4 ms·

What benefit do you think the government gets out of lockdowns? (other than the obvious one of stopping the spread of the pandemic).

DickingAround 6y ago
Some people debate the ROI of pandemic controls. Also, not all lockdowns are pandemic lockdowns. There have also been curfews unrelated to the pandemic and in some cases predating it.
konjin 6y ago
Mandatory real time tracking of every citizen. Sounds insane? So did the patriot act in the 90s.
- fantod 6y ago
  Not every lockdown entails tracking of individuals.
  - konjin 6y ago
    And 9/11 would have not been stopped by forcing everyone to take their shoes off before getting on the plane. Yet here we are 20 years later still doing it.
    - Clubber 6y ago
      That was technically done by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. That incident started the shoe thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid One guy later was the underwear bomber. Thank God that didn't take. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Yeah, another 9/11 was basically stopped by adding locked compartments and training the pilots in self-defense techniques, some of which are even armed.
inquirerofsorts 6y ago
I'll go with the normalisation of curtailing freedoms on a whim. Sweden managed to just ask their citizens to behave properly and it worked.
donw 6y ago
Ten minutes of thinking gave me: (1) Identification of potential dissidents. Those who violate lockdowns or mask orders are most likely to resist state control. (2) Normalizing control over common activities. It takes four weeks to normalize a new habit. "Two weeks to stop the spread" has been going on since March (that's thirty-two weeks and counting). Americans are now habituated to state-controlled social behaviors. (3) Destruction of in-person social channels outside the sphere of state electronic surveillance. (4) Normalizing fear of non-conformists ("you're killing grandpa"). (5) Destruction of non-sanctioned economies. Global companies have effectively been part of the state for decades, and can easily weather the storm. Smaller businesses can not, which dries up cashflow outside of state-approved channels.
- treeman79 6y ago
  So a cultural revolution?
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  I keep asking people to explain why they downvote posts like yours and nobody wants to. I guess they know the reasons aren't good, they just can't help giving in to the desire for control. Beautiful list though and well said. I've been trying to think of a succinct way to summarize some of those concepts and I think you've broken them up well.
  - donw 6y ago
    Thank you -- that's very kind.
- stephen_g 6y ago
  I don't think that really holds up. I'm in a part of Australia that had a lockdown and we've rolled back most of the restrictions because we're successfully basically eliminated the virus in our state (in the community that is - we have a few cases in quarantine of people arriving internationally every couple of days). The feeling is that people want to get back to normal, but understand that most of the regulations were necessary given the seriousness of the pandemic. I feel absolutely no sense that people are more willing to submit to Government control now or anything like that, and it's the same even talking to people down in Victoria that had a big second wave and way longer lockdown than we did. Their willingness to comply was to stop the spread of the virus so they could get out of lockdown, and it worked, and now the restrictions are being rolled back. It's frustrating to hear people in the media here crowing on about 'authoritarianism' and 'government control' over this, especially because the State Governments that are in charge of pandemic restrictions have demonstrated little desire to maintain restrictions longer than was sensible given the virus. But at the same time, these conservative commentators who are aligned with our right-wing Federal Government happily ignore actual authoritarian, draconian laws that the Feds are passing to give police and intelligence services unprecedented powers for warrantless mass surveillance etc. over the last decade... I'd even go as far as saying that the pandemic would actually be a really bad time for a Government to try and 'normalise' increased government control, because there's no legitimate or logical reason to maintain it once the pandemic is over (if we get a vaccine for instance). The desire to throw off all the restrictions once the virus is gone is just too strong.
oceanplexian 6y ago
The government isn’t a magic entity or intelligent AI that wants or doesn’t want things. The government is people. And a certain breed of people are magnetically attracted to power, which is part of human nature that goes back to the beginning of humanity. The benefit leaders get out of lockdowns is power, which regardless of its legitimacy or necessity is one of the most intoxicating and addictive things on Earth.

DickingAround 6y ago

Some people debate the ROI of pandemic controls. Also, not all lockdowns are pandemic lockdowns. There have also been curfews unrelated to the pandemic and in some cases predating it.

konjin 6y ago

Mandatory real time tracking of every citizen. Sounds insane? So did the patriot act in the 90s.

fantod 6y ago
Not every lockdown entails tracking of individuals.
- konjin 6y ago
  And 9/11 would have not been stopped by forcing everyone to take their shoes off before getting on the plane. Yet here we are 20 years later still doing it.
  - Clubber 6y ago
    That was technically done by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. That incident started the shoe thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid One guy later was the underwear bomber. Thank God that didn't take. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Yeah, another 9/11 was basically stopped by adding locked compartments and training the pilots in self-defense techniques, some of which are even armed.

inquirerofsorts 6y ago

I'll go with the normalisation of curtailing freedoms on a whim. Sweden managed to just ask their citizens to behave properly and it worked.

donw 6y ago

Ten minutes of thinking gave me: (1) Identification of potential dissidents. Those who violate lockdowns or mask orders are most likely to resist state control. (2) Normalizing control over common activities. It takes four weeks to normalize a new habit. "Two weeks to stop the spread" has been going on since March (that's thirty-two weeks and counting). Americans are now habituated to state-controlled social behaviors. (3) Destruction of in-person social channels outside the sphere of state electronic surveillance. (4) Normalizing fear of non-conformists ("you're killing grandpa"). (5) Destruction of non-sanctioned economies. Global companies have effectively been part of the state for decades, and can easily weather the storm. Smaller businesses can not, which dries up cashflow outside of state-approved channels.

treeman79 6y ago
So a cultural revolution?
RonanTheGrey 6y ago
I keep asking people to explain why they downvote posts like yours and nobody wants to. I guess they know the reasons aren't good, they just can't help giving in to the desire for control. Beautiful list though and well said. I've been trying to think of a succinct way to summarize some of those concepts and I think you've broken them up well.
- donw 6y ago
  Thank you -- that's very kind.
stephen_g 6y ago
I don't think that really holds up. I'm in a part of Australia that had a lockdown and we've rolled back most of the restrictions because we're successfully basically eliminated the virus in our state (in the community that is - we have a few cases in quarantine of people arriving internationally every couple of days). The feeling is that people want to get back to normal, but understand that most of the regulations were necessary given the seriousness of the pandemic. I feel absolutely no sense that people are more willing to submit to Government control now or anything like that, and it's the same even talking to people down in Victoria that had a big second wave and way longer lockdown than we did. Their willingness to comply was to stop the spread of the virus so they could get out of lockdown, and it worked, and now the restrictions are being rolled back. It's frustrating to hear people in the media here crowing on about 'authoritarianism' and 'government control' over this, especially because the State Governments that are in charge of pandemic restrictions have demonstrated little desire to maintain restrictions longer than was sensible given the virus. But at the same time, these conservative commentators who are aligned with our right-wing Federal Government happily ignore actual authoritarian, draconian laws that the Feds are passing to give police and intelligence services unprecedented powers for warrantless mass surveillance etc. over the last decade... I'd even go as far as saying that the pandemic would actually be a really bad time for a Government to try and 'normalise' increased government control, because there's no legitimate or logical reason to maintain it once the pandemic is over (if we get a vaccine for instance). The desire to throw off all the restrictions once the virus is gone is just too strong.

oceanplexian 6y ago

The government isn’t a magic entity or intelligent AI that wants or doesn’t want things. The government is people. And a certain breed of people are magnetically attracted to power, which is part of human nature that goes back to the beginning of humanity. The benefit leaders get out of lockdowns is power, which regardless of its legitimacy or necessity is one of the most intoxicating and addictive things on Earth.