4 ms·

> 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 sp

> 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.

chronofar 6y ago
> It is simple, and many countries have done it. I currently live in one that is doing precisely this - closing businesses and compensating them. It's not simple. Even in your country, or any other country that has done this effectively, I promise you it is not simple. There are sacrifices being made, whether you can see them now or not. And just because it has been executed well in one country and economy does not mean it can just be universally applied without issue. In any case, I'm absolutely all for such compensation, I'm just not under the delusion that it's easy to achieve. > There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it. You've apparently just conjured up your own notion of what authoritarian means to select cases. I'm not going to argue semantics. Suffice to say, this is more governmental control than many people are willing to relinquish. > Australia and New Zealand are extremely diverse immigrant nations. They're very similar to the US in that regard. Neither are anywhere remotely close to the diversity of the US. The major cities are to be sure cosmopolitan as they are around the world, the general populous is not. > There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it. You've conjured your own meaning of authoritarian here to apparently require specific political opposition oppression. This is not correct, but I'm also not interested in arguing semantics. Suffice to say many view lockdown as more interventionist than ideal in their government. > First off, lockdowns are effective I will refer you back to my original post and the very first sentence I responded to you with, as well as the parenthetical you replied to here. They are effective in reducing cases. This is not the only factor at play. > And in fact, this spring, an overwhelming majority of Americans did favor lockdown measures (around 80%). Indeed, when the world as a whole locked down together. Since that time is has become partisan as you said, and also highly questioned whether the costs were worth it.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  A democratically elected government implements the only rational response to a public health crisis, with broad public support, and consistent with the laws of the country. Calling that "authoritarian" is just a scare tactic, as if it's the first step on the slippery slope to tyranny. I'm sorry you can't go eat at a restaurant. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. Just chill at home for a month. It's possible for the government to compensate people, while keeping minimal services open.

chronofar 6y ago

> It is simple, and many countries have done it. I currently live in one that is doing precisely this - closing businesses and compensating them. It's not simple. Even in your country, or any other country that has done this effectively, I promise you it is not simple. There are sacrifices being made, whether you can see them now or not. And just because it has been executed well in one country and economy does not mean it can just be universally applied without issue. In any case, I'm absolutely all for such compensation, I'm just not under the delusion that it's easy to achieve. > There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it. You've apparently just conjured up your own notion of what authoritarian means to select cases. I'm not going to argue semantics. Suffice to say, this is more governmental control than many people are willing to relinquish. > Australia and New Zealand are extremely diverse immigrant nations. They're very similar to the US in that regard. Neither are anywhere remotely close to the diversity of the US. The major cities are to be sure cosmopolitan as they are around the world, the general populous is not. > There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it. You've conjured your own meaning of authoritarian here to apparently require specific political opposition oppression. This is not correct, but I'm also not interested in arguing semantics. Suffice to say many view lockdown as more interventionist than ideal in their government. > First off, lockdowns are effective I will refer you back to my original post and the very first sentence I responded to you with, as well as the parenthetical you replied to here. They are effective in reducing cases. This is not the only factor at play. > And in fact, this spring, an overwhelming majority of Americans did favor lockdown measures (around 80%). Indeed, when the world as a whole locked down together. Since that time is has become partisan as you said, and also highly questioned whether the costs were worth it.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
A democratically elected government implements the only rational response to a public health crisis, with broad public support, and consistent with the laws of the country. Calling that "authoritarian" is just a scare tactic, as if it's the first step on the slippery slope to tyranny. I'm sorry you can't go eat at a restaurant. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. Just chill at home for a month. It's possible for the government to compensate people, while keeping minimal services open.