4 ms·

> Should the US lock down and save hundreds of thousands of lives, or would you rather keep restaurants open? How about restaurants stay open and there is litt

> Should the US lock down and save hundreds of thousands of lives, or would you rather keep restaurants open? How about restaurants stay open and there is little to no additional loss of life? > It's easy to muse about hypothetical questions about how many people should die before the government should act This isn't hypothetical. We're seeing it play out and the difficulty you're having is that people disagree with you about that number and you appear to be unable to understand why. > Restaurants can be compensated. Oh geez why didn't I or LA or the US think of that? Alright then, pack it in problem solved, let's just make sure everyone's compensated. Of course were it that simple few would have a problem with the sacrifice, and a much more convincing argument could be made that it would be better for society as a whole to lock down. > There's nothing authoritarian about it. Nothing? There's nothing authoritarian about the government imposing a lockdown? Are you somehow of the notion that "democratically elected" governments cannot be authoritarian in any way? I'm struggling to understand your perspective here. > It's just as "authoritarian" as mandating seatbelts or childhood vaccinations. Absolutely (well, for the sake of argument, I wouldn't argue mandating seatbelts is on the same level as shutting down restaurants but for our purposes here let's say we're on the same page). We always make tradeoffs of this kind all the time to be sure. Few want anarchy (the opposite of authoritarianism). It's again why the "hypothetical" question is important to understanding why people disagree with you. Where do we draw the line? > And that goes for authoritarian New Zealand and Australia too, I suppose? Moreso than the US? Most definitely. Less than China? Of course. Australia and NZ benefit from largely homogenous cultures and low population density that allow them to better handle such things. Singapore would likely have been a better counter-example. > Populations in highly democratic countries will actually support strong lockdown measures if they believe they will be effective and if the government compensates people financially. Sure, except none of your conditionals there actually get bourn out. Many people question the effectiveness (again not just of reducing cases, but on providing a net positive impact to society) and in the US stimulus measures haven't been nearly precise enough to find themselves to the right hands. > But if it truly is impossible to gain public support for lockdowns in the US, then something is deeply wrong with American society Rephrased: "If American society cannot widely support the action I think is correct, there is something deeply wrong with American society." There is something deeply wrong with American society, but it is thinking like that.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
> How about restaurants stay open and there is little to no additional loss of life? That's a disingenuous answer. There's an obvious choice here. The virus spreads through social contact, so what's needed to reduce spread and save lives is a sharp reduction in contacts between people. Closing places where people gather socially is a key component in any rational plan to reduce spread of the virus. > Oh geez why didn't I or LA or the US think of that? Alright then, pack it in problem solved, let's just make sure everyone's compensated. It is simple, and many countries have done it. I currently live in one that is doing precisely this - closing businesses and compensating them. The lockdown has reduced transmission without causing major financial hardships. > Australia and NZ benefit from largely homogenous cultures Australia and New Zealand are extremely diverse immigrant nations. They're very similar to the US in that regard. > There's nothing authoritarian about the government imposing a lockdown? There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it. If the government were cynically using emergency powers to suppress political opponents, I would call that authoritarian. But in an actual public health emergency, a democratic government implementing rational, effective public health measures allowed by law is not "authoritarian." > Sure, except none of your conditionals there actually get bourn out. Many people question the effectiveness (again not just of reducing cases, but on providing a net positive impact to society) and in the US stimulus measures haven't been nearly precise enough to find themselves to the right hands. First off, lockdowns are effective, so if people question them on that basis, they're simply misinformed, or they have a strong interest in preventing a lockdown. The latter is the reason why the president of the US has militated against lockdowns. His #1 priority is the stock market, and if a few hundred thousand Americans have to die so the DJIA can break 30k, he really doesn't care. And he's not the only one who thinks that way, which is why there's so much FUD around public health measures. If there were a rational government that would explain the situation and the necessary measures, I believe there would be a majority in favor of a lockdown. And in fact, this spring, an overwhelming majority of Americans did favor lockdown measures (around 80%). Since then, it's become a highly partisan issue. Support among Democrats has remained high, but it's plummeted among Republicans. I think Trump's vocal opposition to public health measures had a lot to do with that. Even basic measures like wearing a mask are now partisan.
- 6y ago

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

> How about restaurants stay open and there is little to no additional loss of life? That's a disingenuous answer. There's an obvious choice here. The virus spreads through social contact, so what's needed to reduce spread and save lives is a sharp reduction in contacts between people. Closing places where people gather socially is a key component in any rational plan to reduce spread of the virus. > Oh geez why didn't I or LA or the US think of that? Alright then, pack it in problem solved, let's just make sure everyone's compensated. It is simple, and many countries have done it. I currently live in one that is doing precisely this - closing businesses and compensating them. The lockdown has reduced transmission without causing major financial hardships. > Australia and NZ benefit from largely homogenous cultures Australia and New Zealand are extremely diverse immigrant nations. They're very similar to the US in that regard. > There's nothing authoritarian about the government imposing a lockdown? There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it. If the government were cynically using emergency powers to suppress political opponents, I would call that authoritarian. But in an actual public health emergency, a democratic government implementing rational, effective public health measures allowed by law is not "authoritarian." > Sure, except none of your conditionals there actually get bourn out. Many people question the effectiveness (again not just of reducing cases, but on providing a net positive impact to society) and in the US stimulus measures haven't been nearly precise enough to find themselves to the right hands. First off, lockdowns are effective, so if people question them on that basis, they're simply misinformed, or they have a strong interest in preventing a lockdown. The latter is the reason why the president of the US has militated against lockdowns. His #1 priority is the stock market, and if a few hundred thousand Americans have to die so the DJIA can break 30k, he really doesn't care. And he's not the only one who thinks that way, which is why there's so much FUD around public health measures. If there were a rational government that would explain the situation and the necessary measures, I believe there would be a majority in favor of a lockdown. And in fact, this spring, an overwhelming majority of Americans did favor lockdown measures (around 80%). Since then, it's become a highly partisan issue. Support among Democrats has remained high, but it's plummeted among Republicans. I think Trump's vocal opposition to public health measures had a lot to do with that. Even basic measures like wearing a mask are now partisan.

6y ago