4 ms·

> During the outbreak of Covid-19, freedoms were sharply curtailed with draconian constraints on civil liberties The bigger point there instead being that: dur

by mdp2021 2y ago

> During the outbreak of Covid-19, freedoms were sharply curtailed with draconian constraints on civil liberties The bigger point there instead being that: during the outbreak of the epidemic people have been treated like fucking retards deemed incapable of responsible behaviour. Which not only insulted everyone and spawned absurd rules - it is sinisterly forgetful of the fact and "root problem" that you cannot have a society of said "retards". Not very different should be the perspective on the abuse of otherwise instruments, tools and devices.

pasabagi 2y ago
I think I'm pretty good for a layperson at statistics + public health stuff, and a lot of the precautions we ended up taking in the pandemic were news to me: for instance, the effect of masks on protecting others, the relationship of infection surges to mass casualty events, and so on. I figure a lot of people are just not used to following rules (they're office workers who don't wear PPE at work, etc) so when they had to follow rules, they freak out.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > people are just not used to When the situation is "there is an epidemic of a disease transmitted from human to humans" that people do not go breathing in each other's face is not a matter of «follow[ing] rules» but following good common sense. If people freak out realizing and following good common sense, there is a massive societal problem. And going to the matter of «freedoms ... curtailed», the instantiation of "treat them like retards" had been to forbid people in deserts to leave the house*. If the administrations arrive to absurd satanic ruling, there is again a massive societal problem. The problem remains not with freedom per se but with (the absence of) intellectual light. (*Of course, not in all states worldwide.)
  - pasabagi 2y ago
    Expertise exists. You can ask a hundred non-mathematicians what a circle is, and get a hundred incoherent answers. Sometimes, you just have to recognize that you don't have the requisite training to respond to a problem, and just follow advice from people who do.
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      This post does not seem to have much relation to what I wrote. The article writer wrote that during the epidemic freedoms where curtailed; I noted that more importantly, the citizens of democratic societies, that constitutionally see their members as empowered, in regulations became de facto elements regarded as fools. It is a paradox and reveals a bigger problem: liabilities should not be free to start with and the role of the state is to diminish their number in favour of the mature (reliable etc). So, the problem of freedom that the article author mentions so swiftly is shallowly treated. There is no need to have any «requisite training», in this occasional context, to know that you cannot go around and sneeze on people, that you cannot risk people's health lightly, that "do not meet people" does not equate to "do not leave the house". It is just a matter of basic wits. When basics are supposed as missing a massive societal problem is revealed. Pointing the focus over freedom when the ground approach is regarding people as fools is missing a bigger point. In some territories people have been forbidden to live the house - not in New York or Singapore or Valletta, but in the remote countryside and mountainside; in some territories people have been forbidden to take a walk in the night. Beyond the limitation of freedom there is a labelling of the population as mentally underage. Technical-scientific-medical competence over e.g. the effectiveness of masks has nothing to do with it. And for what «expertise» and «advice» are concerned - which were not at all part of my argument -, many administrations have made it very apparent that they had no credibility or substantial authority. This again, underlines a massive societal problem. Citizens are required to have basic wits and much more - and administrations with even more reason.
      - pasabagi 2y ago
        Democracy is not supposed to settle technical questions. It is supposed to settle questions about societal goals and moires. As such, there's no need for anybody to know about anything technical. And they don't: the president of the US suggested injecting bleach. The prime minister of the UK bragged loudly about shaking hands with absolutely everyone. The various interventions vis-a-vis night-time strolls were basically technical measures in the end of a widely-agreed upon goal: avoiding mass casualties. You can say you are fine with the casualties. You can become an expert and identify a mistake in the argumentation. You can't vote on what the facts are, and whether or not 'do not leave the house' moves case rates up or down is a fact.

pasabagi 2y ago

I think I'm pretty good for a layperson at statistics + public health stuff, and a lot of the precautions we ended up taking in the pandemic were news to me: for instance, the effect of masks on protecting others, the relationship of infection surges to mass casualty events, and so on. I figure a lot of people are just not used to following rules (they're office workers who don't wear PPE at work, etc) so when they had to follow rules, they freak out.

mdp2021 2y ago
> people are just not used to When the situation is "there is an epidemic of a disease transmitted from human to humans" that people do not go breathing in each other's face is not a matter of «follow[ing] rules» but following good common sense. If people freak out realizing and following good common sense, there is a massive societal problem. And going to the matter of «freedoms ... curtailed», the instantiation of "treat them like retards" had been to forbid people in deserts to leave the house*. If the administrations arrive to absurd satanic ruling, there is again a massive societal problem. The problem remains not with freedom per se but with (the absence of) intellectual light. (*Of course, not in all states worldwide.)
- pasabagi 2y ago
  Expertise exists. You can ask a hundred non-mathematicians what a circle is, and get a hundred incoherent answers. Sometimes, you just have to recognize that you don't have the requisite training to respond to a problem, and just follow advice from people who do.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    This post does not seem to have much relation to what I wrote. The article writer wrote that during the epidemic freedoms where curtailed; I noted that more importantly, the citizens of democratic societies, that constitutionally see their members as empowered, in regulations became de facto elements regarded as fools. It is a paradox and reveals a bigger problem: liabilities should not be free to start with and the role of the state is to diminish their number in favour of the mature (reliable etc). So, the problem of freedom that the article author mentions so swiftly is shallowly treated. There is no need to have any «requisite training», in this occasional context, to know that you cannot go around and sneeze on people, that you cannot risk people's health lightly, that "do not meet people" does not equate to "do not leave the house". It is just a matter of basic wits. When basics are supposed as missing a massive societal problem is revealed. Pointing the focus over freedom when the ground approach is regarding people as fools is missing a bigger point. In some territories people have been forbidden to live the house - not in New York or Singapore or Valletta, but in the remote countryside and mountainside; in some territories people have been forbidden to take a walk in the night. Beyond the limitation of freedom there is a labelling of the population as mentally underage. Technical-scientific-medical competence over e.g. the effectiveness of masks has nothing to do with it. And for what «expertise» and «advice» are concerned - which were not at all part of my argument -, many administrations have made it very apparent that they had no credibility or substantial authority. This again, underlines a massive societal problem. Citizens are required to have basic wits and much more - and administrations with even more reason.
    - pasabagi 2y ago
      Democracy is not supposed to settle technical questions. It is supposed to settle questions about societal goals and moires. As such, there's no need for anybody to know about anything technical. And they don't: the president of the US suggested injecting bleach. The prime minister of the UK bragged loudly about shaking hands with absolutely everyone. The various interventions vis-a-vis night-time strolls were basically technical measures in the end of a widely-agreed upon goal: avoiding mass casualties. You can say you are fine with the casualties. You can become an expert and identify a mistake in the argumentation. You can't vote on what the facts are, and whether or not 'do not leave the house' moves case rates up or down is a fact.