6 ms·

I don't want to live in a country where the government enforced wide-reaching shutdowns of businesses and quarantined people forcibly in their homes like China

I don't want to live in a country where the government enforced wide-reaching shutdowns of businesses and quarantined people forcibly in their homes like China and Taiwan do. I think it's a violation of my civil liberties.

sweetheart 5y ago
This is the reasoning that leads to absurd levels of death we've seen over the last two years. It's great for you, no doubt, but incredibly selfish.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  We're not going to do perpetual lockdowns for the rest of eternity and not every country in the world is capable of enforcing a lockdown like China and the rest of East Asia anyway. It was always going to spread. Easy for the laptop class of this website to call not wanting lockdowns selfish when it disproportionally harms the poorest and most vulnerable of our society.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    > it disproportionally harms the poorest and most vulnerable of our society. So does dying from Covid, or getting sick numerous times and missing work. Or not being able to afford missing work so you go in anyway and spread the disease, leading to your work being shutdown for weeks. No matter what is done, the poorest and most vulnerable will be disproportionally affected. While I agree we can't perpetually mandate stay-at-home orders and expect everyone to live off savings, we _can_ expect the gov't to make that possible beyond the pathetic payments that folks received.
- noxer 5y ago
  There are no absurd levels of death. Average COVID death per day since the outbreak is likely lower than the average death from cigarette smoking. And people die from cigarette smoking since years and years. Million in the last decade in the US alone. And there is no doubt that cigarette smoking also increased COVID death. Another way to look it it is birth rate versus death rate. Globally speaking COVID death would need to be at lest one order of magnitude higher to stagnant growth. The 2 year pandemic made the global world population lag by about a week. So in a week we have the same number of people as we would have today if there were no COVID. Its that insignificant. On a population chart over 100 years COVID will be p much invisible, a tiny tiny slow down of the growth. There are no absurd levels of death there are just many many humans and thus the death number feel subjectively high.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  According to the CDC 1,027 people / 1000k died in 2020 compared to 870 people /100k in 2019. +157/100k (18%) is definitely more, but not an absurd amount more. I believe our response was appropriate.
guelo 5y ago
You don't want to live in a country with mass disabilities either.
GiorgioG 5y ago
Your civil liberties don't give you a right to get other people sick. My son's a type 1 diabetic (this isn't a matter of diet, exercise - that's type 2 diabetes.) Diabetics are at higher risk for complications from COVID. It pisses me off that people like you (and there are a lot of you) think it's your right to do what you please because it's inconvenient to wear masks, quarantine, social distance, etc. There are a lot of people at risk. Don't be a selfish prick.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  My civil liberties give me the right to leave my house and for people to have businesses and for me to visit those businesses. Perpetual lockdowns are a losing battle.
- pomdapi 5y ago
  IMHO, there's two ways to look at that problem : protect the fragile, or restrain the non-fragile. And I'm in the same boat as your son. The current policies in the west have done nothing to proactively protect the fragile, and everything to restrain the non-fragile. As an example of what I mean : I spent a couple of lockdowns in a relatively poor country (Serbia) which for example allowed the 60+, fragile and immunocompromised exclusive access to shops, malls and other commerce until 9, a 30 minute pause to ventilate with nobody inside, and then normal access for the rest of the population. Subsidised delivery services were organised, etc. 16 hospitals with 900 ICU bed each (pop 6 million) were built chinese-style in 6 months, so the local healthcare system could go back to normal. Also, health insurance has a basic public option, with price-controlled drugs, generally 10-15x smaller than the US retail price, even for US-made drugs, new or old. Watching the US figuratively struggle for air for two years has been quite demoralizing.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
I’m with you: I much prefer the USA’s response to China’s. However, if COVID turned out to be worse and I felt my and my family’s life were in danger, I would expect (and demand) that level of lockdown here at least.
- secabeen 5y ago
  COVID is pretty bad. We are having a 9/11-equivalent number of deaths every day.
  - verdverm 5y ago
    You may wish to review the numbers you are stating comparisons about. The rate for COVID per day in the US is about 1300 (911k / 700 days). The total is about 9000 per day, which is 3x 9/11 every day https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
    - noxer 5y ago
      You must look at excess death not death in total.
      - verdverm 5y ago
        1300/day is roughly the excess. You need to compare it to normal (expected) total. excluding comparisons means you cannot judge severity one way or another. Basic stats here
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Yes, and our response was pretty strong. How does my comment run counter to that? If it were even worse than it was, a Chinese-level lockdown response would have been necessary, but it wasn't, at least here in the USA.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
heyoni 5y ago
Protecting people from financial misery in order to isolate is the path we took and completely half assed it. There was never a moment when police were instructed to harass people for being outside, or not wearing a mask. Now if you have something against government mandating that businesses operate within certain safety parameters then I’ve got news for you….
ceejayoz 5y ago
> I think it's a violation of my civil liberties. As an immunocompromised person, and considering the ADA, I'm of the opinion that some mitigation strategies, like required masking in the grocery store, help preserve my civil liberties and should be considered reasonable accommodations. Given our civil liberties conflict, you wind up in a tough to resolve scenario.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  I said forced shutdowns of businesses and forced quarantine at home like East Asian countries. Not masking.
- nostrebored 5y ago
  Your 'civil liberties' are arguing for positive rights, which are fundamentally different than advocating for existing negative rights. Positive rights are your assertion that you have the right to action from another group. In general, medicine is one area where positive and negative rights conflict regularly. For example, imagine abortion, assisted suicide, or emergency care during a pandemic. Some of these are solved by employment contracts -- as an ER doctor you are accepting to be bound by people's positive right to emergency medical care. However, your assertion is that society et large should be bound by your positive right. You should have a very strong case for this. Do you?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > You should have a very strong case for this. Do you? In the US, we've made this call already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac...
    - nostrebored 5y ago
      This is neither an employer-employee relationship nor an accessibility requirement. You know this because you did not have an established mask mandate or legal requirements for facilities to validate that patrons were not ill. Either of these would infringe on the rights of other groups. Like it or not, there are established groups of people who are unable to wear masks. The other route of validating that customers are not sick would paradoxically infringe on the rights of the immunosuppressed.
managerclass 5y ago
Contact tracing, heavy testing would've been a good happy medium. It don't have to be all or nothing.
throwhauser 5y ago
If a lockdown and travel restrictions, with limited duration, could have contained the spread of COVID or some other disease, I don't think it's an unreasonable impingement on civil liberties. Practically speaking a few weeks of restrictions every few decades shouldn't be problematic, or at least much less problematic than something like wartime restrictions. Of course the value of any lockdown policy is contingent on the practical ability to correctly assess the threat of a new disease early enough that such short-duration, non-pharmaceutical interventions could work. But I don't think temporary restrictions are incompatible with basic civil liberties. EDIT: Removed amateur-hour epidemiology, restated "philosophical" argument contingent on NPIs being effective.

sweetheart 5y ago

This is the reasoning that leads to absurd levels of death we've seen over the last two years. It's great for you, no doubt, but incredibly selfish.

kaesar14 5y ago
We're not going to do perpetual lockdowns for the rest of eternity and not every country in the world is capable of enforcing a lockdown like China and the rest of East Asia anyway. It was always going to spread. Easy for the laptop class of this website to call not wanting lockdowns selfish when it disproportionally harms the poorest and most vulnerable of our society.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  > it disproportionally harms the poorest and most vulnerable of our society. So does dying from Covid, or getting sick numerous times and missing work. Or not being able to afford missing work so you go in anyway and spread the disease, leading to your work being shutdown for weeks. No matter what is done, the poorest and most vulnerable will be disproportionally affected. While I agree we can't perpetually mandate stay-at-home orders and expect everyone to live off savings, we _can_ expect the gov't to make that possible beyond the pathetic payments that folks received.
noxer 5y ago
There are no absurd levels of death. Average COVID death per day since the outbreak is likely lower than the average death from cigarette smoking. And people die from cigarette smoking since years and years. Million in the last decade in the US alone. And there is no doubt that cigarette smoking also increased COVID death. Another way to look it it is birth rate versus death rate. Globally speaking COVID death would need to be at lest one order of magnitude higher to stagnant growth. The 2 year pandemic made the global world population lag by about a week. So in a week we have the same number of people as we would have today if there were no COVID. Its that insignificant. On a population chart over 100 years COVID will be p much invisible, a tiny tiny slow down of the growth. There are no absurd levels of death there are just many many humans and thus the death number feel subjectively high.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
According to the CDC 1,027 people / 1000k died in 2020 compared to 870 people /100k in 2019. +157/100k (18%) is definitely more, but not an absurd amount more. I believe our response was appropriate.

guelo 5y ago

You don't want to live in a country with mass disabilities either.

GiorgioG 5y ago

Your civil liberties don't give you a right to get other people sick. My son's a type 1 diabetic (this isn't a matter of diet, exercise - that's type 2 diabetes.) Diabetics are at higher risk for complications from COVID. It pisses me off that people like you (and there are a lot of you) think it's your right to do what you please because it's inconvenient to wear masks, quarantine, social distance, etc. There are a lot of people at risk. Don't be a selfish prick.

kaesar14 5y ago
My civil liberties give me the right to leave my house and for people to have businesses and for me to visit those businesses. Perpetual lockdowns are a losing battle.
pomdapi 5y ago
IMHO, there's two ways to look at that problem : protect the fragile, or restrain the non-fragile. And I'm in the same boat as your son. The current policies in the west have done nothing to proactively protect the fragile, and everything to restrain the non-fragile. As an example of what I mean : I spent a couple of lockdowns in a relatively poor country (Serbia) which for example allowed the 60+, fragile and immunocompromised exclusive access to shops, malls and other commerce until 9, a 30 minute pause to ventilate with nobody inside, and then normal access for the rest of the population. Subsidised delivery services were organised, etc. 16 hospitals with 900 ICU bed each (pop 6 million) were built chinese-style in 6 months, so the local healthcare system could go back to normal. Also, health insurance has a basic public option, with price-controlled drugs, generally 10-15x smaller than the US retail price, even for US-made drugs, new or old. Watching the US figuratively struggle for air for two years has been quite demoralizing.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

I’m with you: I much prefer the USA’s response to China’s. However, if COVID turned out to be worse and I felt my and my family’s life were in danger, I would expect (and demand) that level of lockdown here at least.

secabeen 5y ago
COVID is pretty bad. We are having a 9/11-equivalent number of deaths every day.
- verdverm 5y ago
  You may wish to review the numbers you are stating comparisons about. The rate for COVID per day in the US is about 1300 (911k / 700 days). The total is about 9000 per day, which is 3x 9/11 every day https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
  - noxer 5y ago
    You must look at excess death not death in total.
    - verdverm 5y ago
      1300/day is roughly the excess. You need to compare it to normal (expected) total. excluding comparisons means you cannot judge severity one way or another. Basic stats here
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Yes, and our response was pretty strong. How does my comment run counter to that? If it were even worse than it was, a Chinese-level lockdown response would have been necessary, but it wasn't, at least here in the USA.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

heyoni 5y ago

Protecting people from financial misery in order to isolate is the path we took and completely half assed it. There was never a moment when police were instructed to harass people for being outside, or not wearing a mask. Now if you have something against government mandating that businesses operate within certain safety parameters then I’ve got news for you….

ceejayoz 5y ago

> I think it's a violation of my civil liberties. As an immunocompromised person, and considering the ADA, I'm of the opinion that some mitigation strategies, like required masking in the grocery store, help preserve my civil liberties and should be considered reasonable accommodations. Given our civil liberties conflict, you wind up in a tough to resolve scenario.

kaesar14 5y ago
I said forced shutdowns of businesses and forced quarantine at home like East Asian countries. Not masking.
nostrebored 5y ago
Your 'civil liberties' are arguing for positive rights, which are fundamentally different than advocating for existing negative rights. Positive rights are your assertion that you have the right to action from another group. In general, medicine is one area where positive and negative rights conflict regularly. For example, imagine abortion, assisted suicide, or emergency care during a pandemic. Some of these are solved by employment contracts -- as an ER doctor you are accepting to be bound by people's positive right to emergency medical care. However, your assertion is that society et large should be bound by your positive right. You should have a very strong case for this. Do you?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > You should have a very strong case for this. Do you? In the US, we've made this call already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac...
  - nostrebored 5y ago
    This is neither an employer-employee relationship nor an accessibility requirement. You know this because you did not have an established mask mandate or legal requirements for facilities to validate that patrons were not ill. Either of these would infringe on the rights of other groups. Like it or not, there are established groups of people who are unable to wear masks. The other route of validating that customers are not sick would paradoxically infringe on the rights of the immunosuppressed.

managerclass 5y ago

Contact tracing, heavy testing would've been a good happy medium. It don't have to be all or nothing.

throwhauser 5y ago

If a lockdown and travel restrictions, with limited duration, could have contained the spread of COVID or some other disease, I don't think it's an unreasonable impingement on civil liberties. Practically speaking a few weeks of restrictions every few decades shouldn't be problematic, or at least much less problematic than something like wartime restrictions. Of course the value of any lockdown policy is contingent on the practical ability to correctly assess the threat of a new disease early enough that such short-duration, non-pharmaceutical interventions could work. But I don't think temporary restrictions are incompatible with basic civil liberties. EDIT: Removed amateur-hour epidemiology, restated "philosophical" argument contingent on NPIs being effective.