5 ms·

Here's a thought experiment. Suppose we were at war with a hostile adversary, and that adversary had killed over 700,000 people already, and thousands more eac

Here's a thought experiment. Suppose we were at war with a hostile adversary, and that adversary had killed over 700,000 people already, and thousands more each day. I can scarcely believe that any reasonable person would argue that blocking propaganda or misinformation that harms the war effort would be an egregious imposition on free speech. Once the imminent threat is over, those efforts can and should stop, but not while the destruction is immediate. Covid-19 has killed more people in the United States than US combat casualties every war since World War 2 combined. It is the the worst mass casualty event any living American has ever experienced. Why is it unreasonable that serious and extraordinary measures should be taken? Misinformation about the pandemic has surely massively contributed to that death total. The chilling effect on free speech is worse? No, it's not. It simply isn't true that free speech won't return. But those 700,000+ and counting dead are not coming back.

d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
Breakthrough case here. Clinic said that's all they've been seeing recently, dozens per day. One thing I've never understood is why the vaccinated care so much about what he unvaccinated are doing? Vaccinated people still carry viral loads so it's either how it affects you personally or your compassion for the enhanced vulnerability of the unvaccinated. Based on the toxic rhetoric towards the unvaccinated it seems to me the former. You've done everything within your control to protect yourself so why do you feel the need to have an opinion on their bodily choices?
- kleer001 5y ago
  Because the unvaccinated are: 1) Filling ICUs and taking up other hospital resources unnecessarily. Leaves that for people who are injured in accidents. 2) Dying. We don't want our fellow humans dying. Only anti-social jerks don't care if their fellow humans die from easily preventable causes. 3) Carrying larger viral loads for longer. > their bodily choices? If it were only their body it wouldn't be a much of an issue. However, it's not just their body. See above.
  - d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
    1) Fair point on ICU beds. 2) Yes, but lots of people make personal choices that cause their own premature death. We aren't muzzling obese people for trumpeting the values of an all-bacon diet. 3) True, but this circles back to the fact that vaccinated people also carry viral loads and if you get infected while vaccinated it's much less severe so it almost negates any longer term carrying argument. The real point of contention is the unvaccinated taking up resources that vaccinated people need because if you're in the hospital for covid then you're running your life like an idiot and I can't get my broken leg fixed from when I broke it doing parkour last weekend.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      What's the R0 of an all-bacon diet? Infectious disease is just that: infectious. It doesn't stay put. It travels, from host to host. And the more the hosts act in a manner to promote that transmission, the further, faster, and harder it spreads.
    - kleer001 5y ago
      Except that the unvaccinated are doing in en mass, if there were 1/2 a million deaths from parkour us pro-social people would be screaming about it too. In the end staying unvaccinated for no real reason (mah freedoms! is not a real reason, nor is any other misinformed gibberish like 'it's not a real vaccine' or 'I don't want to be in the experiment') is antisocial and should be squashed as any other antisocial behaviour like graffiti, stabbing car tires, sucker punching strangers, puking in doorways, dine and dash, etc... Yea yea yea, some of those are actual crimes. But that's not my point. It's selfish and unnecessary. Shame, shame, shame.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  The vaccine limit the spread of the disease, that's a fact. By how much is up to debate but it is not just effective at making the disease less severe. The wave of infections caused by the delta variant is faster, larger and deadlier in places with low vaccination rates. The vaccinated are less likely to test positive by about half, symptoms or not. Not perfect but the vaccine protects others. If the unvaccinated took the necessary precautions to avoid infecting others, it would be their problem (if healthcare is not overwhelmed...), but usually they don't. Just look at anti-vaccine protests, you don't see a lot of masks... And of course, if almost everyone in your area is vaccinated, most cases will be breakthrough cases.
- snarf21 5y ago
  Part of it is a hope to get back to normal. The other part is that their "bodily choice" isn't self contained. If someone has ebola, is it their "bodily choice" to walk around infecting others? The unvaccinated are showing an extreme lack of empathy. Also, go read some of the countless reports about how hospitals are overwhelmed, how states are allowing the rationing of care, how ICUs have no beds for heart attacks or normal pneumonia because the beds are full of people who don't trust doctor's enough to get the vaccine but want life sustaining help after getting covid. I predict we are going to see mass resignations from hospital workers who are burned out because one political party convinced its supporters to not take basic medical advice. I've lost two uncles from this disease. It sounds like you haven't. I hope you take a step back and think about what happens when someone you love needs ICU care but the staff, equipment and resources are full and your loved one can't be treated.
  - d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
    Fair point on the ICU beds. Maybe hospitals can require proof of vaccination before treatment. If no proof can be provided they have to go to a different department. That way the unvaccinated aren't taking resources away from the vaccinated. If we're going to take away their 1st amendment rights then why not take away their other rights?
  - CivBase 5y ago
    > The unvaccinated are showing an extreme lack of empathy. I see this sentiment a lot and it indicates to me a fundamental misunderstanding what is driving people to avoid vaccination. There is a very strong correlation between vaccination rates and trust in the government. Groups with historically low trust in the government (like conservatives, blacks, and hispanics) have the lowest vaccination rates. Conversely, groups with historically high trust in the government (like liberals and asians) have the highest vaccination rates. This suggests most people decided on whether to get vaccinated long before it was available based on their trust in the government which is pushing so hard for it. The resulting spread in misinformation is just the result of mass confirmation bias. The "lack of empathy" argument depends on the unvaccinated actually believing the vaccine is safe and effective, yet still ineffective enough that their vaccination will help protect others. But they obviously don't believe that. Suppression of misinformation wont help because - as I'm sure you've seen many times by now - the very act of suppressing information will only reinforce their confirmation bias. It's quite the dilemma. I personally believe the only solution is for people to hear these people out to patiently, compassionately reason through their concerns. And I believe we should do this knowing full well that many will not be convinced the first time and many will not be convinced ever. Of course, it would help if we collectively agreed to stop harassing them and treated them like concerned humans with misunderstandings instead of malicious fools. Sadly, social media rewards the opposite of this behavior.
- scrumbledober 5y ago
  My infant daughter had a fever the other day and the doctor's office said that normally if your baby has a fever for this long they would want you to bring the baby in to be seen by a doctor but they're not seeing any patients with fevers right now so just monitor the baby and see if it gets better.
  - d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
    I'm sorry to hear that. I just recently became a parent myself so I can imagine how much that would suck. It sounds like your pediatrician is taking extreme precautions to protect their healthier patients and don't see the risks of treatng a fever worth the value it could provide. Do you feel that the doctor would feel more comfortable treating all patients if everyone on the planet were vaccinated?
    - scrumbledober 5y ago
      they weren't taking these precautions just a few months ago when case numbers in the area were lower, so I would assume yes they would feel more comfortable if everyone on the planet was vaccinated, as the case numbers in the area would then be much lower.
ndr 5y ago
Surely misinformation has had an impact, but how big? I wonder how that compares to the perceived incompetence. Some official sources are wrong some of the time, everyone's favorite example: they told mask were useless in the beginning. They corrected course, but then told vaccinated people they didn't need masks anymore, basically making the same mistake twice. They halted AZ, paused J&J, had a gazillion change of mind on boosters. We need to be able to hear challenges to official sources. So yes, the chilling effect can make it worse if they go unchallenged. And it's also not simply true that free speech would return either.
danielvf 5y ago
Well, the US sort of faced the situation that you were describing (fighting an enemy that killed six to ten million people in four years) and then passed a law similar to what you are describing. Have a a look at the Sedition act of 1918. In hindsight it was a terrible idea, and was repealed in 1920. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1239/sedition-act-of-1918 https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1239/sedition-a...
hkai 5y ago
That's the thing, COVID is an "eternal war" as described in dystopian novels. If you describe COVID in war terms, then it justifies all sorts of atrocities.
- landryraccoon 5y ago
  It's not though. Pandemics have happened before and they end. Second, what's the atrocity being committed exactly? People temporarily are prevented from publishing extraordinarily brazen lies, clearly scientifically false, which are killing thousands of people? I can't see what the evil is here.
ceilingcorner 5y ago
Should we ban car commercials? Cars kill lots of people. Should we ban soda commercials? Obesity kills a lot of people. Here’s the issue: if your entire value system is based on extending life at any cost to other values, you’ve already lost. Full stop. This entire thing is one giant flashing sign that says “Modern human beings are scared of everything, even as they live in the safest times ever.”
CivBase 5y ago
> I can scarcely believe that any reasonable person would argue that blocking propaganda or misinformation that harms the war effort would be an egregious imposition on free speech. Count me as one of the unreasonables, then. Anti-war protests are logically "propaganda that harms the war effort" and the idea that those would be censored is extremely frightening to me. > Covid-19 has killed more people in the United States than US combat casualties every war since World War 2 combined. It is the the worst mass casualty event any living American has ever experienced. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Heart disease also kills more people in the US every year than every war since WW2, but YouTube isn't banning fast food commercials. [EDIT: In fact, they accept money in exchange for forcing people to watch those!]
spiderice 5y ago
I think a large part of it is because the "misinformation" keeps changing. At first masks did nothing, then saying masks did nothing became "misinformation". The lab leak theory was "misinformation", until suddenly it wasn't. Large group gatherings spread Covid, but the BLM protests didn't. The list goes on, and the "experts" have changed their mind so many times that the idea that Youtube should be deciding what kind of thought is allowed is horrifying. I am fully vaccinated, but given how many times we've been blatantly lied to or mislead by experts and officials, I can easily see why so many people don't trust the vaccine. And given that we don't know what the experts and officials are going to say tomorrow, I support people's right to be skeptical and talk about their skepticism with others.
- Laremere 5y ago
  From what I've seen, they never lied about needing a mask. The early pandemic CBS interview with Fouci says wearing a mask is fine, but unnecessary for most people and would take masks from those who really need it. There was also a larger emphasis on sanitizing surfaces and avoiding face touching. This is because sars-cov-2 is more effective spreading infections as an airborn virus than expected. Once evidence showed otherwise, masking was recommended. The lab leak theory shows a problem with human thought and why scientific methods are valuable. People focus on what's true, instead of eliminating what's impossible. To say the lab leak theory is a possibility is reasonable. However to say it might have spread to humans through another medium (eg, meat market) is also reasonable. To try and put any sort of probability between the two reasonable possibilities is a pointless endeavor. China is likely the only one with good enough evidence to say either way, and China isn't telling anyone else. Though even that doesn't say anything, because either way they wouldn't tell anyone else. Big gatherings are bad, but the right to fight against tyranny is more important than the badness of the big gatherings. That is the context in which experts are not condoning BLM protests. The problem is it's really hard to tell between a carefully considered expert opinion, and just someone talking out of their ass. It's also an evolving situation, with even experts trying to work with slow to come data. It's reasonable to say that people should focus on directing others to experts, and not and try to reinterpret or make predictions of their own.
StatsAreFun 5y ago
That's a good point about the extraordinary measures taken. Accordingly, since the number of deaths from the top three causes of U.S. deaths in 2019 were heart disease (659,041), cancer (599,601) and accidents (173,040), we should boycott all propaganda or misinformation around how being overweight is healthy, immediately close all fast food establishments, provide free fruits & vegetables for all Americans, close all beaches to prevent anyone from getting too much sun, immediately ban all products containing cancer causing agents of any kind, mandate all cars & trucks contain ignition lockouts that would prevent the vehicles from starting if seat belts were not worn properly, immediately ban all motorcycles, immediately ban all swimming pools or mandate all Americans wear flotation devices or risk fines & imprisonment, immediately ban all guns & knives regardless of their intended purpose, immediately ban all contact sports and other sports that are considered "extreme" or high-risk, and ban all ladders & stools. If we can reduce or eliminate outright the 1,431,682 people killed from these causes, regardless of the impact on the economy or personal liberty, it would be worth it. Those people are also dead and definitely not coming back. We owe it to their families and communities to do everything we can to prevent further deaths from these causes as well.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- landryraccoon 5y ago
  Let's be clear on what we're comparing here. We're comparing a short term ban on provable lies about a cheap, safe and highly effective set of vaccines with a long term, permanent ban on all activities that could increase the risk of heart disease of cancer. First, vaccines highly effective. Even if the draconian measures you proposed were implemented, would they even reduce the heart disease and cancer death totals? How much would the reduction be? Second, vaccines are not an egregious imposition on your lifestyle. The cost is tiny, the time taken is tiny, the side effects are minor. I can't think of a single significant change in my life due to having been vaccinated, other than not worrying about dying due to Covid. Finally, the ban on misinformation would be temporary, because the crisis will pass. Like wars, pandemics are temporary. Even before vaccination and modern medicine was invented, pandemics eventually end. When would the draconian measures you're proposing end? Heart disease and cancer are not communicable diseases. Your solution isn't a sustainable long term answer to anything. Your comparison is frankly very dishonest and disingenuous. Wanting to reduce provably false misinformation about vaccines is nothing like the draconian, permanent measures you're proposing.
iotku 5y ago
>Once the imminent threat is over, those efforts can and should stop, but not while the destruction is immediate. The destruction is always immediate, there's always risks, and there's always going to be another possible (virus|war|dangerous criminal|wrong-thinker|...) in the future. The only time I have any (although low) expectation of a policy ending is when I'm given a definite end date with a binding promise that it won't be extended.
mrkramer 5y ago
>I can scarcely believe that any reasonable person would argue that blocking propaganda or misinformation that harms the war effort would be an egregious imposition on free speech. Propaganda is spread by who? Domestic traitors? Then arrest them and charge them for treason. If this was true they would be already behind bars but you don't seem to understand the only thing they are doing is expressing their opinion publicly nothing else.
SergeAx 5y ago
Yes, but at the same time heart deseases are killing about the same number of people every year in US. And this is much more correct parallel than yours with hostile adversary.
- landryraccoon 5y ago
  If there was a cheap and effective vaccine against heart disease that would reduce the yearly death rate by 90% and require no other change in lifestyle then yes, I would be for banning misinformation and lies about that too.
machiaweliczny 5y ago
And maybe that's good? We are already slowing evolution and dissolving good genes due to modern conviniences.

d0gsg0w00f 5y ago

Breakthrough case here. Clinic said that's all they've been seeing recently, dozens per day. One thing I've never understood is why the vaccinated care so much about what he unvaccinated are doing? Vaccinated people still carry viral loads so it's either how it affects you personally or your compassion for the enhanced vulnerability of the unvaccinated. Based on the toxic rhetoric towards the unvaccinated it seems to me the former. You've done everything within your control to protect yourself so why do you feel the need to have an opinion on their bodily choices?

kleer001 5y ago
Because the unvaccinated are: 1) Filling ICUs and taking up other hospital resources unnecessarily. Leaves that for people who are injured in accidents. 2) Dying. We don't want our fellow humans dying. Only anti-social jerks don't care if their fellow humans die from easily preventable causes. 3) Carrying larger viral loads for longer. > their bodily choices? If it were only their body it wouldn't be a much of an issue. However, it's not just their body. See above.
- d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
  1) Fair point on ICU beds. 2) Yes, but lots of people make personal choices that cause their own premature death. We aren't muzzling obese people for trumpeting the values of an all-bacon diet. 3) True, but this circles back to the fact that vaccinated people also carry viral loads and if you get infected while vaccinated it's much less severe so it almost negates any longer term carrying argument. The real point of contention is the unvaccinated taking up resources that vaccinated people need because if you're in the hospital for covid then you're running your life like an idiot and I can't get my broken leg fixed from when I broke it doing parkour last weekend.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    What's the R0 of an all-bacon diet? Infectious disease is just that: infectious. It doesn't stay put. It travels, from host to host. And the more the hosts act in a manner to promote that transmission, the further, faster, and harder it spreads.
  - kleer001 5y ago
    Except that the unvaccinated are doing in en mass, if there were 1/2 a million deaths from parkour us pro-social people would be screaming about it too. In the end staying unvaccinated for no real reason (mah freedoms! is not a real reason, nor is any other misinformed gibberish like 'it's not a real vaccine' or 'I don't want to be in the experiment') is antisocial and should be squashed as any other antisocial behaviour like graffiti, stabbing car tires, sucker punching strangers, puking in doorways, dine and dash, etc... Yea yea yea, some of those are actual crimes. But that's not my point. It's selfish and unnecessary. Shame, shame, shame.
GuB-42 5y ago
The vaccine limit the spread of the disease, that's a fact. By how much is up to debate but it is not just effective at making the disease less severe. The wave of infections caused by the delta variant is faster, larger and deadlier in places with low vaccination rates. The vaccinated are less likely to test positive by about half, symptoms or not. Not perfect but the vaccine protects others. If the unvaccinated took the necessary precautions to avoid infecting others, it would be their problem (if healthcare is not overwhelmed...), but usually they don't. Just look at anti-vaccine protests, you don't see a lot of masks... And of course, if almost everyone in your area is vaccinated, most cases will be breakthrough cases.
snarf21 5y ago
Part of it is a hope to get back to normal. The other part is that their "bodily choice" isn't self contained. If someone has ebola, is it their "bodily choice" to walk around infecting others? The unvaccinated are showing an extreme lack of empathy. Also, go read some of the countless reports about how hospitals are overwhelmed, how states are allowing the rationing of care, how ICUs have no beds for heart attacks or normal pneumonia because the beds are full of people who don't trust doctor's enough to get the vaccine but want life sustaining help after getting covid. I predict we are going to see mass resignations from hospital workers who are burned out because one political party convinced its supporters to not take basic medical advice. I've lost two uncles from this disease. It sounds like you haven't. I hope you take a step back and think about what happens when someone you love needs ICU care but the staff, equipment and resources are full and your loved one can't be treated.
- d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
  Fair point on the ICU beds. Maybe hospitals can require proof of vaccination before treatment. If no proof can be provided they have to go to a different department. That way the unvaccinated aren't taking resources away from the vaccinated. If we're going to take away their 1st amendment rights then why not take away their other rights?
- CivBase 5y ago
  > The unvaccinated are showing an extreme lack of empathy. I see this sentiment a lot and it indicates to me a fundamental misunderstanding what is driving people to avoid vaccination. There is a very strong correlation between vaccination rates and trust in the government. Groups with historically low trust in the government (like conservatives, blacks, and hispanics) have the lowest vaccination rates. Conversely, groups with historically high trust in the government (like liberals and asians) have the highest vaccination rates. This suggests most people decided on whether to get vaccinated long before it was available based on their trust in the government which is pushing so hard for it. The resulting spread in misinformation is just the result of mass confirmation bias. The "lack of empathy" argument depends on the unvaccinated actually believing the vaccine is safe and effective, yet still ineffective enough that their vaccination will help protect others. But they obviously don't believe that. Suppression of misinformation wont help because - as I'm sure you've seen many times by now - the very act of suppressing information will only reinforce their confirmation bias. It's quite the dilemma. I personally believe the only solution is for people to hear these people out to patiently, compassionately reason through their concerns. And I believe we should do this knowing full well that many will not be convinced the first time and many will not be convinced ever. Of course, it would help if we collectively agreed to stop harassing them and treated them like concerned humans with misunderstandings instead of malicious fools. Sadly, social media rewards the opposite of this behavior.
scrumbledober 5y ago
My infant daughter had a fever the other day and the doctor's office said that normally if your baby has a fever for this long they would want you to bring the baby in to be seen by a doctor but they're not seeing any patients with fevers right now so just monitor the baby and see if it gets better.
- d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
  I'm sorry to hear that. I just recently became a parent myself so I can imagine how much that would suck. It sounds like your pediatrician is taking extreme precautions to protect their healthier patients and don't see the risks of treatng a fever worth the value it could provide. Do you feel that the doctor would feel more comfortable treating all patients if everyone on the planet were vaccinated?
  - scrumbledober 5y ago
    they weren't taking these precautions just a few months ago when case numbers in the area were lower, so I would assume yes they would feel more comfortable if everyone on the planet was vaccinated, as the case numbers in the area would then be much lower.

ndr 5y ago

Surely misinformation has had an impact, but how big? I wonder how that compares to the perceived incompetence. Some official sources are wrong some of the time, everyone's favorite example: they told mask were useless in the beginning. They corrected course, but then told vaccinated people they didn't need masks anymore, basically making the same mistake twice. They halted AZ, paused J&J, had a gazillion change of mind on boosters. We need to be able to hear challenges to official sources. So yes, the chilling effect can make it worse if they go unchallenged. And it's also not simply true that free speech would return either.

danielvf 5y ago

Well, the US sort of faced the situation that you were describing (fighting an enemy that killed six to ten million people in four years) and then passed a law similar to what you are describing. Have a a look at the Sedition act of 1918. In hindsight it was a terrible idea, and was repealed in 1920. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1239/sedition-act-of-1918 https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1239/sedition-a...

hkai 5y ago

That's the thing, COVID is an "eternal war" as described in dystopian novels. If you describe COVID in war terms, then it justifies all sorts of atrocities.

landryraccoon 5y ago
It's not though. Pandemics have happened before and they end. Second, what's the atrocity being committed exactly? People temporarily are prevented from publishing extraordinarily brazen lies, clearly scientifically false, which are killing thousands of people? I can't see what the evil is here.

ceilingcorner 5y ago

Should we ban car commercials? Cars kill lots of people. Should we ban soda commercials? Obesity kills a lot of people. Here’s the issue: if your entire value system is based on extending life at any cost to other values, you’ve already lost. Full stop. This entire thing is one giant flashing sign that says “Modern human beings are scared of everything, even as they live in the safest times ever.”

CivBase 5y ago

> I can scarcely believe that any reasonable person would argue that blocking propaganda or misinformation that harms the war effort would be an egregious imposition on free speech. Count me as one of the unreasonables, then. Anti-war protests are logically "propaganda that harms the war effort" and the idea that those would be censored is extremely frightening to me. > Covid-19 has killed more people in the United States than US combat casualties every war since World War 2 combined. It is the the worst mass casualty event any living American has ever experienced. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Heart disease also kills more people in the US every year than every war since WW2, but YouTube isn't banning fast food commercials. [EDIT: In fact, they accept money in exchange for forcing people to watch those!]

spiderice 5y ago

I think a large part of it is because the "misinformation" keeps changing. At first masks did nothing, then saying masks did nothing became "misinformation". The lab leak theory was "misinformation", until suddenly it wasn't. Large group gatherings spread Covid, but the BLM protests didn't. The list goes on, and the "experts" have changed their mind so many times that the idea that Youtube should be deciding what kind of thought is allowed is horrifying. I am fully vaccinated, but given how many times we've been blatantly lied to or mislead by experts and officials, I can easily see why so many people don't trust the vaccine. And given that we don't know what the experts and officials are going to say tomorrow, I support people's right to be skeptical and talk about their skepticism with others.

Laremere 5y ago
From what I've seen, they never lied about needing a mask. The early pandemic CBS interview with Fouci says wearing a mask is fine, but unnecessary for most people and would take masks from those who really need it. There was also a larger emphasis on sanitizing surfaces and avoiding face touching. This is because sars-cov-2 is more effective spreading infections as an airborn virus than expected. Once evidence showed otherwise, masking was recommended. The lab leak theory shows a problem with human thought and why scientific methods are valuable. People focus on what's true, instead of eliminating what's impossible. To say the lab leak theory is a possibility is reasonable. However to say it might have spread to humans through another medium (eg, meat market) is also reasonable. To try and put any sort of probability between the two reasonable possibilities is a pointless endeavor. China is likely the only one with good enough evidence to say either way, and China isn't telling anyone else. Though even that doesn't say anything, because either way they wouldn't tell anyone else. Big gatherings are bad, but the right to fight against tyranny is more important than the badness of the big gatherings. That is the context in which experts are not condoning BLM protests. The problem is it's really hard to tell between a carefully considered expert opinion, and just someone talking out of their ass. It's also an evolving situation, with even experts trying to work with slow to come data. It's reasonable to say that people should focus on directing others to experts, and not and try to reinterpret or make predictions of their own.

StatsAreFun 5y ago

That's a good point about the extraordinary measures taken. Accordingly, since the number of deaths from the top three causes of U.S. deaths in 2019 were heart disease (659,041), cancer (599,601) and accidents (173,040), we should boycott all propaganda or misinformation around how being overweight is healthy, immediately close all fast food establishments, provide free fruits & vegetables for all Americans, close all beaches to prevent anyone from getting too much sun, immediately ban all products containing cancer causing agents of any kind, mandate all cars & trucks contain ignition lockouts that would prevent the vehicles from starting if seat belts were not worn properly, immediately ban all motorcycles, immediately ban all swimming pools or mandate all Americans wear flotation devices or risk fines & imprisonment, immediately ban all guns & knives regardless of their intended purpose, immediately ban all contact sports and other sports that are considered "extreme" or high-risk, and ban all ladders & stools. If we can reduce or eliminate outright the 1,431,682 people killed from these causes, regardless of the impact on the economy or personal liberty, it would be worth it. Those people are also dead and definitely not coming back. We owe it to their families and communities to do everything we can to prevent further deaths from these causes as well.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
landryraccoon 5y ago
Let's be clear on what we're comparing here. We're comparing a short term ban on provable lies about a cheap, safe and highly effective set of vaccines with a long term, permanent ban on all activities that could increase the risk of heart disease of cancer. First, vaccines highly effective. Even if the draconian measures you proposed were implemented, would they even reduce the heart disease and cancer death totals? How much would the reduction be? Second, vaccines are not an egregious imposition on your lifestyle. The cost is tiny, the time taken is tiny, the side effects are minor. I can't think of a single significant change in my life due to having been vaccinated, other than not worrying about dying due to Covid. Finally, the ban on misinformation would be temporary, because the crisis will pass. Like wars, pandemics are temporary. Even before vaccination and modern medicine was invented, pandemics eventually end. When would the draconian measures you're proposing end? Heart disease and cancer are not communicable diseases. Your solution isn't a sustainable long term answer to anything. Your comparison is frankly very dishonest and disingenuous. Wanting to reduce provably false misinformation about vaccines is nothing like the draconian, permanent measures you're proposing.

iotku 5y ago

>Once the imminent threat is over, those efforts can and should stop, but not while the destruction is immediate. The destruction is always immediate, there's always risks, and there's always going to be another possible (virus|war|dangerous criminal|wrong-thinker|...) in the future. The only time I have any (although low) expectation of a policy ending is when I'm given a definite end date with a binding promise that it won't be extended.

mrkramer 5y ago

>I can scarcely believe that any reasonable person would argue that blocking propaganda or misinformation that harms the war effort would be an egregious imposition on free speech. Propaganda is spread by who? Domestic traitors? Then arrest them and charge them for treason. If this was true they would be already behind bars but you don't seem to understand the only thing they are doing is expressing their opinion publicly nothing else.

SergeAx 5y ago

Yes, but at the same time heart deseases are killing about the same number of people every year in US. And this is much more correct parallel than yours with hostile adversary.

landryraccoon 5y ago
If there was a cheap and effective vaccine against heart disease that would reduce the yearly death rate by 90% and require no other change in lifestyle then yes, I would be for banning misinformation and lies about that too.

machiaweliczny 5y ago

And maybe that's good? We are already slowing evolution and dissolving good genes due to modern conviniences.