prevent-a-second-covid-19-wave-study https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/widespread-facemask-use-... Widespread spread mask usage in Japan and South Korea has proven very effective as well at controlling the virus and allowing life to go back to normal
  - just-juan-post 6y ago
    Oop sorry I deleted my reply - I did some thinking myself. I agree. If nothing else it's a decent mix of freedom and virus control worth considering.
- ehnto 6y ago
  I agree with you, however it is connected to the original argument because people have demonstrated they won't wear masks, so you need lockdown instead. If people would wear masks, business could go on. The cost of lockdown is high, I don't think anyone is disputing that. It's a tradeoff, but we don't really know what's going to be best long term. It's hard to measure without all the data, and who gets to choose the metric for success? Is it economic damage, or social damage, or damage to public health that we're aiming to minimize? I think the answer is that they are all competing goals, and everyone is going to be using a different metric to measure success.
abduhl 6y ago
I thought the point of the lockdown was to flatten the curve? “Just 14 days to flatten the curve,” if I remember correctly. How could anyone, including the government, have planned for or implemented a social safety net or bailout for something that has gone on literally 12 times longer than anyone said it would?

by ehnto 6y ago

just-juan-post 6y ago

> The point of a lockdown is to stop people who think like you from hurting others. So is the point of banning alcohol, unprotected sex, smoking, and junk food. Drunk people can fight me and kill me while drunk driving. Unprotected sex may be more pleasurable but if we want to stop hurting others then condoms must be mandatory. Smoking is an easy one, I can smell that from like 30 feet away. It's clearly getting into my lungs. Ban it completely. It's been repeatedly shown that obesity is a social disease. What foods would be banned in your area of the country? I'm having a good Sunday, enjoy this with me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko Note that I'm a leftie and I love the video so I hope you and others can get over them poking fun at Elizabeth This is about choice. Stop the restrictions and let the people choose.

ehnto 6y ago
Drink driving is banned, smoking is banned in many situations and only thanks to tobacco lobbies and tax income is it not entirely banned. Having sex doesn't affect passers by, just the active participants. Junk food you choose to eat yourself, you don't hurt others with it. It can cost taxpayer dollars in medical funding though, if you want to take that angle. There are hundreds of laws to stop people from making choices that hurt others, so even if your examples weren't so flimsy they would still be moot. This is a once in a lifetime pandemic, it will pass, take it on the chin and accept that you might have to do something to help others. You will get your choice back soon enough. The choice to be a carrier during a pandemic affects everyone. Why is it individual liberty to choose to spread disease but public will when people die from it?
- just-juan-post 6y ago
  > Drink driving is banned Yet it still happens and claims innocent victims. > smoking is banned in many situations Yet it still happens and claims innocent victims. > Having sex doesn't affect passers by, just the active participants By making protection mandatory we keep people safe and healthy. > Junk food you choose to eat yourself As stated earlier it has been repeatedly shown that obesity is a social disease. I haven't even brought up second order effects. How much police and health care costs would we need by banning alcohol? Can you think of other second order effects? > This is a once in a lifetime pandemic This is a once in a lifetime panicdemic. Is it a pandemic if governments and organizations are begging people to get tested? Is it a pandemic when less than 1% of populations are positive let alone in a hospital or morgue? This isn't a pandemic. It's a panicdemic. Please stop keeping us safe. I appreciate your effort but let me choose. This is about choice.
  - TomSwirly 6y ago
    > > Drink driving is banned > Yet it still happens and claims innocent victims. [...] This is about choice. So there should be no drunk driving laws "because choice"? Your argument really does seem to be, "Laws are worthless, because people break them", because you repeat it several times. > This isn't a pandemic. It's a panicdemic. I would be ashamed if I had written what you had written. Where are your rational arguments? Where are your links to peer reviewed papers? Where is the moral, rational or intellectual integrity here?
Yetanfou 6y ago
> Note that I'm a leftie and I love the video... Please don't explicitly state things like this, it only leads to more polarisation. Keep people guessing at your personal political preferences, they should not have any impact on whether what you say is deemed 'acceptable' or not.
- just-juan-post 6y ago
  Unfortunately it's mandatory because without it I and others like me are quickly branded with assumptive labels.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    I realise this but the solution is not to wave the don't shoot, I'm with you flag. The real solution is to get the discussion to revolve around the message instead of the messenger. This is a culture change and as such it takes time and you'll have to suffer the (no so) occasional downvote-into-oblivion experience but so be it. Here comes some ethically questionable but effective advice to stay alive in the HN jungle: if you're low on karma points you just post a few karma-whoring replies to top up the counter. Once you can breathe again you can state your mind freely until that karma counter goes down towards the red zone again after which you need to top it up again. It is very unfortunate that this is needed to stay alive here for those who have not yet built up a sufficient buffer of points but things being the way they are there is no other way for those who like to speak their mind on the edge of the sometimes very narrow Overton window.
    - just-juan-post 6y ago
      Thanks. For me the big things are: - Journalists and individuals need to use FOIA actions against their state and local governments to see e-mails to see what the true numbers are. That Nashville situation is absurd and we all know it's happening at a bunch of other places. - Middle class / "regular people" need to start speaking openly and questioning and discussing the lifestyle restrictions and closures. - A message of safety indirectly spreads a message of fear. Stop with all of the unnecessary post-Covid new normal "safety" things. - It's about choice and we are pro choice.

ojhughes 6y ago

If mask usage was strictly mandated then lockdowns would be unnecessary. Instead, the topic of masks has been pulled into a ridiculous debate. I suspect most lockdown supporters live in a comfortable and spacious environment where they work from home. The cost of lockdown is huge for business owners, domestic abuse victims and those with mental illness. There is increasing research that points to the cost of lockdowns being greater than the benefit.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ojhughes 6y ago
Studies such as this https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/widespread-facemask-use-could-shrink-the-r-number-and-prevent-a-second-covid-19-wave-study https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/widespread-facemask-use-... Widespread spread mask usage in Japan and South Korea has proven very effective as well at controlling the virus and allowing life to go back to normal
- just-juan-post 6y ago
  Oop sorry I deleted my reply - I did some thinking myself. I agree. If nothing else it's a decent mix of freedom and virus control worth considering.
ehnto 6y ago
I agree with you, however it is connected to the original argument because people have demonstrated they won't wear masks, so you need lockdown instead. If people would wear masks, business could go on. The cost of lockdown is high, I don't think anyone is disputing that. It's a tradeoff, but we don't really know what's going to be best long term. It's hard to measure without all the data, and who gets to choose the metric for success? Is it economic damage, or social damage, or damage to public health that we're aiming to minimize? I think the answer is that they are all competing goals, and everyone is going to be using a different metric to measure success.

abduhl 6y ago

I thought the point of the lockdown was to flatten the curve? “Just 14 days to flatten the curve,” if I remember correctly. How could anyone, including the government, have planned for or implemented a social safety net or bailout for something that has gone on literally 12 times longer than anyone said it would?