3 ms·

Remember when google and apple were reporting aggregate mobility data to the government to assist public health authorities assessing compliance with lockdowns?

Remember when google and apple were reporting aggregate mobility data to the government to assist public health authorities assessing compliance with lockdowns? Location and attendance tracking? Vaccine passports? It's hard to untangle now, there was some level of genuine concern for effective public health combined with a distressing measure of glee at the "justified" persecution of political enemies. "If you don't get that third booster you're KILLING GRANDMA and deserve to be FIRED." Most people want broad powers and high state capacity when the government is pursuing policy goals they are aligned with but would prefer a slow and ineffective government bound by "strict controls and oversight" when it is pursuing policy objectives they do not like.

lern_too_spel 2y ago
None of this has anything to do with the NYT, but you've made some other claims that seem to be warped interpretations of recent events. > Remember when google and apple were reporting aggregate mobility data to the government to assist public health authorities assessing compliance with lockdowns? Reporting aggregate mobility data isn't invasive monitoring by the government. The data was released publicly (https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/index.html https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/index.html and https://covid19.apple.com/mobility https://covid19.apple.com/mobility), not just to any one government, and provided no way to figure out where any particular person was. > genuine concern for effective public health combined with a distressing measure of glee at the "justified" persecution of political enemies. Is it not justified to enforce any law just because of the "distressing" thought that someone might take glee in the punishment of the person who broke that law? Either the law is correct public policy and enforced fairly or not. The glee or lack thereof of your political opponents has no bearing on which it is. > "If you don't get that third booster you're KILLING GRANDMA and deserve to be FIRED." The private sector required employees to vaccinate to keep their group insurance rates low and reduce disease-related work disruption. Should the government's hands be tied on keeping its own insurance rates low (and reducing cost to the public), absorbing the more expensive to insure people no longer employed in the private sector because of some public benefit that is worth the cost? That is a reasonable public policy question. Should the government's hands be tied because someone might take glee in its firing of people who don't get vaccinated? That is not a reasonable public policy question.

lern_too_spel 2y ago

None of this has anything to do with the NYT, but you've made some other claims that seem to be warped interpretations of recent events. > Remember when google and apple were reporting aggregate mobility data to the government to assist public health authorities assessing compliance with lockdowns? Reporting aggregate mobility data isn't invasive monitoring by the government. The data was released publicly (https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/index.html https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/index.html and https://covid19.apple.com/mobility https://covid19.apple.com/mobility), not just to any one government, and provided no way to figure out where any particular person was. > genuine concern for effective public health combined with a distressing measure of glee at the "justified" persecution of political enemies. Is it not justified to enforce any law just because of the "distressing" thought that someone might take glee in the punishment of the person who broke that law? Either the law is correct public policy and enforced fairly or not. The glee or lack thereof of your political opponents has no bearing on which it is. > "If you don't get that third booster you're KILLING GRANDMA and deserve to be FIRED." The private sector required employees to vaccinate to keep their group insurance rates low and reduce disease-related work disruption. Should the government's hands be tied on keeping its own insurance rates low (and reducing cost to the public), absorbing the more expensive to insure people no longer employed in the private sector because of some public benefit that is worth the cost? That is a reasonable public policy question. Should the government's hands be tied because someone might take glee in its firing of people who don't get vaccinated? That is not a reasonable public policy question.