11 ms·

Firstly, if you're willing to try to convince me that's true then I'm happy to hear your reasoning. Secondly, assuming your premise I don't see how that would b

by spuz 5y ago

Firstly, if you're willing to try to convince me that's true then I'm happy to hear your reasoning. Secondly, assuming your premise I don't see how that would become relevant to justifying a lockdown based on vaccination status. How do you make that logical jump?

walterbell 5y ago
There have been countless discussions on HN and elsewhere about the interactions between social media, public opinion and public policy. If there were flaws in social media which influenced lockdown policy, that calls into question 2020 lockdown precedents, now being used to justify 2021 lockdowns of any kind.
- spuz 5y ago
  Ah ok I think I see the issue. It sounds like you are making the assumption that the same decision making process for initiating the 2020 lockdowns is now being used to initiate further lockdowns. I think this is a flawed assumption. Before 2020, we had no historical data on the effects of nationwide lockdowns. After 2020 we do. It would seem very unlikely to me that governments are choosing to ignore this new data when deciding to introduce new lockdowns. Even if you think the reasons for justifying the initial lockdowns were flawed, it doesn't seem relevant to the current situation.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    > It would seem very unlikely to me that governments are choosing to ignore this new data when deciding to introduce new lockdowns Why? As I understand OPs point, they threw out the playbook built for just this purpose. New data which contradicts the original playbook ought to be explained not wholly dismissed and now we are doing something different.
    - walterbell 5y ago
      Pandemic Playbooks (2008) US ACLU, Pandemic Preparedness, the Need for a Public Health Not a Law Enforcement / National Security - Approach (41 pages), https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_... (2011) UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy (70 pages), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... (2017) US HHS Pandemic Influenza Plan (52 pages), https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/pan-flu-report-2017v2.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/pan-flu-repor...
    - spuz 5y ago
      Sorry I don't understand what you are saying. What new data are you referring to? How does it contradict the original playbook? What is the thing we are doing differently? Bear in mind that people reading this comment thread probably have a very different context from which they understand the current situation than you do. I'm a bit lost with where you are going here.

by spuz 5y ago

walterbell 5y ago

There have been countless discussions on HN and elsewhere about the interactions between social media, public opinion and public policy. If there were flaws in social media which influenced lockdown policy, that calls into question 2020 lockdown precedents, now being used to justify 2021 lockdowns of any kind.

spuz 5y ago
Ah ok I think I see the issue. It sounds like you are making the assumption that the same decision making process for initiating the 2020 lockdowns is now being used to initiate further lockdowns. I think this is a flawed assumption. Before 2020, we had no historical data on the effects of nationwide lockdowns. After 2020 we do. It would seem very unlikely to me that governments are choosing to ignore this new data when deciding to introduce new lockdowns. Even if you think the reasons for justifying the initial lockdowns were flawed, it doesn't seem relevant to the current situation.
- peteradio 5y ago
  > It would seem very unlikely to me that governments are choosing to ignore this new data when deciding to introduce new lockdowns Why? As I understand OPs point, they threw out the playbook built for just this purpose. New data which contradicts the original playbook ought to be explained not wholly dismissed and now we are doing something different.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    Pandemic Playbooks (2008) US ACLU, Pandemic Preparedness, the Need for a Public Health Not a Law Enforcement / National Security - Approach (41 pages), https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_... (2011) UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy (70 pages), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... (2017) US HHS Pandemic Influenza Plan (52 pages), https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/pan-flu-report-2017v2.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/pan-flu-repor...
  - spuz 5y ago
    Sorry I don't understand what you are saying. What new data are you referring to? How does it contradict the original playbook? What is the thing we are doing differently? Bear in mind that people reading this comment thread probably have a very different context from which they understand the current situation than you do. I'm a bit lost with where you are going here.