4 ms·

If a policy is impossible for a given country to carry out, doesn't that suggest that maybe they shouldn't try? I think most people would agree that Prohibition

If a policy is impossible for a given country to carry out, doesn't that suggest that maybe they shouldn't try? I think most people would agree that Prohibition should have delivered several public benefits in theory, but in practice it was beyond the ability of the government to enforce, and a bad policy. Let's not forget that these mrNPIs have side effects - over 200 million people globally have been thrown into extreme poverty by them, increased deaths of despair, decimation of small business and resulting wealth concentration, etc. There is a segment of society which believes that obviously mrNPIs are in everyone's best interest, but given that the side effects are well documented and very negative I think the burden of proof should be on the pro lockdown camp to explain why mrNPIs are the best policy intervention. The WHO recommends them only in extreme circumstances. They aren't popular with the public. Surely it's reasonable to consider alternatives (such as improving adherence to WHO recommendations) instead of invoking the alt right bogeyman and shutting down discussion as some are so quick to do.

LatteLazy 6y ago
I never said it was impossible. Quite the opposite: Australia managed it (also, an anglo nation with popularist right wing government, a shitty press etc). Choosing not to do something is not the same as not being able to do it. If our "leaders" mastered have the effort for this that we put into the war on drugs or tax cuts for the Uber rich or even farm subsidies, we'd all be in the pub by now. Edit: I think issues like this are difficult exactly because we cannot have a compromise solution. A compromise solution (lots of lockdown but not effective lockdown) is worst for everyone.
- apatters 6y ago
  Mastering lockdowns certainly does not guarantee that everyone gets to go back to the pub. Once you end the lockdown the spread just starts again and you're back at square one. The WHO has been clear in their recommendation since the beginning. Building effective test/trace/isolate capacity is how you control the spread of Covid. Is there a limited and brief role for lockdowns, business closures, forced stay at home etc., yes in extreme circumstances. Long term no. I am just paraphrasing the WHO here, and of course anyone is free to disagree with them, but they're hardly known as a paragon of right wing populism. https://mobile.twitter.com/who/status/1316020010540625920?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/who/status/1316020010540625920?la... They have been putting out publications which say this since, if memory serves, March (or maybe even earlier).
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    It's not really true that lockdown cannot open the pubs again, take Australia. Their pubs are open. All because they mastered lockdown. When a case occurs they close for a bit. But they're open 90% of the time. That a lot more of the time than uk pubs are managing. I'd accept a working test and trace program too. Like Singapore used. Don't think me greedy but... We could even do both, as we have more resources than Aus and Singapore combined and we've had a lot more time to do all this. Once again, I have to ask: why hasn't my government managed such a thing? Could it be that it's impossible (despite Singapore having done it) or are they just too complacent? Instead were stuck with the shitty parts of a long lockdown (closed pubs) without achieving the desired outcomes (single digit daily death rates).
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > I never said it was impossible. Quite the opposite: Australia managed it Precisely, in order to implement it, abusive police power is needed. It is an inhumane policy.
fr11 6y ago
Prohibition did deliver many public benefits. Not to argue that it was the right choice, but it's worth noting that the research on lockdowns is all being done fast, in the middle of it, and should be taken with some salt. Yes, we have to make decisions based on it, about what we do next, but we can still recognize that we're nowhere near as knowledgeable about this as we will (hopefully) be in a few decades when we've had more time to do research and evaluation. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...

LatteLazy 6y ago

I never said it was impossible. Quite the opposite: Australia managed it (also, an anglo nation with popularist right wing government, a shitty press etc). Choosing not to do something is not the same as not being able to do it. If our "leaders" mastered have the effort for this that we put into the war on drugs or tax cuts for the Uber rich or even farm subsidies, we'd all be in the pub by now. Edit: I think issues like this are difficult exactly because we cannot have a compromise solution. A compromise solution (lots of lockdown but not effective lockdown) is worst for everyone.

apatters 6y ago
Mastering lockdowns certainly does not guarantee that everyone gets to go back to the pub. Once you end the lockdown the spread just starts again and you're back at square one. The WHO has been clear in their recommendation since the beginning. Building effective test/trace/isolate capacity is how you control the spread of Covid. Is there a limited and brief role for lockdowns, business closures, forced stay at home etc., yes in extreme circumstances. Long term no. I am just paraphrasing the WHO here, and of course anyone is free to disagree with them, but they're hardly known as a paragon of right wing populism. https://mobile.twitter.com/who/status/1316020010540625920?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/who/status/1316020010540625920?la... They have been putting out publications which say this since, if memory serves, March (or maybe even earlier).
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  It's not really true that lockdown cannot open the pubs again, take Australia. Their pubs are open. All because they mastered lockdown. When a case occurs they close for a bit. But they're open 90% of the time. That a lot more of the time than uk pubs are managing. I'd accept a working test and trace program too. Like Singapore used. Don't think me greedy but... We could even do both, as we have more resources than Aus and Singapore combined and we've had a lot more time to do all this. Once again, I have to ask: why hasn't my government managed such a thing? Could it be that it's impossible (despite Singapore having done it) or are they just too complacent? Instead were stuck with the shitty parts of a long lockdown (closed pubs) without achieving the desired outcomes (single digit daily death rates).
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> I never said it was impossible. Quite the opposite: Australia managed it Precisely, in order to implement it, abusive police power is needed. It is an inhumane policy.

fr11 6y ago

Prohibition did deliver many public benefits. Not to argue that it was the right choice, but it's worth noting that the research on lockdowns is all being done fast, in the middle of it, and should be taken with some salt. Yes, we have to make decisions based on it, about what we do next, but we can still recognize that we're nowhere near as knowledgeable about this as we will (hopefully) be in a few decades when we've had more time to do research and evaluation. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...