7 ms·

People aren't asking for authoritarian restrictions. People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (l

People aren't asking for authoritarian restrictions. People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (like wearing masks). Instead we have ineffective politically driven responses marked by indecision and incompetence. People don't want lockdowns, but we recognise that because our containment measures have failed, we have no choice but to shut things. If you don't want a lockdown, the government has to do a better job of coordinating measures to lower the R rate, which they (here in the UK but also in the US) failed to respond promptly with measures that anybody with a bit of common sense would agree with. Why did it take months for the government to be recommending face masks? Don't say it's because of the shortage of PPE for health care workers because a friend made around 40 cotton masks over a weekend for all of her friends and family back in early April. The Japanese government was giving out 2 fabric masks for every resident at that time while we were arguing over whether they were effective or not.

krona 6y ago
> we have no choice but to shut things Genuinely curious; where is the evidence and statistical analysis that shows the variance of infection rates across the world can be explained solely (or overwhelmingly, as you suggest) by lockdowns?
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  Where do you think starfallg's comment makes that claim, especially considering the section you quoted?
Nuzzerino 6y ago
> People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (like wearing masks). Instead -- We're already doing this. > because our containment measures have failed, we have no choice but to shut things. Until when? The shutdowns were supposed to be about making sure that hospitals have time to prepare, research has time to be done, society has time to adapt. This has already taken place. > which they (here in the UK but also in the US) failed to respond promptly with measures that anybody with a bit of common sense would agree with Should a layman be expected to know what a common sense response is for a pandemic? If such knowledge were that ubiquitous, we wouldn't be seeing these kinds of issues, so calling it "common sense" serves only to insult people who don't agree with you here. > Don't say it's because of the shortage of PPE for health care workers because a friend made around 40 cotton masks over a weekend for all of her friends and family back in early April. Except the virus was thought to be much more deadly at first, and the efficacy of cotton masks has been and is still a controversial subject. If you truly believe it is "common sense" to do things differently, you might be inclined to think there's some kind of conspiracy going on. I assure you that the more likely scenario is you just haven't taken the actual circumstances into account and are guilty of playing armchair general.
- tolbish 6y ago
  Your response underscores the importance of civic institutions that the population can trust. When government institutions cannot be trusted, conspiratorial mindsets become the norm.
- starfallg 6y ago
  >We're already doing this. Really? Because all the video's I've seen indicate politicians of a certain political persuasion (and their family members) doing the utmost to avoid wearing masks in situations that they should have known better. >Until when? The shutdowns were supposed to be about making sure that hospitals have time to prepare, research has time to be done, society has time to adapt. This has already taken place. Stop building this up into a strawman. Nobody is arguing that lockdowns should last forever. > Should a layman be expected to know what a common sense response is for a pandemic? If such knowledge were that ubiquitous, we wouldn't be seeing these kinds of issues, so calling it "common sense" serves only to insult people who don't agree with you here. Is wearing a mask so that your drops of saliva and nasal discharge doesn't reach and infect others that hard to understand? > Except the virus was thought to be much more deadly at first, and the efficacy of cotton masks has been and is still a controversial subject. It isn't controversial at the very least, see my post above. It doesn't take a genius to see how a barrier that slows or blocks droplets in and out of your orifices can help to prevent the spread of respiratory disease. > If you truly believe it is "common sense" to do things differently, you might be inclined to think there's some kind of conspiracy going on. Nice of you to bring up "conspiracy". And here I am thinking that it was incompetence and politicisation all along.. silly me.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    > Stop building this up into a strawman. Nobody is arguing that lockdowns should last forever. But this is exactly the mindset that I'd characterize as an erosion of "respect for human rights". When the government proposes extraordinary restrictions, it's their responsibility to clearly define how long the restrictions need to last. Answers like "until it's safe" or "stop building this into a strawman" should not satisfy us, because the entire principle of human rights is that governments can't be trusted with such unlimited mandates. (I should note to be fair that many governments have indeed limited their mandate, saying that they're going to remove all the restrictions once a vaccine is widely available. I don't necessarily agree with that from a policy perspective, but it's much better than an indefinite commitment to stop the disease from spreading.)
CodeGlitch 6y ago
Regarding masks in the UK, the evidence for their effectiveness is still up in the air. I think the UK gov didn't want to confuse the messages that were already numerous. I think they gave up on that idea when all the other countries went with the masks.
- starfallg 6y ago
  It's "up in the air" in the same way that climate change is "up in the air". https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-face-masks-and-coverings-work-act-now https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-f... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/ https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-abou... https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
  - cephy 6y ago
    What a totally disingenuous comment your own links acknowledge the nuances about differences in effectiveness between the types of masks and how you wear them. To breakdown each of your sources. 1. It specifically notes the cloths masks are less effective and the cloth masks they tested were double layered and made from a water resistant material. It also discusses the need to wash them daily and not to take them off in a given sitting. Where ever I am I seeing people violating these guidelines. Whether its grocery store workers pulling them down to catch a breath or people at restaurants taking them off and on to eat. Also I see tons of people wearing single layered non-water resistant fabrics. And how often are we all washing them? Probably not a lot. 2 & 4: Both focus on looking at observational data comparing places where masks wearing is prevalent versus places where it is not. It even looks at the same places after switching policies. But these are obviously confounded by a whole bunch of other factors. Maybe places that wear masks are better about physical distancing and washing their hands. I find it difficult to take much from this kind of evidence, but I understand why someone else would. 3. Similar to (1), but even harsher on cloth masks. Specifically notes the effectiveness of respirators, says medical masks were not effective and cloths masks were less effective (I don't know how you can be less effective than not effective). Here is the actual line. "Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomized controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts." This is in no way equivalent to the arguments for climate change. And frankly thank god you aren't a public health expert because by comparing the two publicly you would be doing damage to the environmental movement. Instead of just trying to make someone look dumb on internet why don't you actually engage in a good-faith argument that acknowledges the very real nuances.
fennecfoxen 6y ago
> we have no choice but to shut things We have always had a spectrum of choices, and as time goes by we continue to develop new choices that will deliver better results at lower costs. Broad shutdowns have always been the bluntest possible instrument with the highest amount of collateral damage. This is why even the WHO is inveighing against shutdowns now, noting the increases in cancers left untreated, vaccines not administered, the long-term damage from service cuts when government budgets must pay the deficit, and a massive spike in worldwide poverty. It is cataclysmic, and the worst impacts are in the global south, particularly around education; previous coverage in the Economist has noted that in some places girls are being pulled out of school entirely, and married off at a young age. At some point, the cure is worse than the disease. We must acknowledge this, proactively declare that there is a choice, and countenance trade-offs which let allow the virus to kill more people — because if we don't, we're certainly going to ruin lives and kill people in other ways. And while it's one thing to make a "Hail Mary" pass attempt and set new world records in vaccine development, the fact remains that if we do not see our miracle then the virus remains likely to kill plenty of the people we "save" in the end anyway.
- starfallg 6y ago
  The type of lockdowns we are seeing now (closure of nightlife and large events) is markedly different than before. And those drastic measures from back in March and April were only because, at the time, hospital ICUs were being overwhelmed and doctors were dying of complication from SARS-COV-2. I don't think anybody is arguing for us to go back to that type of measure.
sokoloff 6y ago
> People aren't asking for authoritarian restrictions. People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (like wearing masks). It’s hard to find persistent daylight between those two things. (For the record, I wear masks outside and in grocery stores, which are the only shops I go to. I find this at least 75% common sense.) When it comes time though to force someone who doesn’t want to do what you find common sense, where’s the impersonal, referenced only to ground truth, line that says that’s ok under force of law, but other similar-appearing things, well those things would be authoritarian, but these things are just common sense we can all rally around? If everyone is already rallying around something, you don’t need any government force of law to make it happen. (Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.) Apply this to guns, drugs, abortion, climate change, restaurant seating capacity during COVID, or whatever topic people tend to have their own individual “common sense” about.
- j-krieger 6y ago
  This is a take against all laws if you prop it up a bit more. It doesn‘t make sense. The people enacting these laws are democratically elected. „Common sense“ in this case is not arbitrary. It is the culmination of the „common senses“ if all politicians that were elected by their citizens. This is not undemocratic, it is democracy in its purest form. At some point in dire situations, as a government, you have to save your citizens from themselves.
  - babesh 6y ago
    That isn't direct democracy. That is a republican form of government. Whenever you have representatives instead of citizens governing themselves, you can have situations where the government saves the citizenry from themselves but also situations where the representatives exploit the government for themselves. Both cases have happened throughout history and are happening with the coronavirus. In the US, Fauci was initially anti-mask to preserve supplies for health care officers. This theoretically saved citizenry from themselves but at the cost of long term trust in institutions. Democrat led governments lengthened lockdowns for political gain. Republican led governments shortened lockdowns for political gain. - Democrats point at the increased infection rates in Republican states as proof that lockdown measures are still necessary but ignore much lower death rates we are seeing. - Republicans point to the economic devastation that lockdowns cause as cause to end lockdowns without proper planning to limit infection. - Democrats push for very large stimulus over loosening lockdowns without discussing the long term costs of adding so much to the deficit and the long term costs to the economy. - Democrats hoist blame at Trump but ignore how certain Democratic run states were some of the worst at initially handling the coronavirus. - Trump overhypes the availability of vaccines and underplayed the virus.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The idea that there's some set of coordinated post-lockdown measures that will prevent the need for further lockdowns strikes me as unrealistic. Every country I'm familiar with that attempted to control the pandemic with lockdowns has had to reimpose them at least once.
- starfallg 6y ago
  There are also varying degrees of lockdowns that can be effected depending on the situation. My point being that lockdown is a last-resort blunt tool used to prevent an explosion of cases overwhelming health care capacity, it's not something that people inherently support indefinitely. We don't cream our pants thinking about how great a world under lockdown is.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I don't agree. It seems to me that many people will support it indefinitely - not out of excitement, certainly, but out of a feeling that we've just gotta do it if the government says it's the only option. Some parts of Australia have been locked down basically since the pandemic started.
    - starfallg 6y ago
      > government says it's the only option. Over here in the UK, the government was dragged into this with their feet kicking. The fact that we were slow to act to stem the initial explosion of cases is the reason why a longer and more drastic lockdown was needed according to the modelling and borne out by data subsequently. Three weeks ago the UK government was warned to start re-imposing measures to stem the second wave. The government ignored this, and now this week they are again forced screaming and kicking into a new lockdown regime as COVID hospital admissions start rising to levels last seen in March.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Right, and it's this idea of "forced" that concerns me. Every country that imposes lockdowns on the premise that they were forced, that they didn't have a choice, they just had to stop the disease from spreading. But very few countries have indicated they have a plan for how to permanently stop the disease from spreading - in most countries, experts believe that there is no workable plan and the disease will spread for decades at least. So how can we be confident that lockdowns won't continue for a few years until they just become the status quo?
thebeefytaco 6y ago
>People aren't asking for authoritarian restrictions. People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (like wearing masks). Whether you agree with it or not, how would a mask mandate not be an authoritarian restriction?
- stormbrew 6y ago
  Are all legal restrictions on what clothes you should wear in public authoritarian to you? Many of them exist to make sure you don't die (eg. food prep/serving sanitation, medical practice) of preventable causes. If "authoritarian" includes every rule that affects how we interact with each other in public you've pretty much gone into nihilistic territory it seems to me.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dTal 6y ago
    A significant political contingent does indeed object to any and all rules. They call themselves nice words like "libertarian" and "small government", but the basic ideology is really just anarchy.
- starfallg 6y ago
  Is a prohibition of setting your neighbours house on fire an authoritarian restriction? How about a mandate to clear the pavement/sidewalk in front of your house of snow so that pedestrians don't fall and break their hip? Having laws doesn't mean you're being oppressed.
  - sethammons 6y ago
    Except, by definition, you are. We, as a society, have determined that certain freedoms are given up for certain benefits. Is it age discrimination to prevent having a driver’s license before age 16? Yup! Is a freedom taken from you by having a law preventing arson? Yep, and we mostly all agree that is good. The important part of a new rule or law is that we accept the trade offs. I’m not convinced we’ve reached consensus that we all need to be wearing masks but most are obliging.
tinus_hn 6y ago
You should see the Netherlands, plenty of people are calling for the military to violently enforce their favorite rules, and getting cheered on by others. It’s truly insane, disappointing and scary.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
0x6862 6y ago
I believe the common sense solution is to protect the vulnerable and elderly, yet I’ve been in complete lockdown for over 6 months. Lockdowns were never the solution to pandemics prior, so why now? People don’t wear masks correctly at all, they don’t wash it, they don’t pull it down and fiddle with it every other minute. There has been no attempt at public education around this where I live. Old age homes have been severely understaffed, provided with no PPE, have allowed visitors, and their staff have not been continually tested. Over 80% of the deaths in my state have came from these homes alone Before taking away almost all of a person’s fundamental rights you have to at least try these less restrictive measures. People have been arrested in their home when they’ve made a fb post about protesting the restrictions. The worst part, there is no lack of people supporting these measures. Only recently has it become politically unpopular
- tim333 6y ago
  I'm not sure the western style lockdowns work very well. In places like Thailand they try to identify the infected and then put them in separate quarantine facilities rather than making them stay home where they can infect others. The local transmission there and places like Vietnam with similar policies is now basically zero. There's a bit of an imposition on your freedom if you get quarantined - I did there but it's only 2-4 weeks and only like 0.01% of the population so overall it's probably less of an imposition than the half arsed mess we have in England where I now am. Also the deaths have been like 1000x less.
cwhiz 6y ago
Common sense, coordinated, and effective. And what if I don’t want to do what your common sense suggestions say I should? Or I disagree with you in regard to what is common sense. Now we are at the fundamental issue.

krona 6y ago

> we have no choice but to shut things Genuinely curious; where is the evidence and statistical analysis that shows the variance of infection rates across the world can be explained solely (or overwhelmingly, as you suggest) by lockdowns?

cmeacham98 6y ago
Where do you think starfallg's comment makes that claim, especially considering the section you quoted?

Nuzzerino 6y ago

> People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (like wearing masks). Instead -- We're already doing this. > because our containment measures have failed, we have no choice but to shut things. Until when? The shutdowns were supposed to be about making sure that hospitals have time to prepare, research has time to be done, society has time to adapt. This has already taken place. > which they (here in the UK but also in the US) failed to respond promptly with measures that anybody with a bit of common sense would agree with Should a layman be expected to know what a common sense response is for a pandemic? If such knowledge were that ubiquitous, we wouldn't be seeing these kinds of issues, so calling it "common sense" serves only to insult people who don't agree with you here. > Don't say it's because of the shortage of PPE for health care workers because a friend made around 40 cotton masks over a weekend for all of her friends and family back in early April. Except the virus was thought to be much more deadly at first, and the efficacy of cotton masks has been and is still a controversial subject. If you truly believe it is "common sense" to do things differently, you might be inclined to think there's some kind of conspiracy going on. I assure you that the more likely scenario is you just haven't taken the actual circumstances into account and are guilty of playing armchair general.

tolbish 6y ago
Your response underscores the importance of civic institutions that the population can trust. When government institutions cannot be trusted, conspiratorial mindsets become the norm.
starfallg 6y ago
>We're already doing this. Really? Because all the video's I've seen indicate politicians of a certain political persuasion (and their family members) doing the utmost to avoid wearing masks in situations that they should have known better. >Until when? The shutdowns were supposed to be about making sure that hospitals have time to prepare, research has time to be done, society has time to adapt. This has already taken place. Stop building this up into a strawman. Nobody is arguing that lockdowns should last forever. > Should a layman be expected to know what a common sense response is for a pandemic? If such knowledge were that ubiquitous, we wouldn't be seeing these kinds of issues, so calling it "common sense" serves only to insult people who don't agree with you here. Is wearing a mask so that your drops of saliva and nasal discharge doesn't reach and infect others that hard to understand? > Except the virus was thought to be much more deadly at first, and the efficacy of cotton masks has been and is still a controversial subject. It isn't controversial at the very least, see my post above. It doesn't take a genius to see how a barrier that slows or blocks droplets in and out of your orifices can help to prevent the spread of respiratory disease. > If you truly believe it is "common sense" to do things differently, you might be inclined to think there's some kind of conspiracy going on. Nice of you to bring up "conspiracy". And here I am thinking that it was incompetence and politicisation all along.. silly me.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  > Stop building this up into a strawman. Nobody is arguing that lockdowns should last forever. But this is exactly the mindset that I'd characterize as an erosion of "respect for human rights". When the government proposes extraordinary restrictions, it's their responsibility to clearly define how long the restrictions need to last. Answers like "until it's safe" or "stop building this into a strawman" should not satisfy us, because the entire principle of human rights is that governments can't be trusted with such unlimited mandates. (I should note to be fair that many governments have indeed limited their mandate, saying that they're going to remove all the restrictions once a vaccine is widely available. I don't necessarily agree with that from a policy perspective, but it's much better than an indefinite commitment to stop the disease from spreading.)

CodeGlitch 6y ago

Regarding masks in the UK, the evidence for their effectiveness is still up in the air. I think the UK gov didn't want to confuse the messages that were already numerous. I think they gave up on that idea when all the other countries went with the masks.

starfallg 6y ago
It's "up in the air" in the same way that climate change is "up in the air". https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-face-masks-and-coverings-work-act-now https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-f... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/ https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-abou... https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
- cephy 6y ago
  What a totally disingenuous comment your own links acknowledge the nuances about differences in effectiveness between the types of masks and how you wear them. To breakdown each of your sources. 1. It specifically notes the cloths masks are less effective and the cloth masks they tested were double layered and made from a water resistant material. It also discusses the need to wash them daily and not to take them off in a given sitting. Where ever I am I seeing people violating these guidelines. Whether its grocery store workers pulling them down to catch a breath or people at restaurants taking them off and on to eat. Also I see tons of people wearing single layered non-water resistant fabrics. And how often are we all washing them? Probably not a lot. 2 & 4: Both focus on looking at observational data comparing places where masks wearing is prevalent versus places where it is not. It even looks at the same places after switching policies. But these are obviously confounded by a whole bunch of other factors. Maybe places that wear masks are better about physical distancing and washing their hands. I find it difficult to take much from this kind of evidence, but I understand why someone else would. 3. Similar to (1), but even harsher on cloth masks. Specifically notes the effectiveness of respirators, says medical masks were not effective and cloths masks were less effective (I don't know how you can be less effective than not effective). Here is the actual line. "Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomized controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts." This is in no way equivalent to the arguments for climate change. And frankly thank god you aren't a public health expert because by comparing the two publicly you would be doing damage to the environmental movement. Instead of just trying to make someone look dumb on internet why don't you actually engage in a good-faith argument that acknowledges the very real nuances.

fennecfoxen 6y ago

> we have no choice but to shut things We have always had a spectrum of choices, and as time goes by we continue to develop new choices that will deliver better results at lower costs. Broad shutdowns have always been the bluntest possible instrument with the highest amount of collateral damage. This is why even the WHO is inveighing against shutdowns now, noting the increases in cancers left untreated, vaccines not administered, the long-term damage from service cuts when government budgets must pay the deficit, and a massive spike in worldwide poverty. It is cataclysmic, and the worst impacts are in the global south, particularly around education; previous coverage in the Economist has noted that in some places girls are being pulled out of school entirely, and married off at a young age. At some point, the cure is worse than the disease. We must acknowledge this, proactively declare that there is a choice, and countenance trade-offs which let allow the virus to kill more people — because if we don't, we're certainly going to ruin lives and kill people in other ways. And while it's one thing to make a "Hail Mary" pass attempt and set new world records in vaccine development, the fact remains that if we do not see our miracle then the virus remains likely to kill plenty of the people we "save" in the end anyway.

starfallg 6y ago
The type of lockdowns we are seeing now (closure of nightlife and large events) is markedly different than before. And those drastic measures from back in March and April were only because, at the time, hospital ICUs were being overwhelmed and doctors were dying of complication from SARS-COV-2. I don't think anybody is arguing for us to go back to that type of measure.

sokoloff 6y ago

> People aren't asking for authoritarian restrictions. People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (like wearing masks). It’s hard to find persistent daylight between those two things. (For the record, I wear masks outside and in grocery stores, which are the only shops I go to. I find this at least 75% common sense.) When it comes time though to force someone who doesn’t want to do what you find common sense, where’s the impersonal, referenced only to ground truth, line that says that’s ok under force of law, but other similar-appearing things, well those things would be authoritarian, but these things are just common sense we can all rally around? If everyone is already rallying around something, you don’t need any government force of law to make it happen. (Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.) Apply this to guns, drugs, abortion, climate change, restaurant seating capacity during COVID, or whatever topic people tend to have their own individual “common sense” about.

j-krieger 6y ago
This is a take against all laws if you prop it up a bit more. It doesn‘t make sense. The people enacting these laws are democratically elected. „Common sense“ in this case is not arbitrary. It is the culmination of the „common senses“ if all politicians that were elected by their citizens. This is not undemocratic, it is democracy in its purest form. At some point in dire situations, as a government, you have to save your citizens from themselves.
- babesh 6y ago
  That isn't direct democracy. That is a republican form of government. Whenever you have representatives instead of citizens governing themselves, you can have situations where the government saves the citizenry from themselves but also situations where the representatives exploit the government for themselves. Both cases have happened throughout history and are happening with the coronavirus. In the US, Fauci was initially anti-mask to preserve supplies for health care officers. This theoretically saved citizenry from themselves but at the cost of long term trust in institutions. Democrat led governments lengthened lockdowns for political gain. Republican led governments shortened lockdowns for political gain. - Democrats point at the increased infection rates in Republican states as proof that lockdown measures are still necessary but ignore much lower death rates we are seeing. - Republicans point to the economic devastation that lockdowns cause as cause to end lockdowns without proper planning to limit infection. - Democrats push for very large stimulus over loosening lockdowns without discussing the long term costs of adding so much to the deficit and the long term costs to the economy. - Democrats hoist blame at Trump but ignore how certain Democratic run states were some of the worst at initially handling the coronavirus. - Trump overhypes the availability of vaccines and underplayed the virus.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The idea that there's some set of coordinated post-lockdown measures that will prevent the need for further lockdowns strikes me as unrealistic. Every country I'm familiar with that attempted to control the pandemic with lockdowns has had to reimpose them at least once.

starfallg 6y ago
There are also varying degrees of lockdowns that can be effected depending on the situation. My point being that lockdown is a last-resort blunt tool used to prevent an explosion of cases overwhelming health care capacity, it's not something that people inherently support indefinitely. We don't cream our pants thinking about how great a world under lockdown is.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I don't agree. It seems to me that many people will support it indefinitely - not out of excitement, certainly, but out of a feeling that we've just gotta do it if the government says it's the only option. Some parts of Australia have been locked down basically since the pandemic started.
  - starfallg 6y ago
    > government says it's the only option. Over here in the UK, the government was dragged into this with their feet kicking. The fact that we were slow to act to stem the initial explosion of cases is the reason why a longer and more drastic lockdown was needed according to the modelling and borne out by data subsequently. Three weeks ago the UK government was warned to start re-imposing measures to stem the second wave. The government ignored this, and now this week they are again forced screaming and kicking into a new lockdown regime as COVID hospital admissions start rising to levels last seen in March.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Right, and it's this idea of "forced" that concerns me. Every country that imposes lockdowns on the premise that they were forced, that they didn't have a choice, they just had to stop the disease from spreading. But very few countries have indicated they have a plan for how to permanently stop the disease from spreading - in most countries, experts believe that there is no workable plan and the disease will spread for decades at least. So how can we be confident that lockdowns won't continue for a few years until they just become the status quo?

thebeefytaco 6y ago

stormbrew 6y ago
Are all legal restrictions on what clothes you should wear in public authoritarian to you? Many of them exist to make sure you don't die (eg. food prep/serving sanitation, medical practice) of preventable causes. If "authoritarian" includes every rule that affects how we interact with each other in public you've pretty much gone into nihilistic territory it seems to me.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dTal 6y ago
  A significant political contingent does indeed object to any and all rules. They call themselves nice words like "libertarian" and "small government", but the basic ideology is really just anarchy.
starfallg 6y ago
Is a prohibition of setting your neighbours house on fire an authoritarian restriction? How about a mandate to clear the pavement/sidewalk in front of your house of snow so that pedestrians don't fall and break their hip? Having laws doesn't mean you're being oppressed.
- sethammons 6y ago
  Except, by definition, you are. We, as a society, have determined that certain freedoms are given up for certain benefits. Is it age discrimination to prevent having a driver’s license before age 16? Yup! Is a freedom taken from you by having a law preventing arson? Yep, and we mostly all agree that is good. The important part of a new rule or law is that we accept the trade offs. I’m not convinced we’ve reached consensus that we all need to be wearing masks but most are obliging.

tinus_hn 6y ago

You should see the Netherlands, plenty of people are calling for the military to violently enforce their favorite rules, and getting cheered on by others. It’s truly insane, disappointing and scary.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

0x6862 6y ago

I believe the common sense solution is to protect the vulnerable and elderly, yet I’ve been in complete lockdown for over 6 months. Lockdowns were never the solution to pandemics prior, so why now? People don’t wear masks correctly at all, they don’t wash it, they don’t pull it down and fiddle with it every other minute. There has been no attempt at public education around this where I live. Old age homes have been severely understaffed, provided with no PPE, have allowed visitors, and their staff have not been continually tested. Over 80% of the deaths in my state have came from these homes alone Before taking away almost all of a person’s fundamental rights you have to at least try these less restrictive measures. People have been arrested in their home when they’ve made a fb post about protesting the restrictions. The worst part, there is no lack of people supporting these measures. Only recently has it become politically unpopular

tim333 6y ago
I'm not sure the western style lockdowns work very well. In places like Thailand they try to identify the infected and then put them in separate quarantine facilities rather than making them stay home where they can infect others. The local transmission there and places like Vietnam with similar policies is now basically zero. There's a bit of an imposition on your freedom if you get quarantined - I did there but it's only 2-4 weeks and only like 0.01% of the population so overall it's probably less of an imposition than the half arsed mess we have in England where I now am. Also the deaths have been like 1000x less.

cwhiz 6y ago

Common sense, coordinated, and effective. And what if I don’t want to do what your common sense suggestions say I should? Or I disagree with you in regard to what is common sense. Now we are at the fundamental issue.