4 ms·

>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 th

>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
    What I'm trying to portray is that a lot of people think that Covid-19 is more important than most human rights, and nearly any restriction for nearly any duration is acceptable if it'll slow the spread. I think it's entirely fair to call that an "erosion of respect for human rights", and the source article describes many examples of how that can go wrong. As long as Ugandans share the attitude that controlling the spread is the most important thing in the world, President Museveni will be able to continue oppressing his political opponents. If you think that the leaders in your area are moral enough that they'd never abuse unlimited power in this way... I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong, I don't know, but I'm skeptical.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      I don't see how any politicians are getting much out of lockdowns right now. Especially since polling places are still open and most people can vote by mail.

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
  What I'm trying to portray is that a lot of people think that Covid-19 is more important than most human rights, and nearly any restriction for nearly any duration is acceptable if it'll slow the spread. I think it's entirely fair to call that an "erosion of respect for human rights", and the source article describes many examples of how that can go wrong. As long as Ugandans share the attitude that controlling the spread is the most important thing in the world, President Museveni will be able to continue oppressing his political opponents. If you think that the leaders in your area are moral enough that they'd never abuse unlimited power in this way... I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong, I don't know, but I'm skeptical.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    I don't see how any politicians are getting much out of lockdowns right now. Especially since polling places are still open and most people can vote by mail.