3 ms·

I don't think anyone is questioning the existence of the institutions; armies can do what armies want for example and there isn't much anyone can do about it un

by roenxi 2y ago

I don't think anyone is questioning the existence of the institutions; armies can do what armies want for example and there isn't much anyone can do about it unless the army agrees with their plans. Can't get rid of armies though, we just do what we can and live with the residual risk. The issue is more that in this case the institutions did act, in a panicky and random fashion that seems to, on balance, not have helped but rather violated a large number of human rights and good principles for no particular gain. The only policies that seemed effective were quarantines, light contact tracing, removing red tape and funding R&D. We can do all those things without unduly coercing anyone, they're pretty minor inconveniences compared to the madness that was actually unleashed.

wrs 2y ago
It seemed like you were questioning the need for the institution, but public health is as needed as defense, so maybe you’re equating them. You left out vaccinations (obviously effective) and mask mandates (somewhat effective but certainly falls under minor inconvenience) — which are pretty standard public health playbook, so I’m assuming those aren’t considered part of the madness. The lockdowns were pretty crazy, but recall their goal was mostly to avoid the breakdown of the entire health care system pre-vaccination. There wasn’t any precedent for how to do that.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > You left out vaccinations (obviously effective) and mask mandates (somewhat effective but certainly falls under minor inconvenience) The authoritarian tactics used to impose both of those were ineffective, or at least can't be justified on the evidence. Otherwise all the people trying to justify their brush with their inner Nazi would be able to put up a good argument for what they advocated for. Both measures failed to stop the spread of COVID, the evidence they had any effect on the number of people who eventually caught it is hard to some up with even as a thought experiment (elsewhere in the thread Retric theorised that the change in viral load would be significant, which is a weak attempt but the best I've seen so far, and also sounds hard to test for). In many cases the vaccines explicit weren't checked for effects on transmission.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Both measures failed to stop the spread of COVID And were never intended to.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Calling that Nazi-like is just pathetic.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Yup - it's just a dumb epithet, in this context. Which ironically suggests a certain authoritarian/bullying streak on the part of the person employing it.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      There was a crisis, they banded together, identified the enemy withing and started a campaign to strip them of their rights. They knew they can't get their way with persuasion so they go straight to coercion and might-makes-right logic. Call them what you want, they aren't principled people. Very much a scum rising to the top scenario. We saw the illiberals making a power play during COVID, they're cut from the same cloth as all the other authoritarians. They were even using the old "you're killing us" logic and people making up a you-struck-first narrative is a reasonable precursor to some really terrible things.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > identified the enemy within > the old "you're killing us" logic The analogy falls apart when the target is a behavior and not a way to go after any innate qualities that groups of people have.
        roenxi 2y ago
        If the plan is to defend authoritarianism, I might just observe that "well they're targeting the right groups this time" is not a line that is going to get much traction with me. The problem here is not a group of people you've decided to dehumanise to the point where their basic rights aren't a factor. The problem is authoritarian tactics being visibly and enthusiastically used by people who's role is to uphold the opposite values. If you put people in charge who only believe in using one bad tool, they eventually use it on everyone because they don't understand how to do things in a morally reasonable way.

by roenxi 2y ago

wrs 2y ago

It seemed like you were questioning the need for the institution, but public health is as needed as defense, so maybe you’re equating them. You left out vaccinations (obviously effective) and mask mandates (somewhat effective but certainly falls under minor inconvenience) — which are pretty standard public health playbook, so I’m assuming those aren’t considered part of the madness. The lockdowns were pretty crazy, but recall their goal was mostly to avoid the breakdown of the entire health care system pre-vaccination. There wasn’t any precedent for how to do that.

roenxi 2y ago
> You left out vaccinations (obviously effective) and mask mandates (somewhat effective but certainly falls under minor inconvenience) The authoritarian tactics used to impose both of those were ineffective, or at least can't be justified on the evidence. Otherwise all the people trying to justify their brush with their inner Nazi would be able to put up a good argument for what they advocated for. Both measures failed to stop the spread of COVID, the evidence they had any effect on the number of people who eventually caught it is hard to some up with even as a thought experiment (elsewhere in the thread Retric theorised that the change in viral load would be significant, which is a weak attempt but the best I've seen so far, and also sounds hard to test for). In many cases the vaccines explicit weren't checked for effects on transmission.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Both measures failed to stop the spread of COVID And were never intended to.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Calling that Nazi-like is just pathetic.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Yup - it's just a dumb epithet, in this context. Which ironically suggests a certain authoritarian/bullying streak on the part of the person employing it.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    There was a crisis, they banded together, identified the enemy withing and started a campaign to strip them of their rights. They knew they can't get their way with persuasion so they go straight to coercion and might-makes-right logic. Call them what you want, they aren't principled people. Very much a scum rising to the top scenario. We saw the illiberals making a power play during COVID, they're cut from the same cloth as all the other authoritarians. They were even using the old "you're killing us" logic and people making up a you-struck-first narrative is a reasonable precursor to some really terrible things.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > identified the enemy within > the old "you're killing us" logic The analogy falls apart when the target is a behavior and not a way to go after any innate qualities that groups of people have.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        If the plan is to defend authoritarianism, I might just observe that "well they're targeting the right groups this time" is not a line that is going to get much traction with me. The problem here is not a group of people you've decided to dehumanise to the point where their basic rights aren't a factor. The problem is authoritarian tactics being visibly and enthusiastically used by people who's role is to uphold the opposite values. If you put people in charge who only believe in using one bad tool, they eventually use it on everyone because they don't understand how to do things in a morally reasonable way.