4 ms·

In the California lockdown, we weren’t allowed to visit with neighbors (we’re in a 34 floor apartment, and we weren’t even supposed to ride the elevator with ot

In the California lockdown, we weren’t allowed to visit with neighbors (we’re in a 34 floor apartment, and we weren’t even supposed to ride the elevator with other households). It sounds like your region may have had a softer lockdown since they allowed people to visit.

ineedasername 5y ago
For an elevator and considering the magnitude of the CA outbreak, I kind of understand the elevator restrictions. But for neighbors etc that were in the same social bubble observing the same careful restrictions it seems too much. I think the government has been well within its rights in certain mandates that ensure careless people don't inflict their negligence on other people, but in some cases I think it went too far. On the other hand, especially at the beginning, everyone was dealing with incomplete and imperfect information. It was not an easy time to be a decision maker on such issues especially when people's actions became expressions of political affiliation. Masks are a perfect example: Resistance started as a rallying cry to allow people take personal responsibility, a mindset I can understand. But it then morphed into a refusal to take some precautions-- essentially a refusal to consider personal responsibility issue-- due to the politics involved instead of a reasoned & informed stance on the risks. (PLEASE note that I'm not making a statement about masks themselves one way or another-- just pointing out that choices influencing medical issues became driven by political affiliation. I saw extremes of this behavior on different ends of the political spectrum, substituting critical thinking with selectively listening only to experts that were aligned with a given political stance.)
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "But it then morphed into a refusal to take some precautions-- essentially a refusal to consider personal responsibility issue-- due to the politics involved instead of a reasoned & informed stance on the risks." I'm well known for suddenly developing overt libertarian tendencies when governments order me to do something just for sake of bureaucratic niceties or for reasons that don't make logical sense and I can attest to the voracity my views after having gotten somewhat the worse for wear in demonstrations. However, the matter of others endangering my health, your health and that of many others is in another league altogether and there's no question that governments should act and do so decisively. I'd therefore put your comment in much stronger terms. It is not just a matter of personal responsibility but when these idiotic buffoons (and that's being polite to them) act so damn stupidly and irresponsibly, then they actually endanger not only their own lives but also yours, mine and thousands of others too. What they do with their own lives ought not to be my concern but it certainly is in this instance, for the very reasons that their stupid and illogical actions will end up affecting the lives of others. Therefore they've absolutely no right [or rights] to do so for any reason whatsoever. In fact, if someone deliberately and knowingly went against best practice and without essential reason—and that it could be proven that some other person died as a consequence—then that ought to amount to either manslaughter or murder (as it would in other 'equivalent' circumstances). If ever there were a case for governments to act with perfect reason and absolute authority, then this exigency is it. Moreover, the very tenet of government—its very raison d'être—demands that governments act omnipotently and with impunity, and without fear and hesitation in these matters. Simply, governments should immediately kibosh any effective opposition to sound health regulations, which, by definition, would be the best advice available (such as the necessity to wear masks, etc.), then, if still necessary, round up what's left of the room-temperature-IQ opposition. If you think my comments are intemperate or extreme and more akin to those of a tyrant then I need remind you that such measures have been commonplace in the not-too-distant past. For example, during WWII in the US, UK, Australia and many other countries, wartime regulations were such that the State could find one guilty of treason for crimes (breaches of regulations that were deemed important to national security). In fact, during WWII, many countries shot people for breaching national security even though the outcome of their actions would, if measured on a utile for utile basis, be less than the equivalent damage of spreading the pandemic. The idiot brigade ought to consider itself damn lucky that governments seem to have forgotten wartime regulations and haven't yet equated deliberately spreading the pandemic with treason. Of course, in an earlier era with the much more virulent and dangerous plague pandemic, natural selection by now would have automatically saved governments much trouble. Let's not make light of the seriousness of the matter. The facts are that we're in the midst of a war with an invisible and highly dangerous enemy. I've just looked up the latest figures as of 11 July, and theses are they: Coronavirus cases: 187,276,192, deaths 4,042,981.
  - hnedeotes 5y ago
    For someone so technical you sound quite dumb. Lets hope natural selection is true and works out.
    - dang 5y ago
      You can't attack others like this on HN, regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is. Also, could you please not post flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments generally? We're trying for something a bit different than internet default here, to the extent possible. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
      - hilbert42 5y ago
        "You can't attack others like this on HN, regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is." You can and you ought to when damn fools put lives of others at stake. This not the time for niceties or political correctness. We're in a war, the next life could be mine—and I'm not suicidal. Incidentally, many seem to forget the a priori reason for government is to keep the citizenry safe—safe from the threat of outsiders, and safe from insiders who wish to harm their fellow citizens, they're justification for the military and law enforcement respectfully. I expect Government to keep my fellow citizens and me safe; if it doesn't then it has failed in its mission. "<...> could you please not post flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments generally? We're trying for something a bit different than internet default here,<...>" If you took the time to read a few of my posts then you would realize that I'm probably too polite on most occasions, also I have never criticized a HN poster directly—and in this instance I was making a general comment with no particular name in mind. Moreover, I go to considerable lengths to ensure that I do not post hearsay or unsubstantiated fact. _ Edit: "regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is" I made no criticism of other posts including the person to whom I was replying. Saying that his criticism perhaps wasn't strong enough given the dire circumstances isn't flaming, rather it's debate.

ineedasername 5y ago

For an elevator and considering the magnitude of the CA outbreak, I kind of understand the elevator restrictions. But for neighbors etc that were in the same social bubble observing the same careful restrictions it seems too much. I think the government has been well within its rights in certain mandates that ensure careless people don't inflict their negligence on other people, but in some cases I think it went too far. On the other hand, especially at the beginning, everyone was dealing with incomplete and imperfect information. It was not an easy time to be a decision maker on such issues especially when people's actions became expressions of political affiliation. Masks are a perfect example: Resistance started as a rallying cry to allow people take personal responsibility, a mindset I can understand. But it then morphed into a refusal to take some precautions-- essentially a refusal to consider personal responsibility issue-- due to the politics involved instead of a reasoned & informed stance on the risks. (PLEASE note that I'm not making a statement about masks themselves one way or another-- just pointing out that choices influencing medical issues became driven by political affiliation. I saw extremes of this behavior on different ends of the political spectrum, substituting critical thinking with selectively listening only to experts that were aligned with a given political stance.)

hilbert42 5y ago
"But it then morphed into a refusal to take some precautions-- essentially a refusal to consider personal responsibility issue-- due to the politics involved instead of a reasoned & informed stance on the risks." I'm well known for suddenly developing overt libertarian tendencies when governments order me to do something just for sake of bureaucratic niceties or for reasons that don't make logical sense and I can attest to the voracity my views after having gotten somewhat the worse for wear in demonstrations. However, the matter of others endangering my health, your health and that of many others is in another league altogether and there's no question that governments should act and do so decisively. I'd therefore put your comment in much stronger terms. It is not just a matter of personal responsibility but when these idiotic buffoons (and that's being polite to them) act so damn stupidly and irresponsibly, then they actually endanger not only their own lives but also yours, mine and thousands of others too. What they do with their own lives ought not to be my concern but it certainly is in this instance, for the very reasons that their stupid and illogical actions will end up affecting the lives of others. Therefore they've absolutely no right [or rights] to do so for any reason whatsoever. In fact, if someone deliberately and knowingly went against best practice and without essential reason—and that it could be proven that some other person died as a consequence—then that ought to amount to either manslaughter or murder (as it would in other 'equivalent' circumstances). If ever there were a case for governments to act with perfect reason and absolute authority, then this exigency is it. Moreover, the very tenet of government—its very raison d'être—demands that governments act omnipotently and with impunity, and without fear and hesitation in these matters. Simply, governments should immediately kibosh any effective opposition to sound health regulations, which, by definition, would be the best advice available (such as the necessity to wear masks, etc.), then, if still necessary, round up what's left of the room-temperature-IQ opposition. If you think my comments are intemperate or extreme and more akin to those of a tyrant then I need remind you that such measures have been commonplace in the not-too-distant past. For example, during WWII in the US, UK, Australia and many other countries, wartime regulations were such that the State could find one guilty of treason for crimes (breaches of regulations that were deemed important to national security). In fact, during WWII, many countries shot people for breaching national security even though the outcome of their actions would, if measured on a utile for utile basis, be less than the equivalent damage of spreading the pandemic. The idiot brigade ought to consider itself damn lucky that governments seem to have forgotten wartime regulations and haven't yet equated deliberately spreading the pandemic with treason. Of course, in an earlier era with the much more virulent and dangerous plague pandemic, natural selection by now would have automatically saved governments much trouble. Let's not make light of the seriousness of the matter. The facts are that we're in the midst of a war with an invisible and highly dangerous enemy. I've just looked up the latest figures as of 11 July, and theses are they: Coronavirus cases: 187,276,192, deaths 4,042,981.
- hnedeotes 5y ago
  For someone so technical you sound quite dumb. Lets hope natural selection is true and works out.
  - dang 5y ago
    You can't attack others like this on HN, regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is. Also, could you please not post flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments generally? We're trying for something a bit different than internet default here, to the extent possible. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
    - hilbert42 5y ago
      "You can't attack others like this on HN, regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is." You can and you ought to when damn fools put lives of others at stake. This not the time for niceties or political correctness. We're in a war, the next life could be mine—and I'm not suicidal. Incidentally, many seem to forget the a priori reason for government is to keep the citizenry safe—safe from the threat of outsiders, and safe from insiders who wish to harm their fellow citizens, they're justification for the military and law enforcement respectfully. I expect Government to keep my fellow citizens and me safe; if it doesn't then it has failed in its mission. "<...> could you please not post flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments generally? We're trying for something a bit different than internet default here,<...>" If you took the time to read a few of my posts then you would realize that I'm probably too polite on most occasions, also I have never criticized a HN poster directly—and in this instance I was making a general comment with no particular name in mind. Moreover, I go to considerable lengths to ensure that I do not post hearsay or unsubstantiated fact. _ Edit: "regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is" I made no criticism of other posts including the person to whom I was replying. Saying that his criticism perhaps wasn't strong enough given the dire circumstances isn't flaming, rather it's debate.