3 ms·

>We are going to hear about why the COVID response was incorrect for decades and how it stole a generation. Of course you're going to hear about it, because th

>We are going to hear about why the COVID response was incorrect for decades and how it stole a generation. Of course you're going to hear about it, because the response to it trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society. When you do something this extreme you must be able to justify it. Imagine if an individual put the same restrictions as governments created onto another person. Eg don't allow them to go to school or leave their home etc. How would the legal system treat this individual? They would need an extremely good justification for it, otherwise they would probably go to prison.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
> Of course you're going to hear about it, because the response to it trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society. I never got why people who hold this opinion, despite it being an unpopular one, just announce it as if it's universally believed. As if most people don't believe "freedoms and rights" have limitations when they start affecting those of others. You personally believe there should be a different trade-off point than others do, that's all.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  >As if most people don't believe "freedoms and rights" have limitations when they start affecting those of others. Which is why it is very important to analyze the situation afterwards. Then you can tell whether somebody overstepped their authority. You can't just declare an emergency and then unilaterally decide that everything was done For The Greater Good and must never be questioned. If you impose your will onto others then you must have an extremely good justification for it. A justification that others analyze and criticize.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    > it is very important to analyze the situation afterwards which such analysis, conducted by who, concluded with the following quote: "the response ... trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society" ?
    - Aerroon 4y ago
      Yes, considering this affects everybody even if they don't agree with it, then everybody gets a say in it. You don't get to choose who can have an opinion and who doesn't when you impose your will onto others.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        you forgot to answer: which such analysis, conducted by who, concluded with the following quote: "the response ... trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society" ? if that is just a personal opinion, by you personally, then consider that everybody gets a say in it, not just you. And they did, and their say is not your say, no matter how many times you say it. at least you're being honest about the "analysis afterward" actually meaning "I announce my opinions as 1 person of hundreds of millions and am unable to defend it to the others"
        Aerroon 4y ago
        What kind of analysis do you need for it? Were people stopped from going outside when they saw fit? Yes. Were people forced to wear articles of clothing (masks) that they might not have wanted to? Yes. Were people forced to take vaccines even if they didn't want to? Yes. These factors are absolutely against the freedoms and rights we enjoy in a modern society. No amount of mental gymnastics and redefining of words is going to change that. The question is whether it was justified.
- nradov 4y ago
  Saving lives isn't a sufficient justification for violating fundamental human rights such as freedom of movement and bodily autonomy.
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    Your intentions can be noble, but did you, in aggregate, actually save lives? This isn't at all an easy question to answer, because some of the side effects of what we did as a society will be felt for decades. The kids who missed two years of school might and up on a completely different trajectory as result. The businesses that closed because they weren't allowed to be open are also going to lead to completely different outcomes. Adding all of these up isn't as simple as just claiming that you were saving lives. Ask yourself this: do you believe that the pandemic response by your government was perfect? If not, then wouldn't you want to know what could be done better and what mistakes were made?
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      of course it was not perfect, and plenty of great suggestions for what could be done better next time have already come out. just a few off the top of my head: - more funding for the pandemic response, including in red states - more consistent enforcement of public health measures, including in red states - more assistance for businesses forced to close - more assistance to individuals forced to go without income
      - nradov 4y ago
        No businesses should have been forced to close in the first place. That was always pointless pandemic theater. And there should have never been any enforcement at all. Any measures should be on a voluntary basis.
        ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        or, maybe some should have, and it wasn't, and there should have been, and they should not have been the important thing is that you got share your personal opinion, whether or not it is shared by a consensus of public health professionals OR of americans (it is not, by either)

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago

> Of course you're going to hear about it, because the response to it trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society. I never got why people who hold this opinion, despite it being an unpopular one, just announce it as if it's universally believed. As if most people don't believe "freedoms and rights" have limitations when they start affecting those of others. You personally believe there should be a different trade-off point than others do, that's all.

Aerroon 4y ago
>As if most people don't believe "freedoms and rights" have limitations when they start affecting those of others. Which is why it is very important to analyze the situation afterwards. Then you can tell whether somebody overstepped their authority. You can't just declare an emergency and then unilaterally decide that everything was done For The Greater Good and must never be questioned. If you impose your will onto others then you must have an extremely good justification for it. A justification that others analyze and criticize.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  > it is very important to analyze the situation afterwards which such analysis, conducted by who, concluded with the following quote: "the response ... trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society" ?
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    Yes, considering this affects everybody even if they don't agree with it, then everybody gets a say in it. You don't get to choose who can have an opinion and who doesn't when you impose your will onto others.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      you forgot to answer: which such analysis, conducted by who, concluded with the following quote: "the response ... trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society" ? if that is just a personal opinion, by you personally, then consider that everybody gets a say in it, not just you. And they did, and their say is not your say, no matter how many times you say it. at least you're being honest about the "analysis afterward" actually meaning "I announce my opinions as 1 person of hundreds of millions and am unable to defend it to the others"
      - Aerroon 4y ago
        What kind of analysis do you need for it? Were people stopped from going outside when they saw fit? Yes. Were people forced to wear articles of clothing (masks) that they might not have wanted to? Yes. Were people forced to take vaccines even if they didn't want to? Yes. These factors are absolutely against the freedoms and rights we enjoy in a modern society. No amount of mental gymnastics and redefining of words is going to change that. The question is whether it was justified.
nradov 4y ago
Saving lives isn't a sufficient justification for violating fundamental human rights such as freedom of movement and bodily autonomy.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  Your intentions can be noble, but did you, in aggregate, actually save lives? This isn't at all an easy question to answer, because some of the side effects of what we did as a society will be felt for decades. The kids who missed two years of school might and up on a completely different trajectory as result. The businesses that closed because they weren't allowed to be open are also going to lead to completely different outcomes. Adding all of these up isn't as simple as just claiming that you were saving lives. Ask yourself this: do you believe that the pandemic response by your government was perfect? If not, then wouldn't you want to know what could be done better and what mistakes were made?
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    of course it was not perfect, and plenty of great suggestions for what could be done better next time have already come out. just a few off the top of my head: - more funding for the pandemic response, including in red states - more consistent enforcement of public health measures, including in red states - more assistance for businesses forced to close - more assistance to individuals forced to go without income
    - nradov 4y ago
      No businesses should have been forced to close in the first place. That was always pointless pandemic theater. And there should have never been any enforcement at all. Any measures should be on a voluntary basis.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        or, maybe some should have, and it wasn't, and there should have been, and they should not have been the important thing is that you got share your personal opinion, whether or not it is shared by a consensus of public health professionals OR of americans (it is not, by either)