5 ms·

Why do you say "excuse for another lockdown"? Are you implying that someone in government has alterior motives to desire a lockdown?

yuuu 5y ago
ulterior
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
polote 5y ago
> https://www.ft.com/content/620e3d31-ba90-4cb6-ae27-6e2d0740dac4 https://www.ft.com/content/620e3d31-ba90-4cb6-ae27-6e2d0740d... 19% of britons are in favor of eternal curfews. It seems very likely that some percentage also desire lockdowns
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  There's a 10-20% proportion on any poll that'll pick the insane option. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739... Sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of "I'll pick one at random".
m12k 5y ago
Obviously the rich elite that owns the majority of shares and controls the world governments want to self-mutilate by cratering the market again, so they get to "control" the population with lockdowns. Thank god we have Facebook groups to clue is in to all this.
metamet 5y ago
This narrative is so silly to me. Same with those who think that mandating mask wearing is some flex by the government to exert control. It's common sense that in order to stop the spread of highly contagious respiratory viruses, having folks stay away from one another for a bit works... if people follow the lockdown, which too many don't. If anything, politicians are hesitant to invoke a lockdown due to the vocal minority's tantrums over them. People don't like them, the same way that people don't like wearing masks. But most understand the value of both. And it's not like the local government is gaining anything from slowing down the local economy and annoying its citizens--aside from trying to save lives and put less stress on the healthcare system and its already overtaxed workers.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  Based on people I've discussed this with their explanation is: The data doesn't support lockdowns and madates for the masses. Deaths are typically a select subset of the population. Hospitalizations much the same. Using a one size fit all solution - when surgical solutions are more appropriate -makes them suspect. Please don't shoot this messenger. I'm just providing context that tends to be missed elsewhere. p.s. fwiw, there were these in the past week or so: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-pandemics-united-nations-fcf28a83c9352a67e50aa2172eb01a2f https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-heal... https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211122-could-mrna-make-us-superhuman https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211122-could-mrna-make-... Both of those certain raise a reasonable eyebrow.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Aside from ethical concerns around shutting a subset of the population out of society to benefit others, that presumes that a selective approach would be effective, and that it is feasible to segregate the vulnerable and non-vulnerable populations. Do you have any practical suggestions as to how that might be implemented? As a I believe that’s why it hasn’t been attempted.
    - chiefalchemist 5y ago
      Again, I'm just the messenger. But the gist I get is this: locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable simply because locking down everyone is doable. But speaking for myself, the fact that early on there were such a ridiculous number of deaths in retirement homes (primarily in NY, NJ, PA and CA) never smelled right to me. We had data - openly mentioned in the media - about Italy and the elderly and yet the same thing happened here? It's been all down hill since then.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable We can’t convince an idiot minority to spend five minutes getting a shot. We’re supposed to trust them to confine themselves at home?
Hermel 5y ago
People like power, in particular politicians. The have a bias towards any measure that makes them feel powerful and in control.
- toss1 5y ago
  In a word: Bullsh*t. You fail to have the slightest understanding of how politics works, beyone that of a 5-year old child. Sure, some politicians may like to 'flex', but in the real world, that is not how they do it, even for the petty motive to feel their power, beyond perhaps some petty sheriff in a no-account town. There are far better ways to 'flex' and feel one's power that do not involve making a large portion of your voters hate you. Moreover, for something like this to be implemented, MANY bureaucrats and politicians need to be involved, all with different motives, so one emotionally stunted politician could not pull it off without a lot of help, which would not be available absent decent reasons, at least in any democratic system (autocracies are an entirely different story, but AFAIK, few of us on HN currently live in one).
marchingtomars 5y ago
It doesn't have to be someone in government. It could be a group of people acting strategically towards a particular goal, in a series of steps. Those steps would include paying funds for the following: Lobbying governmental officials across all three branches, Strategically networking & "giving gifts" (quid pro quo), Sponsoring scientific studies, Paying journalists to report certain things. For example, Amazon Executives have a financial interests in reducing competition from independent retailers ("Mom & Pop shops"). A lockdown would certainly boost Amazon's position in that case. And Bezos does own the Washington Post. By the way, have you heard of Operation Mockingbird [1]? "Operation Mockingbird is an alleged large-scale program of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that began in the early years of the Cold War and attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes." "According to author Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network and influenced the operations of front groups. CIA support of front groups was exposed when a 1967 Ramparts magazine article reported that the National Student Association received funding from the CIA. In 1975, Church Committee Congressional investigations revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups." [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
- markdown 5y ago
  But what about the frogs turning gay?
  - legostormtroopr 5y ago
    Estrogen and estrogen-like plastics in waterways is a huge problem. Some people mis interpreted it, but that doesn’t discount the fact that plastics are a huge problem that are interfering with nature. https://www.newsweek.com/female-frogs-estrogen-hermaphrodites-suburban-waste-369553 https://www.newsweek.com/female-frogs-estrogen-hermaphrodite...
    - markdown 5y ago
      Sorry, my attempt at sarcasm. I know it's a serious problem, but that wasn't Alex Jones' take on it. Why Alex Jones? Because the person I was responding to sounded like him.
john_moscow 5y ago
You can always follow the money to see who benefits from a decision, and who gets penalized. The initial lockdowns penalized many small businesses (small shops, hairdressers) that could not operate and benefited large online retailers and chains like Walmart that were declared exempt, that got extra business. The lockdowns also justified large-scale payout of benefits, that were funded by increasing the money supply. This benefited the owners of limited-supply assets (stocks, real estate, even the f*cking crypto) at the expense of people with cash savings and those with fixed/slowly changing income (most salaried employees). Since most members of government are major real estate owners and stock investors, they absolutely had benefited from the lockdown-related economic measures more than an average salaried employee. It is also notable that the effects of increasing the money supply are delayed. We are starting to see the inevitable rise of inflation over a year after the start of the pandemic. It will take a long time for it to taper down, and we are yet to see how it will affect the average quality of life (i.e. salary/expense ratio).
- soared 5y ago
  So you’re just ignoring the countless lives saved and lost?
  - XorNot 5y ago
    That would be devastating to their argument, so of course they are. Though I'm impressed they're literally making the "lockdowns are being driven by Big Delivery Service" argument.
  - chrisjs95 5y ago
    Will we know if we actually saved net lives in 20 years? That's what I keep thinking. If we just let it run its course it could have been over in a few months and we would have been back to normal. History will tell.
    - soared 5y ago
      > will we know > history will tell I’m not following the logic here. As opposed to lockdowns we should.. let everyone die so those who live could go outside a couple months earlier?
Negitivefrags 5y ago
I think the ulterior motive is ass-covering. If you don't order a lockdown and it was needed then lots of people die, this is very bad. If you do order a lockdown and it wasn't needed then you can say that you were just being safe. And it's hard to even tell when a lockdown wasn't needed because the very act of doing it changes the result and leads to less cases. The lockdown was successful! It's always easy to say "We did it to save lives" and few people will hold you to account for it.
- nnvvhh 5y ago
  "Ass-covering" is a really uncharitable synonym of "being prudent."
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    Ya, to me, ass covering is much more like trying to rewrite history after the fact, downplaying the virus, or maybe trying to hide statistics like nursing home deaths in your state.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  Such a one sided view. Let me tell you the truth of the matter. Government is made out of multitudes of personalities and conflicting interests. There are those that care, there are those that don't care, there are scientists, there are people who are knowledgeable of the proper action and there are those who are emotional and everything in between exists as well. It is a hodge podge of motives. Classifying government action in a singular light as if it was one ulterior ass covering agenda is a lie people tell themselves when they need something to blame.
  - Negitivefrags 5y ago
    I don't understand how what you are saying refutes ass-covering at all. Yes, you have a pile of people in government with all sorts of opinions, but ultimately there is someone who has to make the decision. If you present that person with a cloud of information from a bunch of different conflicting sources it actually incentivises ass-covering even more. You say "ulterior ass covering agenda" but an Agenda is entirely the opposite of what an ass-coverer has. When you don't know what you should do, you pick safe option that nobody is going to blame you for.
skrowl 5y ago
Lockdowns lead to one of the largest transfers of wealth in history https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/cramer-the-pandemic-led-to-a-great-wealth-transfer.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/cramer-the-pandemic-led-to-a... All those mom and pop businesses? FORCED CLOSED, many didn't make it through Wal*mart, Amazon, Home Depot, etc? NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL, LOL WEAR A CLOTH MASK
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Haven't Walmart, Amazon et all been eating mom and pop businesses for years now?
aortega 5y ago
>Are you implying that someone in government has alterior motives to desire a lockdown? They have obvious ulterior motives. Political motives, or ass-covering. If they don't do a lockdown they will be utterly attacked by the opposition for 'not being proactive enough' no matter if there is only one more death. I believe this is the principal motive, health being a distant second. Remember, governments act first to get votes, second to help population.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  So… the government is acting in what they perceive the population overall wants. That motive doesn’t sound very ulterior to me.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Do you really mean that government acts primarily to avoid being voted out of office? Should we be shocked or disgusted by that? I guess someone like Putin doesn't have to be worried about being unelected, so they were able to go soft on the virus in Russia. But, I don't think that turned out well for them.
  - serf 5y ago
    > Do you really mean that government acts primarily to avoid being voted out of office? Should we be shocked or disgusted by that? shocked? no. disgusted? yes. the ideal politician is one that works towards societies best interests, not one that maximizes time-in-office and career security. That isn't to say that one can't have one without the other, only to emphasize the fact that no political office was ever won on the promise of a lengthy career and self-interest.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Politicians that do the right thing regardless of election prospects simply aren’t in power long enough (or even at all) for you to notice them. A real “survival bias” at work. The alternative (an autocracy) doesn’t work out any better, so even though our system has flaws, it is still better than the alternative.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
COVID is bad. When cases spike, people naturally take steps to avoid getting infected. They also want other people to do the same. The problem is that some steps are more conspicuous than others and that doesn't always align with efficacy. An obvious example is wearing a mask vs. washing your hands. They're both effective measures, but one can be seen by anyone and the other happens in the privacy of your bathroom, so one gets politicized and over-emphasized even if they're both of similar importance. It works the same way for politicians. If things are going poorly, they're expected to do something. But their incentive is to do things that are conspicuous, even if they have a high cost and therefore a low cost/benefit ratio. Almost any kind of mandate falls into this category because the cost/benefit for doing that thing is going to depend on individual characteristics. "Stay at home" may be a better strategy for someone who lives with amiable people than someone who lives alone and suffers from depression, or who lives with an abuser, but blanket mandates don't distinguish them. And yet when cases spike, Something Must Be Done.
legostormtroopr 5y ago
On the one hand, people have been claiming for years that the world is sleep walking into authoritarian, kleptocratic fascism. On the other hand, if you are even slightly sceptical that the same authoritarians might be using lockdowns to make public protest illegal and overstep civil liberties you are a conspiracy-believing, alt-right moron.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  Are there any examples in the US of using lockdowns to make public protest illegal?
deltaonefour 5y ago
He knows. He just needs to make up an alternate reality to justify his own darkness. On some level many of us simply don't give a shit about the fact that the virus can slaughter millions. We just don't think it will affect us and we don't want to be locked down. It's like a heroin addict. He knows the reality of his addiction but he needs to make up a reality to justify shoving one more injection into his veins, just one more.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
BoxOfRain 5y ago
Arse covering is as good ulterior motive as any, something anyone who’s dealt with large organisations of any sort will attest to. I’d argue the reason governments obsess over marginally effective at best measures like masks is that they give society the opportunity to wag their fingers and exercise the usual moral authoritarianism at their neighbours instead of blaming the politicians for their various inadequacies throughout the pandemic (including in the UK’s case running the NHS into the ground with cuts a decade before in their usual miserly short-sightedness).
reglkjlkjaegr 5y ago
If you are asking this question you are the dumbest motherfucker in the world.

yuuu 5y ago

ulterior

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

polote 5y ago

> https://www.ft.com/content/620e3d31-ba90-4cb6-ae27-6e2d0740dac4 https://www.ft.com/content/620e3d31-ba90-4cb6-ae27-6e2d0740d... 19% of britons are in favor of eternal curfews. It seems very likely that some percentage also desire lockdowns

ceejayoz 5y ago
There's a 10-20% proportion on any poll that'll pick the insane option. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739... Sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of "I'll pick one at random".

m12k 5y ago

Obviously the rich elite that owns the majority of shares and controls the world governments want to self-mutilate by cratering the market again, so they get to "control" the population with lockdowns. Thank god we have Facebook groups to clue is in to all this.

metamet 5y ago

This narrative is so silly to me. Same with those who think that mandating mask wearing is some flex by the government to exert control. It's common sense that in order to stop the spread of highly contagious respiratory viruses, having folks stay away from one another for a bit works... if people follow the lockdown, which too many don't. If anything, politicians are hesitant to invoke a lockdown due to the vocal minority's tantrums over them. People don't like them, the same way that people don't like wearing masks. But most understand the value of both. And it's not like the local government is gaining anything from slowing down the local economy and annoying its citizens--aside from trying to save lives and put less stress on the healthcare system and its already overtaxed workers.

chiefalchemist 5y ago
Based on people I've discussed this with their explanation is: The data doesn't support lockdowns and madates for the masses. Deaths are typically a select subset of the population. Hospitalizations much the same. Using a one size fit all solution - when surgical solutions are more appropriate -makes them suspect. Please don't shoot this messenger. I'm just providing context that tends to be missed elsewhere. p.s. fwiw, there were these in the past week or so: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-pandemics-united-nations-fcf28a83c9352a67e50aa2172eb01a2f https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-heal... https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211122-could-mrna-make-us-superhuman https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211122-could-mrna-make-... Both of those certain raise a reasonable eyebrow.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Aside from ethical concerns around shutting a subset of the population out of society to benefit others, that presumes that a selective approach would be effective, and that it is feasible to segregate the vulnerable and non-vulnerable populations. Do you have any practical suggestions as to how that might be implemented? As a I believe that’s why it hasn’t been attempted.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    Again, I'm just the messenger. But the gist I get is this: locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable simply because locking down everyone is doable. But speaking for myself, the fact that early on there were such a ridiculous number of deaths in retirement homes (primarily in NY, NJ, PA and CA) never smelled right to me. We had data - openly mentioned in the media - about Italy and the elderly and yet the same thing happened here? It's been all down hill since then.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable We can’t convince an idiot minority to spend five minutes getting a shot. We’re supposed to trust them to confine themselves at home?

Hermel 5y ago

People like power, in particular politicians. The have a bias towards any measure that makes them feel powerful and in control.

toss1 5y ago
In a word: Bullsh*t. You fail to have the slightest understanding of how politics works, beyone that of a 5-year old child. Sure, some politicians may like to 'flex', but in the real world, that is not how they do it, even for the petty motive to feel their power, beyond perhaps some petty sheriff in a no-account town. There are far better ways to 'flex' and feel one's power that do not involve making a large portion of your voters hate you. Moreover, for something like this to be implemented, MANY bureaucrats and politicians need to be involved, all with different motives, so one emotionally stunted politician could not pull it off without a lot of help, which would not be available absent decent reasons, at least in any democratic system (autocracies are an entirely different story, but AFAIK, few of us on HN currently live in one).

marchingtomars 5y ago

It doesn't have to be someone in government. It could be a group of people acting strategically towards a particular goal, in a series of steps. Those steps would include paying funds for the following: Lobbying governmental officials across all three branches, Strategically networking & "giving gifts" (quid pro quo), Sponsoring scientific studies, Paying journalists to report certain things. For example, Amazon Executives have a financial interests in reducing competition from independent retailers ("Mom & Pop shops"). A lockdown would certainly boost Amazon's position in that case. And Bezos does own the Washington Post. By the way, have you heard of Operation Mockingbird [1]? "Operation Mockingbird is an alleged large-scale program of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that began in the early years of the Cold War and attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes." "According to author Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network and influenced the operations of front groups. CIA support of front groups was exposed when a 1967 Ramparts magazine article reported that the National Student Association received funding from the CIA. In 1975, Church Committee Congressional investigations revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups." [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

markdown 5y ago
But what about the frogs turning gay?
- legostormtroopr 5y ago
  Estrogen and estrogen-like plastics in waterways is a huge problem. Some people mis interpreted it, but that doesn’t discount the fact that plastics are a huge problem that are interfering with nature. https://www.newsweek.com/female-frogs-estrogen-hermaphrodites-suburban-waste-369553 https://www.newsweek.com/female-frogs-estrogen-hermaphrodite...
  - markdown 5y ago
    Sorry, my attempt at sarcasm. I know it's a serious problem, but that wasn't Alex Jones' take on it. Why Alex Jones? Because the person I was responding to sounded like him.

john_moscow 5y ago

You can always follow the money to see who benefits from a decision, and who gets penalized. The initial lockdowns penalized many small businesses (small shops, hairdressers) that could not operate and benefited large online retailers and chains like Walmart that were declared exempt, that got extra business. The lockdowns also justified large-scale payout of benefits, that were funded by increasing the money supply. This benefited the owners of limited-supply assets (stocks, real estate, even the f*cking crypto) at the expense of people with cash savings and those with fixed/slowly changing income (most salaried employees). Since most members of government are major real estate owners and stock investors, they absolutely had benefited from the lockdown-related economic measures more than an average salaried employee. It is also notable that the effects of increasing the money supply are delayed. We are starting to see the inevitable rise of inflation over a year after the start of the pandemic. It will take a long time for it to taper down, and we are yet to see how it will affect the average quality of life (i.e. salary/expense ratio).

soared 5y ago
So you’re just ignoring the countless lives saved and lost?
- XorNot 5y ago
  That would be devastating to their argument, so of course they are. Though I'm impressed they're literally making the "lockdowns are being driven by Big Delivery Service" argument.
- chrisjs95 5y ago
  Will we know if we actually saved net lives in 20 years? That's what I keep thinking. If we just let it run its course it could have been over in a few months and we would have been back to normal. History will tell.
  - soared 5y ago
    > will we know > history will tell I’m not following the logic here. As opposed to lockdowns we should.. let everyone die so those who live could go outside a couple months earlier?

Negitivefrags 5y ago

I think the ulterior motive is ass-covering. If you don't order a lockdown and it was needed then lots of people die, this is very bad. If you do order a lockdown and it wasn't needed then you can say that you were just being safe. And it's hard to even tell when a lockdown wasn't needed because the very act of doing it changes the result and leads to less cases. The lockdown was successful! It's always easy to say "We did it to save lives" and few people will hold you to account for it.

nnvvhh 5y ago
"Ass-covering" is a really uncharitable synonym of "being prudent."
- jjeaff 5y ago
  Ya, to me, ass covering is much more like trying to rewrite history after the fact, downplaying the virus, or maybe trying to hide statistics like nursing home deaths in your state.
deltaonefour 5y ago
Such a one sided view. Let me tell you the truth of the matter. Government is made out of multitudes of personalities and conflicting interests. There are those that care, there are those that don't care, there are scientists, there are people who are knowledgeable of the proper action and there are those who are emotional and everything in between exists as well. It is a hodge podge of motives. Classifying government action in a singular light as if it was one ulterior ass covering agenda is a lie people tell themselves when they need something to blame.
- Negitivefrags 5y ago
  I don't understand how what you are saying refutes ass-covering at all. Yes, you have a pile of people in government with all sorts of opinions, but ultimately there is someone who has to make the decision. If you present that person with a cloud of information from a bunch of different conflicting sources it actually incentivises ass-covering even more. You say "ulterior ass covering agenda" but an Agenda is entirely the opposite of what an ass-coverer has. When you don't know what you should do, you pick safe option that nobody is going to blame you for.

skrowl 5y ago

Lockdowns lead to one of the largest transfers of wealth in history https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/cramer-the-pandemic-led-to-a-great-wealth-transfer.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/cramer-the-pandemic-led-to-a... All those mom and pop businesses? FORCED CLOSED, many didn't make it through Wal*mart, Amazon, Home Depot, etc? NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL, LOL WEAR A CLOTH MASK

Hamuko 5y ago
Haven't Walmart, Amazon et all been eating mom and pop businesses for years now?

aortega 5y ago

>Are you implying that someone in government has alterior motives to desire a lockdown? They have obvious ulterior motives. Political motives, or ass-covering. If they don't do a lockdown they will be utterly attacked by the opposition for 'not being proactive enough' no matter if there is only one more death. I believe this is the principal motive, health being a distant second. Remember, governments act first to get votes, second to help population.

nicoburns 5y ago
So… the government is acting in what they perceive the population overall wants. That motive doesn’t sound very ulterior to me.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Do you really mean that government acts primarily to avoid being voted out of office? Should we be shocked or disgusted by that? I guess someone like Putin doesn't have to be worried about being unelected, so they were able to go soft on the virus in Russia. But, I don't think that turned out well for them.
- serf 5y ago
  > Do you really mean that government acts primarily to avoid being voted out of office? Should we be shocked or disgusted by that? shocked? no. disgusted? yes. the ideal politician is one that works towards societies best interests, not one that maximizes time-in-office and career security. That isn't to say that one can't have one without the other, only to emphasize the fact that no political office was ever won on the promise of a lengthy career and self-interest.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Politicians that do the right thing regardless of election prospects simply aren’t in power long enough (or even at all) for you to notice them. A real “survival bias” at work. The alternative (an autocracy) doesn’t work out any better, so even though our system has flaws, it is still better than the alternative.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

COVID is bad. When cases spike, people naturally take steps to avoid getting infected. They also want other people to do the same. The problem is that some steps are more conspicuous than others and that doesn't always align with efficacy. An obvious example is wearing a mask vs. washing your hands. They're both effective measures, but one can be seen by anyone and the other happens in the privacy of your bathroom, so one gets politicized and over-emphasized even if they're both of similar importance. It works the same way for politicians. If things are going poorly, they're expected to do something. But their incentive is to do things that are conspicuous, even if they have a high cost and therefore a low cost/benefit ratio. Almost any kind of mandate falls into this category because the cost/benefit for doing that thing is going to depend on individual characteristics. "Stay at home" may be a better strategy for someone who lives with amiable people than someone who lives alone and suffers from depression, or who lives with an abuser, but blanket mandates don't distinguish them. And yet when cases spike, Something Must Be Done.

legostormtroopr 5y ago

On the one hand, people have been claiming for years that the world is sleep walking into authoritarian, kleptocratic fascism. On the other hand, if you are even slightly sceptical that the same authoritarians might be using lockdowns to make public protest illegal and overstep civil liberties you are a conspiracy-believing, alt-right moron.

jjeaff 5y ago
Are there any examples in the US of using lockdowns to make public protest illegal?

deltaonefour 5y ago

He knows. He just needs to make up an alternate reality to justify his own darkness. On some level many of us simply don't give a shit about the fact that the virus can slaughter millions. We just don't think it will affect us and we don't want to be locked down. It's like a heroin addict. He knows the reality of his addiction but he needs to make up a reality to justify shoving one more injection into his veins, just one more.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

BoxOfRain 5y ago

Arse covering is as good ulterior motive as any, something anyone who’s dealt with large organisations of any sort will attest to. I’d argue the reason governments obsess over marginally effective at best measures like masks is that they give society the opportunity to wag their fingers and exercise the usual moral authoritarianism at their neighbours instead of blaming the politicians for their various inadequacies throughout the pandemic (including in the UK’s case running the NHS into the ground with cuts a decade before in their usual miserly short-sightedness).

reglkjlkjaegr 5y ago

If you are asking this question you are the dumbest motherfucker in the world.