Lockdowns and rights
It is far from clear to me that lockdowns to prevent a virus from spreading are ethically justified. The more I think about it, the more unjust they strike me.
For instance, imagine Jane and Bill want to meet. And Jane and Bill know full well that were they to meet, they will subsequently die as a result. Nevertheless, they still want to. That is, they value more highly meeting one another than continuing to live.
Okay - am I entitled to stop them meeting? I think it is intuitively obvious that I am not. Who am I to do so? They are free agents, and they understand the consequences of their actions at least as well as I do, and so it would be, well, somewhat outrageous of me to stop them meeting. I mean, their act strikes me as quite unwise. It may even, perhaps, be unethical (for perhaps it is unethical to do something you know will kill you, exceptional circumstances aside). But even so, I do not seem justified in preventing them from meeting. And nor do you.
We recognize this in other contexts, for patients are allowed to refuse treatment, aren't they, even if their refusal will result in their deaths. That's their right. So we have a right to do things with our lives, including things we know will result in their termination, if we want to.
Now let's imagine that rather than knowing they will die if they meet, they just know that there is a small chance they will. Maybe a chance of, say, 100:1. Okay, well surely if I am not justified in preventing them from meeting when it was certain they'd both die and they knew this, I am surely not justified in preventing them from meeting when there is just a relatively small risk that they'll die. That seems clear.
Well, isn't that the situation we're all in with the pandemic? We know that if we associate with others, there's a risk we'll get the virus or, if we unknowingly have it already, pass it on to others. But, well, so long as we all know this, surely no one has the right to stop us associating if we want to?
Things would be different if you knew that you had the virus and knew that others did not know this. For now you are knowingly exposing others to a risk that they did not know they'd be exposed to. But that's not the situation. If the situation is that there is a population of people who know that there is just a risk that they'll die by associating - but a mutual risk - then it seems to me quite unjust to prevent such people from associating if they so wish.
Nothing stops individuals from locking themselves down if they so wish. If you judge that the risk of getting the virus is just too great to justify associating with others, then so be it: no one is making you associate with others, so just don't. Yes, it'll cost you your job or your business. But then you clearly value more highly not running the risk of getting a virus than you do your job. And it would be quite unjust for anyone to force you to go to work or force you to keep running your business, wouldn't it?
Well, the reverse is surely true too. if it would be wrong to force you to go to work if you do not want to, surely it is wrong to force you not to if you want to?
It seems to me, then, that lockdowns are unjust. Individuals can make their own judgements about risks and benefits. And it is not for others to impose a one-size fits all judgement about the matter on a population as a whole. So long as we're all innocent threats to one another, we should be free to associate (if, that is, we want to).
For instance, imagine Jane and Bill want to meet. And Jane and Bill know full well that were they to meet, they will subsequently die as a result. Nevertheless, they still want to. That is, they value more highly meeting one another than continuing to live.
Okay - am I entitled to stop them meeting? I think it is intuitively obvious that I am not. Who am I to do so? They are free agents, and they understand the consequences of their actions at least as well as I do, and so it would be, well, somewhat outrageous of me to stop them meeting. I mean, their act strikes me as quite unwise. It may even, perhaps, be unethical (for perhaps it is unethical to do something you know will kill you, exceptional circumstances aside). But even so, I do not seem justified in preventing them from meeting. And nor do you.
We recognize this in other contexts, for patients are allowed to refuse treatment, aren't they, even if their refusal will result in their deaths. That's their right. So we have a right to do things with our lives, including things we know will result in their termination, if we want to.
Now let's imagine that rather than knowing they will die if they meet, they just know that there is a small chance they will. Maybe a chance of, say, 100:1. Okay, well surely if I am not justified in preventing them from meeting when it was certain they'd both die and they knew this, I am surely not justified in preventing them from meeting when there is just a relatively small risk that they'll die. That seems clear.
Well, isn't that the situation we're all in with the pandemic? We know that if we associate with others, there's a risk we'll get the virus or, if we unknowingly have it already, pass it on to others. But, well, so long as we all know this, surely no one has the right to stop us associating if we want to?
Things would be different if you knew that you had the virus and knew that others did not know this. For now you are knowingly exposing others to a risk that they did not know they'd be exposed to. But that's not the situation. If the situation is that there is a population of people who know that there is just a risk that they'll die by associating - but a mutual risk - then it seems to me quite unjust to prevent such people from associating if they so wish.
Nothing stops individuals from locking themselves down if they so wish. If you judge that the risk of getting the virus is just too great to justify associating with others, then so be it: no one is making you associate with others, so just don't. Yes, it'll cost you your job or your business. But then you clearly value more highly not running the risk of getting a virus than you do your job. And it would be quite unjust for anyone to force you to go to work or force you to keep running your business, wouldn't it?
Well, the reverse is surely true too. if it would be wrong to force you to go to work if you do not want to, surely it is wrong to force you not to if you want to?
It seems to me, then, that lockdowns are unjust. Individuals can make their own judgements about risks and benefits. And it is not for others to impose a one-size fits all judgement about the matter on a population as a whole. So long as we're all innocent threats to one another, we should be free to associate (if, that is, we want to).
Comments (216)
I am far more at risk from social violence now than I was 18 months ago. Anyone that wants to dispute this can simply go for a walk, or go shopping, exactly as they would have 18 months ago: Mask free and with friends. See if there is any difference in how other people react now, as opposed to say, October 15, 2019. I am betting people feel much less safe now. That is a definable difference brought about by the abundance of caution approach: we live in generalized fear and anxiety...of the idea of maybe getting sick. This is something we teach our children, when they are children, to not be fearful of. We will get sick in our lives and the vast majority of us will survive it and be stronger for it. That is what we taught our children. Now we are teaching them to be fearful of illness, to have no faith in their natural ability to fight illness, and to believe that, without pharmaceutical intervention, they will get sick and die. What a damaging and horrible fallacy. Look at our population numbers...look at our history...we are doing fine without the lockdown.
In the end the lockdowns will kill far more people than the virus ever did. The entire episode's been an exercise in mass hysteria and social control. A preview of what's coming, now that the powers that be have seen how compliant and easily controlled we are.
Can you elaborate on this? Interested on how lockdowns, in themselves, will kill more people.
You doodle around for a few paragraphs then you finally get down to this. It's not that you take a chance on dying, it's that you take a chance on passing the disease on to others. There's a long history of government putting restrictions on people's behavior for a public health purpose. You can't dump your sewage into the river that passes through your property. Your children can't go to school unless they get their vaccinations. You can't smoke in public places. It's my understanding that New York City made ordinances against spitting to stop the spread of tuberculosis. You can't let toxic substances from you industrial processes into the air.
Maybe you think these are not justified or are unethical. If so, it's too late. This fight is over. It has been determined that the government has the authority to take these actions.
Whether or not lockdowns are needed in this situation is another question which I'm not addressing here. That's an issue of how the results of science are applied to political decisions. That is very interesting to me, but it's not the subject at hand.
One thing I will say - a lockdown is a very intrusive and disruptive action. It has severe consequences. Fighting the need to have those restrictions is legitimate. Masks, on the other hand, are an inconvenience. To equate the two or to somehow claim being required to wear a mask is a violation of your rights is a joke. Just put on the damn mask.
It took maybe a decade for a solid consensus to form about safe sex, condoms, HIV testing, and so on.
In contrast to the 40 years of HIV (which has not disappeared) the process of consensus guided behavior for Covid-19 developed far quicker--about 12 months. It developed rapidly because, unlike AIDS, anybody and everybody could catch Covid-19 unless they were scrupulously careful about exposure.
Communicable diseases, whether they spread through the air or through precious bodily fluids, are always a community affair. So yes, people should avoid exposing themselves and others to Covid-19. And yes, the dive bar you were going to go to on your suicide errand should be closed for the duration.
Had public health measures been taken to suppress HIV that were as vigorous as Covid 19, many of the 700,000 Americans who died of AIDS in the last 40 years would have lived. 18,000 Americans still die of AIDS every year, even though we can now prevent most of those deaths.
The deaths of at least 530,000 people from Covid 19 in one year is enough to lower the average life span of Americans.s
Just put your fucking mask on and stay the hell away from everybody else -- 6 feet. And wash your hands, too. Get the vaccine, too, or else. Can you manage all that?
This is exactly the kind of mindless response I expected. I pulled a few links in support of the point I made, which you can read or not. The links reference reports by the likes of the UN and UNICEF and other reputable sources of information. I say again: In the end, the lockdowns will kill more people than the virus. I stand by this claim. Any fair minded person can see that I did not say the things you imputed to me. You can also look up the statistics on excess global deaths for 2020, which are barely above normal.
https://unglobalcompact.org/take-action/20th-anniversary-campaign/covid-related%20hunger-could-kill-more-people-than-the-virus
https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/lockdowns-could-kill-more-people-than-covid-19/
https://fortune.com/2021/01/06/covid-pandemic-recession-unemployment-mortality-rate-increase/
https://www.axios.com/navarro-coronavirus-lockdown-ef2a1335-661b-4f8b-a3a4-79af244f9bbf.html
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/12/do-lockdowns-kill-more-people-than-they-save-how-quickly-can-the-economy-bounce-back/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/unicef-warns-lockdown-could-kill-covid-19-model-predicts-12/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/seeing-the-invisible/estimating-the-true-magnitude-of-the-pandemic-and-lockdown-deaths-part-1/
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/lengthy-lockdown-will-kill-more-people-than-covid-murthy/articleshow/75459491.cms?from=mdr
Please see my response to @tim wood above. I stand by my claim.
Do people have any idea of the effects of the lockdown on substance abuse, domestic violence, child suicides? Some more links on the latter. You can Google dozens of more stories like this. It's shameful that so many well-meaning people are hypnotized into ignorance by the mainstream hysteria.
We're also starting to see statistical evidence that lockdowns weren't all that effective. For example Florida and California had similar outcomes even though Cali was locked down tight and Florida much more loose. You'll see more information coming out along these lines in the coming months.
Finally as I said in my previous post, excess global deaths aren't much greater for 2020 than they otherwise would have been. When an 80 year old with cancer and pneumonia dies of (or with) covid, they would have died anyway. And a large plurality (if not outright majority) of covid deaths were among old people with multiple comorbidities. Every death is a tragedy, but intelligent and thoughtful people need to be able to hold two ideas in their minds: One, that the deaths are bad; and two, that in many cases they have been politicized.
Toxic lockdown' sees huge rise in babies harmed or killed". This is from that well-known conspiracy theory site, the BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-54827702
"Child Suicides Rising During Lockdown" from WebMD. Another notorious site from covid deniers.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210210/child-suicides-rising-during-lockdown
"Child Psychiatrists Warn That The Pandemic May Be Driving Up Kids' Suicide Risk" from NPR. Oh NPR, they're the worst. The Devil's very playground.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/02/962060105/child-psychiatrists-warn-that-the-pandemic-may-be-driving-up-kids-suicide-risk
"Child suicides are rising during lockdown: Watch for the warning signs"
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-02-child-suicides-lockdown.html\
"Escalating Suicide Rates Among School Children During COVID-19 Pandemic and Lockdown Period: An Alarming Psychosocial Issue"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0253717620982514
Quoting Bitter Crank
Aw shucks.
Quoting Trips
Please see the links in this post and my previous one. You can easily find many more by typing "lockdown deaths" and "child suicide lockdowns" and similar phrases into the search engine of your choice. And thank you for simply asking for background and supporting evidence, rather than parroting mindless hysteria and false accusatios like certain people I could name, @tim wood.
Well the hell with the kids then. They ain't dead so eff 'em.
Quoting tim wood
I stand by what I wrote and expect to be vindicated by history once the hysteria passes. Compared to the Spanish flu of 1918, covid has been very minor in terms of excess deaths. The death rate is far far lower than we were initially told. There has been a sickening lack of thoughtfulness in the actions and public pronouncements of politicians and public health officials. I expect people to understand this point of view more over the next few years as people being to put this all into perspective. Right now I'm standing in the middle of a witch burning with a bucket of water. It's futile but the viewpoint needs to be expressed regardless. More important now, when it's unpopular, than a few years from now when it will be obvious in retrospect.
The overreaction and politicization have been horrible. Consider if nothing else that one week anti-mask demonstrations were evil, and the very next week BLM [s]riots[/s] mostly peaceful demonstrations were just oh-so-safe. One week we get propaganda photos of nurses standing in front of cars to confront anti-maskers; the very next week, photos of nurses protesting police brutality. A thoughtful and independent person like myself knows that a virus doesn't discriminate based on politics. Can't you recognize politicized media coverage when it's right in front of you?
Quoting tim wood
We live in an age of tremendous political conformity. Step out of line and get cancelled. I wonder why so many are ok with it. It's worse than the 1950's. Our only hope is to remember that the children of the 50's turned into the hippies. The 2030's are going to be wild.
It's also ethics they don't understand. Ethics involves care for others; that seems to be beyond their comprehension.
That's a really nasty remark with little or no thought behind it. Don't you have compassion for the victims of the lockdown? It's a lot like environmentalism. Every time you reduce the parts-per-million of pollutants in the air, the liberals in NY and LA are happy. And a few hundred thousand third-worlders die of malnutrition secondary to rising energy costs. A lot of people hide behind compassion out of an excess of arrogant thoughtlessness.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. People who think they know better but don't are a great source of evil in the world. You know that liberal condescension is the greatest knee on the neck of black people in this country for the last 60 years. Read the Moynahan report. He pretty much got cancelled for writing it and never mentioned it again.
You don't know what you don't know, friend. Thoughtless do-gooders have killed more people than the actually evil ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action
https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/
Quoting Book273
You may be right. Walk down the streets of Melbourne without a mask and folk will yell things like "Put a mask on, you fuckin' dickhead".
Of course, you could always just put on a mask.
If you can dial down the insults for a moment, is it selfish of me to care about the locked down kids killing themselves because the can't go to school? The fentanyl deaths even right here in my little town? Not to mention the horrendous effects on the third world due to the disruptions in the global supply chain. When food prices go up, I pay a little more at the grocery. Impoverished peasants die.
Does caring about these things, or calling attention to them, make me a selfish dick? I'm asking you. Can't you see past the hysterical propaganda to the far more complex and nuanced reality underneath?
The lockdown was an economic disaster for service workers in closed businesses -- absolutely no doubt about that. Use of food shelves has been very high. Homelessness has increased too.
Still, 530,000 dead from Covid-19 in the US is unlikely to be matched by deaths from domestic turmoil caused by the lockdown. 2.6 million Covid deaths world-wide is more than a blip on the radar, but it's a fraction of world deaths from all causes. By contrast, in the 1918 Influenza Epidemic, about 1/3 of the world's population became infected with influenza and around 50 million died -- that at a time when world population was significantly smaller than now -- below 2B. 50 million dead from influenza was close to a doubling of total deaths world wide.
I didn't look at your list of links -- too late just now to do that, bed time coming up. But I still think the strategic business closures, social distancing, mask wearing, and avoidance of group gatherings helped.
One reason for thinking that it helped, is that there are many reports of reduced colds, flu, and such.
:rofl:
But fentanyl, oxycodone, heroine, meth, other drugs, and alcohol have been a leading cause of death in the affected demographic for 2 or 3 years, at least -- haven't they?
Careful, you're going to end up in the same barrel of opprobrium that I stepped into. Whatever you do, don't be thoughtful. Hey seriously I'm feeling a little bruised. Thanks for the rationality.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Me too, the funny thing is that my own personal lifestyle barely changed this past year. How pathetic is that!
Quoting Bitter Crank
You tell the kids they can't go to the bar but they can go to the riot. So you get riots. And peaceful protests that turn into riots once the Antifa maniacs (all middle-class white kids) start burning things down.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes but you see coastal liberals don't give a shit about working people. They used to, the old Wobblies and the labor movement was supported by leftists. Today leftists don't care at all about working people. Bunch of deplorable racists. Part of the corruption of liberals I rail about. Frosts my butt because I used to be a liberal. Still am. It's the liberals who changed. I care about the working people destroyed by the lockdowns. And for this I get called a "selfish dick." Thanks @@Banno, you should know better and you should be ashamed of what's happened to liberalism. Liberals used to care about working people. That was a long time ago.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, I don't discount or deny the deaths. It DOES happen to be the case that a lot of those people died WITH covid and not FROM it, and that global net excess deaths aren't going to turn out nearly as bad as people think, because for the most part only old people died of covid. Yes there's anecdotal evidence of young deaths, but for the most part it's people who were going to die anyway of something else.
Quoting Bitter Crank
My point exactly. Thanks so much. I really appreciate your response. I took more personal abuse than I was expecting for the fundamentally obvious points I was making. Percentage-wise in terms of fataility rates, total deaths, and excess deaths, all of that versus the effects of the lockdowns, in the end I stand by my initial remarks and wish some of my detractors would put some thought into the matter.
Quoting Bitter Crank
We'll see! You can find anecdotal evidence that masking and lockdowns function more as a means of social signaling than health preservation. We'll have to way for the politicized statistics to roll in over the next couple of years.
Thanks much for your post.
I believe the numbers are up this year. A lot of statistical sifting will happen over the next couple of years and maybe people will get more perspective. But you know flu deaths are way down this year. Why is that? Well masks and social distancing and lockdowns, maybe. And maybe a lot of flu deaths were recorded as covid. The diseases look similar and you can make anyone have a positive covid test by running enough PCR cycles.
Grrrr snarl rowrrorrwrnrrrowr
I'll close for the evening by linking and quoting a nice article by Jonathan Sumption, writing in The Telegraph.
https://archive.is/WDOBR
Liberal democracy will be the biggest casualty of this pandemic
The state's unprecedented overreach has fundamentally altered the unwritten conventions that underpin our political system
[i]What makes us a free society is that, although the state has vast powers, there are conventional limits on what it can do with them. The limits are conventional because they do not depend on our laws but on our attitudes. There are islands of human life which are our own, a personal space into which the state should not intrude without some altogether exceptional justification.
Liberal democracy breaks down when frightened majorities demand mass coercion of their fellow citizens, and call for our personal spaces to be invaded. These demands are invariably based on what people conceive to be the public good. They all assert that despotism is in the public interest.[/i]
and ...
[i]I do not doubt that there are extreme situations in which oppressive controls over our daily lives may be necessary and justified: an imminent threat of invasion, for example, or a violent general insurrection. Some health crises may qualify, such as a major epidemic of smallpox (case mortality about 30 per cent) or Ebola (about 50 per cent).
Covid-19 is serious, but it is not in that category or even close. It is well within the range of perils which we have always had to live with, and always will. According to government figures, more than 99 per cent of people who get Covid survive. The great majority will not even get seriously ill. The average age at which people die of Covid-19 is 82, which is close to the average age at which people die anyway.[/i]
Much more in the article. Instead of venting your spleen at the likes of me, take a deep breath and give this article a read.
https://archive.is/WDOBR
No.
Most people would rather keep their jobs than avoid being exposed to the risk of infection. Evidence: if there were no lockdowns, most people would still go to work rather than locking down personally and losing their jobs. Now who are you to decide that no, despite this they should be forced to lockdown even if it costs them their jobs? Lock yourself down if the virus risk worries you that much, but don't insist others do the same. Let people decide for themselves bossy boots
My argument works regardless of the numbers of deaths involved. It's about one's right to take risks with one's own life if one wants. Imagine everyone apart from you gets an illness that can easily be cured, but no one wants to take the cure and would rather die. Well, that's everyone's right, yes? Are you entitled to make them take the cure? No. Yet in that scenario everyone apart from you dies.
My argument is not about numbers. It works just the same if the risk of death is 100%.
As for HIV- presumably you think that sex should be banned until we can cure it, yes?
No.
Why? I mean, there's no question such a policy would reduce such assaults. So why would it nevertheless be unjust?
Seems like you didn't read my post or just decided to ignore what I said.
I ask no one to do what I do. I am nowhere near pretentious enough to attempt to mandate them to do what I want. I firmly support personal autonomy and personal responsibility. Apparently that makes me part of the minority, and therefore irrelevant, although no less morally correct.
You make the call, you live, or die, with the results. IF you chose to drive drunk and you kill yourself, or someone else, that's on you. You don't get to whine that no one saved you from yourself and that none of it is your fault because of someone else's lack of action. You do it, you own it.
I will help anyone that is willing to help themselves and no one who isn't. Helping hands up, not handouts.
In an atomized population your argument works. In a society where individual behavior makes a difference to other people, whether intended or not, your argument doesn't work, because:
individual risk taking has social costs -- HIV is a very good example, and so is covid-19. Caring for sick people requires an allocation of resources which can be exhausted by excessive disease. The set of covid-19 control measures was designed to prevent scarce resources--icu departments in particular, and hospitals in general, from being overwhelmed.
"Individuals can do whatever they want to do as long as it affects only them" does apply in many situations, but public health costs isn't one of them.
No, that was the Dead Kennedys. But I'm sure Patrick Henry would have said it.
I believe the government has the legitimate authority to place reasonable restrictions on people's lives in order to protect public health. Seems like you disagree with that. I also believe that government has the legitimate authority to act following legally established procedures whether or not everyone agrees. Perhaps you disagree with that too. My conclusion is that reasonable restrictions during this pandemic are ethical. There is no need for us to wait for your agreement to proceed.
Absolutely. If hospitals are overwhelmed you end up with a much bigger and long lasting problem.
Also, I'm wondering what the anti-masker/lockdown people would say if the virus had been spread by terrorists, using let's say a biological bomb, because I don't remember hearing too much bitching when civil liberties and privacy were permanently eroded as a consequence of the attacks on 9/11 and such. It would probably go like, "Wear a mask or you're helping the terrorists!"
Most deaths are perfectly normal and not tragic in the least.
Please explain how every death is a tragedy. Then explain how deaths are bad. I don't follow either of these assumptions. It's like rain is bad and when rivers flow into the ocean it is a tragedy. Natural, normal and predictable linear systems, somehow bad and tragic?
Does that mean it would be ethical or moral to put restrictions on individuals behavior, on your behavior, if you agreed with the reasoning behind it? That's not what I thought you were saying.
Imagine there are three people in existence: you, me and Brian. I don't know if I've got a deadly virus, but I know it is possible. And that is also the situation for the rest of you. And we all know this. Well, if I nevertheless want to meet Brian and brian wants to meet me, then you have no right to stop us, yes?
If we want to visit you but you do not wish us to, then you do have the right to stop us visiting you. You can lock yourself on your property. But if brian and I want to meet you are not entitled to lock us in to stop us, correct?
Now just change the numbers, realize that's what lockdowns involve, and learn not to be so bossy and impose your lifestyle choices and values on others!! As Shaw said, do not do as you would be done by, for others may not share your tastes!
If everything that my Government tells me about the Pandemic is on the up and up, why am I not allowed to question anything?
In my job I am expected to advocate for my patients, however, I am also expected to make my employer look good. At times these goals are not compatible. I choose to advocate for my patients, provide the best patient care that I can and, in so doing, recognize that I risk my career. Others decide differently, and I understand that too. Risking your income is one thing, risking the income of your entire family is something different entirely.
You and Brian are free to take a chance at infecting each other, but you have to assume all the risks involved which includes becoming an extra burden on an already overwhelmed health care system.
I guess, you can meet with Brian, for as long as you don't seek medical care if you need it. The problem is that nobody can stop you from getting treatment.
So, I shall just decide, without asking you, that I will treat you should you get sick. Right - does that now give me the right to regulate your behaviour? No, obviously not.
Doctors usually treat anybody even people who brought the illness upon themselves. But when you don't have enough of them to care for everybody, it would be fair that at least the ones who took more risks would get treatment last. However, there's no way to keep track.
Which is another way of saying "it works". I do not know what you mean by an 'atomized' population. You're just clutching at straws.
So? You're not addressing or recognizing the point.
Again: if I decide that I am going to treat you if you get ill (I didn't ask you - there's no agreement between us - I have just decided to treat you if you get ill) am I now entitled to regulate your behaviour? Am I now entitled to insist you stay indoors if a virus is on the loose?
The answer is obvious. It's 'no'.
Perhaps a vaccination...?
The point is, since you need reading assistance, we do live in a society with obligations, Maggie T. not withstanding, and what we do individually affects other people.
Obtuse abject obliviousness would 'work' for you IF you lived in an atomized society (like the isolation wing of a prison) but you don't--as far as I can tell, but appearances can be misleading.
Public Health officials have the authority (and power) required to regulate behavior and impose quarantines or vaccination requirements, if the threat is dire and high enough. For the common cold, no. For ebola, yes. For Covid 19, yes. For polio, yes. For mumps, measles, and chickenpox, yes.
If not treating for self inflicted issues were an option we could likely cut 30% from the healthcare budget overnight. That would also result in monster job loss. Healthcare has lots of direct and indirect employees.
You may have agreed to treat me without asking me because of the oath you swear, but I don't believe this oath is without conditions. It works well in normal times, but when resources become scarce the agreement should be allowed to change. Why? Because dead doctors won't be very useful for society.
For example, the change could be caring first for the ones who have taken steps to protect themselves and others(and I understand how stupid that would be). How do you enforce it? You can't, so you have to take a different approach, like lockdowns (which in my opinion are the result of countries being totally unprepared for a pandemic)
No, I don't know what you use the term 'atomized society' to mean. It is not a term I have ever used in my life.
Now, it seems that you mean by it a collection of individuals who do not have any social obligations.
What do you mean by a social obligation? Do you mean obligations to be social? Or what?
Note, at no point have I suggested that individuals lack moral obligations to one another. We do have moral obligations to one another, including not to make each other do things. So, it seems I do not deny the 'atomized society' at least as you use the term.
I, for instance, have an obligation not to lock you down. Would you agree?
We're talking about moral rights. You don't need to describe the law of the land (plus I am not in your land).
So, put down your big book of laws, and engage your reason. Am I entitled - morally entitled - to turn down life saving treatment?
I have a bit of a cough right now (not covid induced, but smoke induced). Can you force me to take some cough medicine? Not 'are you physically able', but are you 'morally entitled' to make me take it for my own good?
No. That's the answer, yes?
If it is reason you want, then our response is obvious:
Not only do we think you are entitled to turn down life saving treatment, we INSIST you turn it down. In fact, you should avoid coming anywhere close to a health care facility -- even veterinarian. Who knows? You might have kennel cough. Best start digging a hole and then get into it.
The answers are obvious: yes, I am entitled not to take it, and yes, you'd be doing wrong - violating my rights - if you forced me to take it.
So, it is more important to respect my autonomy - my right to make my own decisions about how things go with my life - than it is to preserve my life.
Well, by the same token, if I know that by visiting Jane I will die, but I wish to visit her anyway, then you're not entitled to stop me.
So, if I want to go and see someone who may have a virus, I am entitled to do so, and they're entitled to see me. No one is entitled to stop us meeting.
If you don't want to meet me, you're entitled to stop me meeting you by staying indoors. I am not entitled to force my company on you.
But by the same token, you are not allowed to force me to stay indoors.
I would suggest that the real question is: Am I morally entitled to force life saving treatment upon you, regardless of your stance on it?
That is the crux of the lockdown issue.
I don't give a damn about coronavirus. To me it is just another bug. I find the morbidity and mortality rates associated with it hardly noticeable. Ebola is impressive, this isn't, at least, not in the "dire threat" department.
The reaction to this bug is mob panic, nothing more. However, as things sit, the mob IS forcing rule upon everyone, regardless of the actual threat. The perceived threat is enough and reality be damned. Current rules require that we hide in the basement, instead of working the farm, because it might rain, and we could then get wet, resulting in the death of our sickly. No one is allowed to mention the long reaching impacts of NOT working the farm; because that would be counter the mob direction. Don't stand in the way of a stampede, it ends badly for you. Run with the cattle and try to maybe calm them a little.
The point of the 'turning down medical treatment' thought experiment is to demonstrate that it is more important to respect an individual's autonomy, than it is to save their life.
We can then recognize that if two people wish to meet, knowing full well that by doing so they will both die, then it is more important to respect their autonomy than it is to ensure they do not die.
And then from there we can recognize that it is an outrage - graver than intervening in the above cases - to prevent people from freely deciding to meet when they know that there's a virus out and about that they may catch and may kill some of them.
Was it Stalin who said a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic? He'd know, he killed more people than Hitler but he was FDR's good buddy so we let Stalin have half of Europe after the war. Patton was right, we should have kept on going.
Anyway, "every death is a tragedy" is something you say when you're trying to get people to see that there is a balance between avoiding a death today only to create two deaths tomorrow, and they call you names because you're "heartless" and "an uncaring prick" and so forth. But I do believe every death is a tragedy, yet the two we cause tomorrow by avoiding one today need to be considered.
They're tragic to the deceased's friends and loved ones. I'm willing to stipulate that the covid deaths are bad but so are the collateral deaths and misery we're inflicting with the endless politicized lockdowns.
A year of hysterical media propaganda has really messed with people's minds.
I watched a Youtube video last night about Edward Bernays, the father of public relations. He was Freud's American nephew. He was the first person to realize that you can sell the public a war using the same techniques you use to get women to start smoking cigarettes ("Freedom torches!"). His name is forgotten but we live in the world he invented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
The wish to die from the course of a disease can be addressed in an advanced directive. In the directive you inform your doctors of the point at which you wish treatment to cease (especially if you are unable to speak for yourself). If you are awake and apparently mentally competent you can refuse further treatment live and in person. So, yes, you can refuse care, and it makes sense to do so IF and WHEN you have determined that life will not be meaningful to you even if you survive.
I have been present with friends who refused further care, and they went home to die (not very quickly, in one case).
Quoting Bartricks
So yes: You, individually, are free to visit Jane, even though you know you will contract her disease and will then die. Jack is free to visit Jane and Harry, even though he knows he will contract their disease and die. Jane and Harry are free to invite Jack to attend their party, as long as they have informed Jack of the risks.
There is a shift there from you knowingly taking risk upon yourself with Jane. Jack is similarly free to knowingly assume risks. Jane and Harry would be acting in very bad faith IF they invited Jack to a party (or a game of croquet) WITHOUT informing Jack of the risk.
Are 100 people free to hold a really big, wild sex orgy where several diseases will be contracted by many people?
There is another shift: large numbers of people accepting an ambiguous risk.
I would say that the public's stake in individual behavior increases as the number of people involved increases. You deciding to die from your illness is tolerable from the public's point of view. You are competent to discharge your life in that manner,
The further we get from one person deciding how to dispose of their own life, the more freighted the matter becomes. The 100-person orgy will eventually affect many more than 100 people who did not consent to the consequences.
These are not hypotheticals. People do, actually, organize sex parties where many people will engage in risky behavior. People serve alcohol to people who will leave the place very drunk,People hold weddings in indoor spaces where everyone will be at some risk from Covid-19. Bar owners open up and maybe 200-300 people show up at an indoor space where Covid-19 can be transmitted.
Your individual situation doesn't map to large social gatherings.
I think that the question of rights is complex because I certainly wouldn't be wishing to go out and interacting with people and spreading the virus. However, the problem is that the rules are so extreme and we don't really know when or if this will end at all. In England, extreme sanctions have been in place for a year with very brief forms of certain rules being relaxed.
We have the vaccines in place but there is so much uncertainty about the new variants. In England there is some hope for people to meet up in outdoor venues in mid April, but even this, is dependent on the data. There is also speculation of a third wave. I just don't see how we are going to survive physically or mentally if this keeps being extended further and further into the future. It is so hard to know if this will become better by summer, autumn or whether the whole situation is just going to become indefinite, because last year many spoke of it all ending by Christmas, and the exact opposite happened.
It is a time of all social activities being forbidden, and finding work being almost impossible. So, I just daren't think what is going to happen long term. Also, the messages of the media almost seem to make one feel guilty for wanting to meet others or go out. Also, on the other hand, I have felt guilt tripped by people wishing to meet up. Of course, I am sure that many are breaking the rules daily, which is one of the problems, but this is probably the result of the extreme of life as we know it has been taken away from us completely.
Most people who died were in their 80s and were going to die of something anyway.
Although people are saddened at another's passing, if they have lived a full life, I am not sure family and friends would see this as being tragic. After all, it's the only thing we know about our lives (that they end).
The lockdowns, OTOH, are the greatest power-grab and policy flaw in the West maybe ever. The fallout from these lockdowns will be felt for decades hence.
But it also reveals the incompetence of the state. Forcing the citizenry to stop working, to put them under house arrest, and to deny them the basic freedoms they were all promised was not the best method of containing a virus—it was just the easiest one. How quickly they sacrificed our most basic human rights to their ignorance.
That's my belief. We save a life today and kill two tomorrow.
The WSJ just published an article the other day.
The Lockdowns Weren’t Worth It
There’s a reason no government has done a cost-benefit analysis: The policy would surely fail.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdowns-werent-worth-it-11615485413?mod=djemalertNEWS
And
Did The Shutdowns Save Lives? A Year Later, Statistical Analysis Suggests Not
https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/12/did-the-shutdowns-save-lives-a-year-later-statistical-analysis-suggests-not/
What the past year has shown the ruling class is how easy it is to make docile sheep out of the populace. I don't think this is going to end well.
Quoting tim wood
Disingenuous to the point of gaslighting. You deny there are lockdowns? Political overreach?
This thread is about the justice or otherwise of a policy. It is not my attempt to describe what you are currently allowed to do.
Presumably you often confuse theories and diaries.
Finally someone said it!
You're the one getting foul, as shown by your initial response. And if you don't think there have been lockdowns in the US in the past year you're either lying or ignorant. There haven't been lockdowns? We've seen people get arrested for surfing alone, hiking alone, driving alone, being too far from home alone in their car. We've seen multiple stories of cops beating people up for not wearing their mask or even for wearing their mask "improperly." I could link you a dozen such stories without trying very hard. Just this very morning a woman was arrested for refusing to wear her mask in a bank in Texas, which has just repealed its mask law. A 65 year old woman. It's beneath you to post in such a disingenuous manner. This conversation is not productive.
But here are some more links.
The WSJ thinks there were lockdowns, why don't you take your delusions and gaslighting to them?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdowns-werent-worth-it-11615485413?mod=djemalertNEWS
https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/12/democrats-are-sacrificing-american-kids-lives-to-get-more-power/
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-lost-year-what-the-pandemic-cost-teenagers
https://reason.com/2021/03/11/stop-trying-to-create-a-zero-risk-society-covid-19/
https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/11/one-year-later-vindication-for-lockdown-skeptics/
This is not a productive conversation. "What lockdowns?" is not a serious response to any of the material in this thread. It'll take a few years before people start to get some perspective and see 2020 as the mass hysteria that it was. If only we could have found some witches to burn, but we'll have to settle for beating up people for not wearing masks.
https://reason.com/2020/05/04/a-new-york-cop-beat-someone-up-over-social-distancing-will-nypd-policing-finally-change-now/
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/27/939499357/french-police-officers-in-custody-after-video-emerges-of-brutal-beating-of-black
https://www.amny.com/new-york/brooklyn/police-violently-arrest-man-in-brooklyn-and-threaten-bystanders-for-not-wearing-masks/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/video-of-cop-beating-man-for-not-wearing-mask-goes-viral/articleshow/79784988.cms
For the record I won't be responding to you on this issue. "What lockdowns?" Come on, man.
Oxymorons, you mean. I've had a few brushes with members of the Posse Comitatus in my time. I particularly enjoy the statements such folk make about the law. It gladdens my heart to know there are people who can contrive such lunacy from it.
534,000 deaths in your country.
Less than a thousand in mine. Lockdowns work. Where yours went wrong was to lock down too late, and hence for too long.
Doesn't help when a self-obsessed narcist who knew the extent but purposely downplayed the severity of the situation to bolster his image and Wall Street numbers was in charge. To be fair, both sides were not at a mental place to do what it actually took to prevent it- stop all air travel from all countries immediately. One side would say overreaction and economic reasons, the other side would site xenophobia and also economic reasons.
To be fair again.. it was probably already in many countries prior to when it became considered a "pandemic".
The pandemic is subsiding for us. The virus is on its way to becoming endemic on most of the planet.
Your battle has only begun.
How does that negate the 500,000 + people that died though?
Remain humble my friend :flower:
Idk why it takes so long for someone to say the most obvious points. Finally!
The claim would then have to be that lockdowns killed more than 40700-40800 Australians (adjusted for population, you can check the math yourself). I find that highly unlikely. Especially not due to the causes you mentioned such as domestic abuse or suicide. Domestic abuse death cases in Australia numbered 48 in 2020.
https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/48-women-have-now-been-killed-violently-in-australia-this-year/#:~:text=And%20it%20didn%27t%20make,recorded%20in%20a%20single%20day.
And suicide rates don't seem to have increased much either. There was no statistically significant increase at all in Queensland lockdown:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30435-1/fulltext
So you're still short over 40,000 deaths that were supposedly caused by this lockdown. Your claim that these deaths will come from "locked down kids killing themselves" is total bunk. And to say the Australian lockdowns caused 40,000 deaths in the 3rd world is a pretty big claim. And even if it were true, it could easily be argued that the Australian government is justified in favoring saving its own citizens lives over the lives of people in 3rd world countries that rely on its trade. What kind of government would not put its citizens first?
This in contradiction of the OP. A smaller discomfort spread across the whole has avoided a greater discomfort across the many. Adults accept responsibility beyond their own desires. THat's something that the myth of the individual hides from those who fall for it.
I'm interested in your thoughts on the first point though..
No one from either side of the aisle would have advocated mass shutdowns of international travel when it was most needed.. probably mid-February.. That would have taken foresight and wisdom no one had.
Not sure what you mean. Shutdowns occur here when there are signs of local transmission.
I'm talking about when this first began.. the real shutdown that should have happened at the very beginning. I wonder if there was anyone advocating for complete shutdown of international travel
It doesnt. For the most part, lockdowns were used to reduce the load on healthcare systems. In Europe and the US, the virus was out of control before it was clear how dangerous it was. That's partly because it mutated in Europe early on.
It's really only in places like Australia that lockdowns were used to eliminate the presence of the virus. The notion that lockdowns are successful at saving Australian lives is myopic. Let's be optimistic and say vaccination programs keep it at bay for a century or two. The virus will be there eventually and it will kill a lot of Australians.
All that remains is to note that Australians can out-crass Americans. Impressive.
For US that wouldn't have been early enough. Someone would have had to declare it before even the WHO did, and that takes real insight and wisdom that no one had. Imagine someone saying, "Hey let's lock everything down.. this shit is going to be ridiculously deadly.. here's the projection!!" And then having someone take them seriously. And then having people agree with this without someone saying, "You anti-(China, other country) xenaphobe! Or someone saying, "You fuckwit.. you are going to shut down the economy for speculation on this? Look it's way over there!" Well, hindsight is always 20/20 and no one is ever wrong on any of these critical decisions when they were made.
That's mostly because of the arrogance of an idiot who chose to wilfully ignore the scientific advice.
Quoting frank
It's a fuckin' art form, mate.
That's incorrect.
That's totally correct. To have the most narcissistic person in power of the executive branch during a pandemic that is about how others are affected.. Eek. There were no great decisions made.. He's lucky there were people willing to subvert him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-response.html
I'm not defending Trump. I'm telling you it was too late to control the virus with contact tracing at the point NY knew the virus was present. That's just the facts.
Perhaps you would like to comment on this statement I was discussing with Banno:
Quoting schopenhauer1
The cogent point is that the ho-ha about rights ignores the converse responsibilities we have to each other. As i said before, those advocating rights over responsibility are selfish dicks.
Yes. The US closed it's border to Europe on March 11. They had already closed the border to China. The virus had probably been in NY about two weeks before the first known case in Washington.
You're right that inexperience played a part in America's difficulty in dealing with it. One of the biggest problems early on was a delay in testing created by the CDC.
Sure..that didn't need to be in place for someone with balls to have said CLOSE THE FUCKN BORDER EARLY!
They did close the border to China. They just didn't realize that It was in the process of exploding in Italy. COVID19 symptoms may not show up for two weeks after infection. A lot of infected people never have severe symptoms, if any at all. It's mutated into a very contagious pathogen. All these factors allow it to sneak up on a population.
You highlight the MAJOR difference in our individual countries goals. Here in the USA we went into lockdown to flatten the curve not eliminate it. We knew people were going to die and our best goal will be achieved when we reach herd immunity through mitigation and Vaccinations.
Where Australia is trying to eliminate the virus and as you rightfully note, it may be a short term mercy issued to Aussies that could breakout anytime in the future.
The Australia path is a ticking time bomb in my opinion, it could go off at anytime in the future.
Where in the USA we treated it like a live hand grenade and regular citizens chose to lay down on it for the survival of many, knowing the danger of death.
@frank
And I Thank you from the bottom of my heart and many more around me that I love, for being one of those average citizens who put your life at risk to save others. Again I humbly Thank you :heart:
To be fair, I think the virus was in the US MUCH earlier than in March. However, you are making excuses. Once that shit was seen to be out of China, if there was ANYONE who had the foresight or wisdom to shutdown ALL borders, where were they, and why weren't they listened to? I already answered that though.
Also, Trump did NOT shut down all travel from China, only a partial shutdown.. It doesn't matter, it needed to be ALL international travel. Also, I agree that both sides were unhelpful in this stage for differing reasons. But the person in the executive branch WAS Trump and his people, so at the end, it was their decision.
...and that would happen if we followed the advice in the OP.
I think I've mentioned before that I find the inability of so many Americans to think in terms of a common wealth... puzzling.
Such a profound observation. Really.
Those who understand the nature of pandemics told the government what would happen. And they were correct.
But tragically, they were ignored.
The disease did not sneak up. It had been predicted for years. We knew this would happen. All else is mere political pretence.
Again I suggest remaining humble.
Quoting Banno
Your mentions of how Americans are unable to help "insert current international crisis here" across the decades have been noted my friend, I promise you. What I continue to wonder and wait for is a little good news, a little balance to come from you about anything we in the USA do help with. If all you do is find fault in others and highlight their shortcomings, how do you allow any change?
As a fellow "thinker" I would hope you are still willing to move positions as the reality changes over time and in this case circumstances.
Sure. The trauma centers in the USA were prepared for a SPECTRUM of possible pandemics but we didn't know what part of our armor was going to be attacked so we had to adapt when we found out it was a respiratory disease and there was a greater need for ventilators. We had some but not enough but remember we DID NOT know what the pandemic was going to attack with. It was a good thing it wasn't Ebola or a host of other possible pandemics because we only prepared so much for the Ebola threat as well. And if my naive guess is correct, a shit ton of ventilators would be worthless.
The ability to adapt to a war like this pandemic takes time and experience. You can only predict so much.
Maybe if the Chinese hadn't suppressed information about it, Europe would have been saved. It passed to the US mainly from Europe.
I've noticed you have a habit of misunderstanding what other people say.
Just the facts, ma'am. :cool:
Some experts were advising the US to close borders in February 2020 and earlier. And the US did close their borders to China on January 31st (albeit leakily - foreign nationals only, and ignored Europe until mid-March).
Here's some foresight and wisdom from January, 2020. Not just for this pandemic, but for the next one.
Quoting Joseph Norman, Yaneer Bar-Yam, and Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Systemic risk of pandemic via novel pathogens – Coronavirus: A note, New England Complex Systems Institute (January 26, 2020).
Well, it's good to know there were people there giving their more accurate predictions. I just wonder what it would take from a leader to listen to this kind of argument rather than the doubts placed from the other advisors. Although Trump certainly didn't/doesn't have the capacity for these critical judgements, I don't know someone else, even from a different party, would have done the right things either, especially in regards to international travel. Of course, with Trump you can add many layers of nefarious behavior in terms of how much he knew and still tried to make seem not a big deal and was going to end soon.. etc. Laughably false.
This is where having experts and advisors that understand the nature of pandemics is important. The president's call shouldn't depend on being able to predict the future since no-one can.
True, so having the right people in the forefront of the subject matter that is at hand. Don't listen to an economist regarding an issue of public health maybe. But, I don't know the full story, wasn't there conflicting public health advise too though? How does one pick the correct one? I think you answered it though.. If one is in this much uncertainty about something that is known to be deadly, take the most cautious approach, not for the economy, but for the public health which would have been shutting down all borders as soon as possible, as that recommendation stated.
It is of course up to the leader to do this and convince the people it's right.
The WHO declined to call it a global emergency.. They said it wasn't spreading human to human.
Lots of Americans are surprised by this too. Michael Sandel is good on this.
Not if the Australians have any say in the matter: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-australia/australia-begins-mass-covid-19-vaccination-programme-idUSKBN2AL0Q1
Yeah, it's clear they didn't know how serious this was going to be. It looks like they thought this would be more like a localized SARS. However, by the end of January, it was clear the virus was in dozens of other countries, and it was an UNKNOWN of how deadly it could be. Like South Korea, the US should have closed its borders to all foreign travel coming in and out at that time.. Instead there was two months of not doing anything until too late. People were waiting for community transmission. Ridiculous.
When the disease that would soon be called AIDS was first identified in 1981, it was anomalous, involving some very odd, but very serious, symptoms, like Kaposi Sarcoma and Pneumocystis in atypical patients. Had public health officials known then that this weird new disease would kill 700,000 Americans and 32,000,000 people around the world in the next 40 years, they might have been more proactive.
Ebola and Marburg viruses, both fairly recently identified tropical hemorrhagic fevers, were instantly frightening and had a fatality rate close to 90%, so people gave these diseases (and the infected) a very wide berth. Covid 19 and AIDS killed nowhere close to the speed of Ebola.
Influenza kills between 30,000 to 50,000 people a year, give or take a few thousand, and makes millions of people quite sick. Still, less than half of adults bother to get vaccinated. Covid 19 has killed over 500,000 Americans, and quite a few people (they tend to be Republicans) fail to see a reason to get vaccinated.
A good response to a health threat requires two things: An alert and proactive public health establishment, and a responsive public. If the public isn't paying attention, it becomes difficult to protect people. It took a long time and a lot of effort to drive smoking down from the one-time level of over half of adults smoking to the current 14%. Some people still don't believe seatbelts are worth a slight inconvenience.
Some people have their heads permanently stuck up their asses.
True true on all of this. I don't have much to add except that in hindsight it looked like people were watching this in slow motion but weren't acting.. They were pretending that COVID related deaths only happened in China or a certain province in China. Like...oh there it goes to other countries.. but China's deaths are in the hundreds.. that couldn't happen in other countries, etc. etc.
I think the shock of closing international borders was too much to fathom. But as @Andrew M pointed out there were groups very aware of this need right away. The two psychological factors working against people perhaps at that time were what that article highlighted- the idea of futility (it's inevitable and nothing can really be done anyways) and paranoia (you're going to shut travel down for this?). The uncertainty wasn't taken seriously, clearly.
No, it wasn't. 911 brought about some fairly radical moves -- grounding all air traffic for a few days, for instance, It was mercifully quiet without airport traffic. Now we have the stupid theater of safety at the airport. Last summer was pretty wonderful though -- there was very very little air traffic. Much less auto traffic around town, too. The weather was great -- except for police murders and the riots (which were diverting, at least) it was perfect.
I'm talking at the very beginning.
I don't think there's any chance they would have closed the borders and locked down in January, especially since the WHO was advising a wait-and-see approach as late as January 25th.
By February it was too late.
Quoting EricH
I hope Australia can get to herd immunity quickly. You're going into autumn and it's in PNG. You're basically facing the same situation the rest of the world had to go through without any hope of getting vaccines.
You're very lucky.
The people of our Great Republic are convinced they have what they choose to call individual "rights" by virtue of which they may do as they please, even when what they do or decline to do may result in harm to others, with certain limited exceptions. Our citizens have no conception of a common good. The result is they don't believe they (or their government) have any obligations beyond those necessary to the preservation of those rights. They may, if they choose, do something to benefit others, but they have no obligation to do that, nor do they have any obligation to refrain from taking any action which may harm others except to the extent that involves a violation of the rights they believe themselves to have. They object to their government doing anything to benefit others if doing so means a limitation of their rights (to property, for example). We owe each other nothing, provided certain "rights" are honored which don't infringe on our individual "rights." Nothing at all.
This wasn't true after WW2. People then believed that domestic tranquility was a matter of national security. They saw the upheaval of the first half of the 20th Century as the outcome of disregard.
What we're seeing now is the peaking of the pendulum swing in the other direction. It started at the end of the 1970s as a response to a loss of capital accumulation. It eventually hollowed Main St out. The pendulum will go the other way eventually.
People are actually pretty much the same wherever you go. Cultures differ, but that's often just a matter of where they are in the perennial cultural tale.
The idea that any people who believes in a minimal state must also believe they have no obligations beyond those necessary to the preservation of their rights, that they may do what they please without care for others, and that they have no conception of the common good, is not entirely accurate. Proponents of the minimal state simply don’t believe the state should (nor could) decide what one ought to believe, to dictate how we should treat or what we owe others. Such choices are best left to personal morality, whether derived from religion, philosophy, tradition, etc.
I would argue the opposite: that statism leads to the moral bankruptcy you describe. Paying a tax in the hope the state will work for the common good is no substitute for morality. Such behavior delegates moral obligations to others. Statists want the state to care for others precisely where they themselves refuse to. Really, I cannot blame them. Why should they feel an obligation to their fellow man when they already pay the government to do it for them?
Quoting frank
Perhaps. There is also what Zizek calls "ideology"; the unspoken actions that are just expected of the populace.
Yep. I'm reading a book now on Neoliberalism. It's explaining how consent for it was constructed.
Per my tastes, there really isn't a villain in the story. As with Nazi Germany, a confluence of factors led to the ugliest manifestation of the potential of the people.
Blaming deaths on such a belief is rather silly. If anything, the opposite belief was promoted. But as they found out the hard way, you cannot police a virus by denying people’s rights.
Well, ignoring causation is rather silly, too. If a belief leads folk not to wear masks, and as a result people die...
Quoting NOS4A2
See Australia, Israel, Singapore...
But then you have long had a disregard for evidence, so I'm not expecting much.
When people think, e.g., that being required to wear a mask is a violation of their "rights" I don't think we can expect much of them in the way of personal morality, if that includes any sacrifice or conduct on their part for the benefit of others.
Do you believe a government should be able to force you to wear clothing you do not like?
What about them? You claim you have evidence for something, but for what you do not say.
The idea that human life is so precious and simply must be preserved at any cost is absurd. If human life is so precious, why has America been in armed conflict for such a high percentage of its existence? Why then can I walk into any store and buy a case of alcoholic beverages and a carton of cigarettes? Why can I break a bone and subsequently become hopelessly addicted to painkillers? If human life is so damned precious, why then are my kids so much more likely to be killed by police than a so-called-terrorist?
I think the real issue here isn't so much that our lives must be protected from the newest boogeyman, as much as people want to abdicate personal responsibility in exchange for a (false) sense of security. It's like a game, people aren't winning unless they've discovered new and interesting ways to play "us versus them". For all the whining about inclusivity and tolerance, the definition of what is and is not acceptable sure does seem to narrow more and more each year.
Lockdowns are exercises in control, more useful in reshaping the minds of docile and malleable people than actually preventing harm.
I do for the simple reason that I am able to dress myself.
Come, that isn't at issue.
The law is quite clear that governments, federal, state and local, have what are called "police powers"--by which they may exercise reasonable control over persons and property within their jurisdictions in the interest of general health, safety and welfare. Traffic laws and regulations represent the exercise of police powers; so do laws regulating the practice of medicine, licensing; so do laws imposing requirements to assure general health.
The requirement that masks be worn in certain circumstances during a pandemic is an example of the exercise of police power by government.
Of course, what's of greatest significance is the requirement of reasonableness. It happens there's a huge body of case law dealing with when the exercise of that power is reasonable. Determining what's reasonable requires investigation of evidence, and a balancing of the interests of individuals and those of society in general (i.e., those of other people).
So, we consider the interests of individuals who don't want to wear masks because it's inconvenient or uncomfortable, and make a decision regarding what is more important--their convenience or the possible spread of a disease that in some cases at least may be deadly, and which is burdening the health care system to the extent it's difficult for patients with or without the disease to be treated effectively. That's the nature of the question to be addressed, the judgment to be made, because there is, alas, no legal right not to wear masks nor (I would say) is there a natural or moral right not to wear them.
I'm one of those who would say the interests of the individuals who don't want to wear masks are far less important than the interests of people/society in general in such circumstances, and exercise of police power is reasonable even though the resulting law would require people to undergo the titanic effort of wearing a mask sometimes.
There are those who deny there is a pandemic, or deny that masks are needed, or deny that vaccines should be given, but then the issue is whether the exercise of police power in this case is reasonable. We're not considering whether there's such a thing as a right not to be inconvenienced in these circumstances.
I disagree. It’s never reasonable to give a government the power to force people what to wear, and to sacrifice human rights on the alter of the “common good”. Some are forced to wear hijabs by law and for the same specious reason, some version or other of the “general good”, the existence of which can be seriously questioned.
I would also argue that if you need police powers to protect you from someone not wearing a mask, you’re doing it wrong, and probably shouldn’t be out in public anyways.
The use of police powers is a failure of public health policy in my mind.
I have the right because it is my body. What gives you or anyone else the right to force me what to wear?
Quoting NOS4A2
You’re also able to still and kill. Do you have a right to do those?
So does going outside. So does playing baseball. Everything we do has a chance to negatively affect other people’s bodies.
I plead with you to remain humble but do as you wish.
As with many things in life we do the best we can with what we know, when we know better we do better.
If you want to drill down on the number of deaths, how each state handled it is different.
We are a Union of very individual states not a homogeneous state called the USA.
Together we did push forward Operation Warp Speed and have done an Amazing job with the rest of the world to bring an effective Vaccine to put into people's arms.
It's a shame that your view of Americans is glossed over with our governments action or inaction.
We were in uncharted waters and the fact that you and I are still here to debate it is an amazing outcome :flower:
Until someone comes along and deems masks to be risky, then you’re left wondering why you gave up your right in the first place.
Unless they have the force of law behind their edicts, then you can’t ignore it.
I know how to care for myself and my family and unlike yourself I don’t need bureaucrats and officials to hold my hand while doing so. I also don’t need to sacrifice mine or my children’s rights to protect Tim from a virus any grown adult can avoid on his own accord.
“I don’t mind infecting someone with COVID by not wearing a mask because they could have avoided it (somehow)”
Is that really what you’re saying? And how could Tim avoid it? If you’re infected and you go on a subway without a mask do you expect everyone to up and leave to be safe?
Quoting NOS4A2
Your “right” is societally granted too. You claim you have a right to wear whatever you want based merely on the fact that you can clothe yourself. But as I pointed out, you don’t have a right to steal or kill, even though you have the ability to do so. So the ability to do something doesn’t imply you have a right to do it. Rights come from society. Or at the very least, they don’t come from the ability to do something.
So you need to back up your claim that you have a right to wear whatever you want. You say it’s because you can clothe yourself. But ability is insufficient. So then, on what basis do you say you have a right to wear whatever you want? And if you say something like "Because that is a socially mediated right" or anything to the effect of putting rights in the hands of society (which is where I think they belong) then you would be obligated to wear a mask by the same token. And it would not be within your rights not to wear one.
And even that isn't true. Decency laws require you to be clothed instead of naked on arguably less important grounds than the requirement to wear a mask. Being naked doesn't kill anyone, it just bothers many people's sensibilities, not wearing a mask while being infectious can kill others either directly or indirectly. The whole argument for "I don't wanna" is specious.
I get that you didn't like President Trump. Noted.
Quoting tim wood
Tell me how many of the 500,000+ dead, my family members among those we lost, would still be alive if President Hillary Clinton had been chosen.
A specific number please: and if you think it would stand at Zero today with her at the helm of this pandemic, save the thread the space and me the time.
You're view of what constitute "human rights" seems extremely broad; so broad as to render some of them, at least, trivial. "Give me the right not to wear a mask in public or give me death!" strikes me as a less than inspiring expression of a love for liberty.
Tell me, though--if not because of any law or regulation, do you nonetheless wear a mask in public because of your "personal morality", or do you merely doubt it will have any benefit to others? Another possibility, I suppose, would be that you think if the failure to wear a mask will endanger others, that's not your problem.
It does seem a little trivial on the surface, but then I think about someone choosing what I can and cannot wear in public and am reminded of how banal and arbitrary totalitarianism is, that I dare not cede any ground on the matter.
I wear a mask wherever the rules require me to. But I’ve never been much of a mouth-breather or spitty-talker, so my lips suffice to have the same affect wherever no mask is required.
My understanding is Covid may be transmitted through breathing, and there's good evidence that the nose is used in breathing with some frequency as well as the mouth, so the lips themselves don't suffice as a prophylactic. But it's good to know you use a mask. I know others who don't, even when it's been requested/demanded by the owners of premises being used. Another example of how "rights" may conflict; property rights versus the right not to wear a mask.
I suggested that you didn't like President Trump and I tried to validate your feeling. No more, no less. I'm not trying to judge anyone.
Quoting tim wood
There was a time to act and President Trump was at the helm at the beginning of this pandemic. Does he have due responsibility to keep Americans safe? You bet. Did he make mistakes that cost lives? Time and our due diligence to do a national autopsy on how "IT" was handled will tell us.
We are still in "IT" so "IT" is still being written today.
Quoting tim wood
I bring up Hillary because she was the other possible Captain in this storm but trust me I will leave her right her and won't bring her up again. (God willing for me to be blessed to uphold that statement.)
Whatever sins you speak of are his to own, mine to own and everyone else who you might feel responsible for the deaths from the pandemic.
I'll be waiting in line for the confessional to open up if you care to join me.
Quoting tim wood
I disagree with you and your utopian numbers.
Governor Cuomo's numbers between reported and then fully reported in the nursing home move. The same move was made in Illinois. The numbers of the autopsy of this pandemic is going to shock your concious.
AND once again I will state that the policy of sending COVID 19 positive patients in group homes for the handicapped are STILL being sent back to their group homes in New York. Where is the flipping outrage?
Quoting tim wood
I lost loved ones to this pandemic in two states. Maybe if you gave a flying fig to read my posts all the way through before suggesting I look at the hyper links to pandemic numbers and where we rank, your character might be a little more becoming of you but that is yours to own.
What are the dynamics of droplets coming from the nose? It would be an interesting study to read. But all talk of droplets, masks, breathing, are nugatory when it comes to people not carrying the virus. Removing the ignorance might be a more prudent measure, but we are happy not knowing and covering that ignorance with a cloth fig-leaf.
Property rights override my right to wear what I want and say what I want to say, in my opinion. If I wish to spend time on someone’s property, I respect their rules or will go elsewhere. Rights don’t conflict so much as they overlap.
It seems we can't know whether they do or not without testing them, and my guess is you don't think testing should be required (I think it's likely it would be impossible to achieve, in any case). And it seems someone carrying it may be asymptomatic. So, wearing a mask is a not unreasonable way to avoid transmission which doesn't require that we simply assume we, and others, don't carry it--an assumption which seems unwarranted.
Every guidance on mask wearing I’ve read stipulates that mask wearing alone cannot prevent the spread of the virus. So alone, it is an unreasonable way to prevent transmission. And if preventing transmission is the sole purpose, we might as well do what China did and weld people into their dwellings.
This would be a good post to analyse in a critical thinking class. No need on this forum of course.
Probably less, and that's all that matters. Requesting a specific number is silly. It's possible some of your family and friends who died would still be alive.
Article 8 is the right to a private life. It's a qualified right, not an absolute right (the right to life is an example of an absolute right). That means it can be restricted under certain circumstances in the pursuit of a legitimate aim. Here it is in full:
I've highlighted the relevant legitimate aim in bold.
Any restriction of a qualified right must be proportional and reasonable. That's why, in the UK at least, if someone has a medical reason that wearing a mask is difficult, or they have sensory issues that makes wearing a mask very uncomfortable, they don't have to wear one. Also, no one has to wear a mask if they go for a walk outside, as long as they socially distance. This is all reasonable and proportional to the risks and discomfort involved. People are not being asked to wear masks in an unreasonable way under any circumstances whatever. This is not a civil liberties issue. It's well within the law that covers people's right to a private life. As soon as the pandemic is over, the requirement to wear a mask will be lifted. It if isn't, for no good reason, than that might breach Article 8. But at present, it doesn't.
Nah. We're just better than you.
It does matter or it wouldn't be something that is focused on.
As far as my family is concerned: the death here in AZ was COVID in a long term care facility but like others, she had a DNR and a DNI so I don't know if she would still be with us as Influenza could have taken her.
My family in Illinois is going to shake out but my Uncle was denied seeing my family members, he fought to see them and was denied. My Uncle was there 6 out of 7 days a week and he battled the nursing home rules and it didn't matter. He never got a last call, a last visit and no idea how he was. My Uncle learned of Italo's passing by getting a greeting card back saying Return to sender.
Italo was 99 and his wife was 87. My Uncle found out via the obituaries. What the hell? Are we in America still?
Accountability will happen because we have all the time in the world now to figure out what got so fucked up that family loses loved ones this way.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to be "better" than I. Tell you what, while I'm at it I will tell you you are AMAZING.
Better? :eyes:
I know I'm a bit of an asshole to you and we disagree about more or less everything. But I'm genuinely sorry you have lost people you love.
Yeah, feels pretty good. I know you mean the exact opposite, but even just seeing the word is something. I can pretend you mean it.
Wow. I think we got the bert1 from the meanie alternate reality.
Bert, I appreciate your empathy and Thank you for your friendship. There are very few things that humanity as a whole can agree on but the joy of birth and sorrow of death are two universal emotions we share. :flower:
I don't think anybody's rights were denied. You don't have a right to endanger other people.
That said, Australia comparing itself to Europe and America is like a white guy praising himself for his accomplishments. Yes, you worked hard, yes you were smart, and yes you were successful.
But you were lucky. Only a childish person finds it impossible to take that into account.
I'd be interested in what legal rights, specifically, mask wearing, lockdown and social distancing (as the main covid responses apart from the vaccine) are engaged by these measures? Anyone know?
Which amendment are you talking about?
Do you have a view on this?
If there was any real concern that requiring masks, social distancing, and lockdowns were in violation of some rights guaranteed by the constitution, the issue would have been considered by the Supreme Court by now. If there were any cases, I didn't hear about them.
Opposition to mask wearing appeared early among Trump supporters. Everybody else started wearing them without being asked. Likewise cities across America locked down independently of state or federal recommendations. In my state, for instance, there was a little tension between mayors and the governor about this. I eventually learned that this wasn't unusual. I guess governors were more concerned with the economic impact and cities were more worried about their hospitals and schools. And that makes sense.
In my state, covid first appeared among migrant workers who don't speak english and even months into the pandemic didn't understand what was happening. We now have city buses using their exteriors to try to educate illiterate migrant workers about the symptoms and what they mean (in pictures). This group was ultimately hit the hardest by the pandemic.
The idea that non-mask-wearing Trump supporters were the cause of the American covid disaster isn't true. It wasn't Trump's fault either, though he could have helped out by locking himself in a closet for a year.
If you watched a lot of CNN, you'd believe this. You would have laughed when Trump said Cuomo was using the pandemic for political purposes. Trump was right.
Without President Trump being at the helm ALREADY when COVID hit our shores in late 2019, with the idea of taking out two laws for every new one, for making Compassionate use of unproven medications with the right to try promise, which did facilitate patients being on the edge of survival offer some hope? Same dude right?
Also the obvious one in this response is Operation Warp Speed.
I'm in no hurry to put judgement on anyone but I will when the time is right AND the suspicious veil is pulled back to expose the truth about my family and friends in Chicago who died alone.
I got the most amazing news yesterday when I found out that Arizona is beginning tomorrow vaccinating anyone over the age of 16!
A little light is growing fast and I hope both you and I are here a year from now to be discussing it :flower:
You're the mirror image of Nos.
Except he's more civil.
Thanks frank, that's interesting.
Thanks, I did wonder if that was what is going on but didn't want to assume.
I really haven't found that to be the case. You seem to spend more time fine-tuning your insults.
Uh huh.