4 ms·

I see that I am downvoted and I guess it is because my comment has been very simplistic and not explained well. I will try (in a perspective here from Germany)

I see that I am downvoted and I guess it is because my comment has been very simplistic and not explained well. I will try (in a perspective here from Germany): In general nothing here is really bad, nobody is killed or deported. So of course a comparison to the linked article is an exaggeration. But nonetheless since April the general mood in the country is be-surprised-and-accept driven: Businesses are closed on short term (last time on a friday end of september it was decided that on monday all restaurants, sport centers etc) must close (*takaway only). Because covid is propagated as this extreme dangerous risk nobody can complain. The whole public is only waiting what next rule is announced from week to week or month to month. People who refuse to wear a mask (for various reasons in various situations) are losing their jobs - either because the employer wants to get rid of them anyway and uses the not-mask-wearing as excuse or because their is real hate and fear between people in different groups. Their is no real philosophically based discussion about risk realted tradeoffs - only dictated policy. And in the background basic laws are rewritten/adjusted to reduce the overall freedom. For example here in Germany a basic right of privacy at home so except with an order of a judge the police is not allowed to enter. But it is tried (or even succeeded? I do not know) to allow police to enter homes in general in order to check if more than X people are inside. Or it is argued that people who violate a quarantine order should be locked into a psychiatry. Some (few) people fight back but in genral changes are just announced and accepted. It's a really slow process so many do not or want not to notice it but since april there are a lot of long term changes on the way that will alter the whole system to be more tolitarian/less free and which for sure will persist even after covid - all with covid as excuse.

tines 6y ago
I appreciate your clarification, and for the record I am not one of the ones who downvoted you. I agree that police being free to enter your house without probable cause of a crime is not good, and I'm not sure how many people are arguing that those who violate the quarantine should be put in psychiatric care. That just seems like nonsense, I'd have to have proof that someone is seriously advocating that before opining. However, I think it's acknowledged that in dire times such as war and pestilence, the government can temporarily do things it couldn't do before until the crisis is over. For example, if an invading force has set up a machine gun on your property and the army attacks them, you probably shouldn't be able to sue them for trespassing. On the other hand, we have a constitutional right not to be required to give quarter to soldiers. What's the difference? It's the duration and immediacy of the danger I think. This is a judgment call. Of course the problem lies in the government usurping power for an unlimited or ill-defined time, such as for the "war on terror" which never ends. The pandemic, on the other hand, should have a definite and quantitative end, and I don't think stay-at-home orders or mask mandates necessarily lead to authoritarian progressions or curtailing of personal rights. Nobody is saying that the government should have a right to curtail, for example, the right to peaceably assemble forever; just until thousands of people per day stop dying. Maybe I'm wrong though, what do you think?
- laszlokorte 6y ago
  Regarding psychatric care it was at least discussed in april but then discarded due to harsh critique [1]. In general I agree with you and would not take an extreme position to deny the goverment everything in a crisis situation. But on the other hand there are people (medical experts?) arguing that in the coming years or decades there will be many new viral deseases to encounter. So espacially with all this worldwide awareness and fear I find it easy to imagine that there will be an increased afford to detect virsus leading to maybe one new virus in focus every few years keeping the whole system in an alarmed state (including all the "special" [reading the permanent] laws) active for the whole time. Generations growing up from now on may not even know the times before. Same as with the "terror" theme now. Every few month there are reports about terrorist attacks and the whole thing becomes a meme and is used to justify anything. [1]: https://deutsch.medscape.com/artikelansicht/4908831 https://deutsch.medscape.com/artikelansicht/4908831

tines 6y ago

I appreciate your clarification, and for the record I am not one of the ones who downvoted you. I agree that police being free to enter your house without probable cause of a crime is not good, and I'm not sure how many people are arguing that those who violate the quarantine should be put in psychiatric care. That just seems like nonsense, I'd have to have proof that someone is seriously advocating that before opining. However, I think it's acknowledged that in dire times such as war and pestilence, the government can temporarily do things it couldn't do before until the crisis is over. For example, if an invading force has set up a machine gun on your property and the army attacks them, you probably shouldn't be able to sue them for trespassing. On the other hand, we have a constitutional right not to be required to give quarter to soldiers. What's the difference? It's the duration and immediacy of the danger I think. This is a judgment call. Of course the problem lies in the government usurping power for an unlimited or ill-defined time, such as for the "war on terror" which never ends. The pandemic, on the other hand, should have a definite and quantitative end, and I don't think stay-at-home orders or mask mandates necessarily lead to authoritarian progressions or curtailing of personal rights. Nobody is saying that the government should have a right to curtail, for example, the right to peaceably assemble forever; just until thousands of people per day stop dying. Maybe I'm wrong though, what do you think?

laszlokorte 6y ago
Regarding psychatric care it was at least discussed in april but then discarded due to harsh critique [1]. In general I agree with you and would not take an extreme position to deny the goverment everything in a crisis situation. But on the other hand there are people (medical experts?) arguing that in the coming years or decades there will be many new viral deseases to encounter. So espacially with all this worldwide awareness and fear I find it easy to imagine that there will be an increased afford to detect virsus leading to maybe one new virus in focus every few years keeping the whole system in an alarmed state (including all the "special" [reading the permanent] laws) active for the whole time. Generations growing up from now on may not even know the times before. Same as with the "terror" theme now. Every few month there are reports about terrorist attacks and the whole thing becomes a meme and is used to justify anything. [1]: https://deutsch.medscape.com/artikelansicht/4908831 https://deutsch.medscape.com/artikelansicht/4908831