3 ms·

> 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

> 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.)
  - smallnamespace 6y ago
    On the flip side, the more dangerous and difficult a situation, the more difficult it is to give honest and accurate timelines. In the extreme, your demand would doom governments to fail to manage any serious crisis. Sometimes bad things happen and we do need to trust each other in order to fix things.
  - starfallg 6y ago
    > But this is exactly the mindset that I'd characterize as an erosion of "respect for human rights". Google "positive rights". It is widely accepted that there are some things we are obliged to do. The base state of our existence is not to do nothing. You're trying portray what is in effect a public health measure into something sinister and I don't think it's working. I stand by my assertion that the original point was a strawman. By and large, the initial lockdown measures were put into place by different countries with the goal of solving the immediate threat of overwhelmed ICUs and none were designed to last indefinitely. All of which were relaxed in the summer, but now have to be reintroduced partially in many countries due to the lack of other measures put in place to stem a second wave.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

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.)
- smallnamespace 6y ago
  On the flip side, the more dangerous and difficult a situation, the more difficult it is to give honest and accurate timelines. In the extreme, your demand would doom governments to fail to manage any serious crisis. Sometimes bad things happen and we do need to trust each other in order to fix things.
- starfallg 6y ago
  > But this is exactly the mindset that I'd characterize as an erosion of "respect for human rights". Google "positive rights". It is widely accepted that there are some things we are obliged to do. The base state of our existence is not to do nothing. You're trying portray what is in effect a public health measure into something sinister and I don't think it's working. I stand by my assertion that the original point was a strawman. By and large, the initial lockdown measures were put into place by different countries with the goal of solving the immediate threat of overwhelmed ICUs and none were designed to last indefinitely. All of which were relaxed in the summer, but now have to be reintroduced partially in many countries due to the lack of other measures put in place to stem a second wave.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]