11 ms·

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

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?
      - chiefalchemist 5y ago
        You don't understand the problem, do you? Nor do you understand you're part of that problem. It's - by definition - is a pandemic of everybody. Anyone who suggests otherwise is suspect. Those ppl fuel the discontent. The fact that they're allowed to furthers the divide. The phrase that comes to mind is: "Divided we fall." An absolute truth if there ever was one.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rajin444 5y ago
    It's shutting out a tiny elderly subset for the benefit of all vs shutting down all for the benefit of a tiny elderly subset. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but your ethical concern should be 2 sided.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      What is the proposed method of actually isolating the most vulnerable parts of society? I don't see how you do it in any meaningful way (At the very most vulnerable end, they are dependent on lots of people that are less vulnerable...).
oceanplexian 5y ago
> And it's not like the local government is gaining anything from slowing down the local economy and annoying its citizens It’s a lot simpler than that. Weilding political power is psychologically addictive, perhaps even more so than recreational drugs. Like drugs, the user will always want to come back for another hit, and thus politicians will use every excuse and rationalization to continue to use emergency powers.

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?
    - chiefalchemist 5y ago
      You don't understand the problem, do you? Nor do you understand you're part of that problem. It's - by definition - is a pandemic of everybody. Anyone who suggests otherwise is suspect. Those ppl fuel the discontent. The fact that they're allowed to furthers the divide. The phrase that comes to mind is: "Divided we fall." An absolute truth if there ever was one.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rajin444 5y ago
  It's shutting out a tiny elderly subset for the benefit of all vs shutting down all for the benefit of a tiny elderly subset. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but your ethical concern should be 2 sided.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    What is the proposed method of actually isolating the most vulnerable parts of society? I don't see how you do it in any meaningful way (At the very most vulnerable end, they are dependent on lots of people that are less vulnerable...).

oceanplexian 5y ago

> And it's not like the local government is gaining anything from slowing down the local economy and annoying its citizens It’s a lot simpler than that. Weilding political power is psychologically addictive, perhaps even more so than recreational drugs. Like drugs, the user will always want to come back for another hit, and thus politicians will use every excuse and rationalization to continue to use emergency powers.