[hurricanetc]

It’s too bad that people can’t follow simple requests. Governments are forced to choose between allowing idiot citizens to destroy society or to implement draconian policies.

Medical professionals are being asked to come out of retirement. Nurses are reusing PPE for weeks. Medical students are graduating early to help.

The rest of us are being asked to just stay the fuck home for a few weeks.

And we just refuse to do it. Absolutely refuse. Everyone is suddenly and avid walker. So then governments have to choose whether to let idiot citizens ruin everything... or not.

I don’t blame governments. I blame all you idiots who won’t stop going outside.

[soraminazuki]

> I don’t blame governments. I blame all you idiots who won’t stop going outside.

It's precisely this kind of reasoning that this article is having problems with. Pre-COVID19, it was because of the terrorists, drug dealers, and pedophiles that we'd have to give up our freedoms. Now, it's because of "us idiots." We the people are "too idiotic" to decide for ourselves, or so you say.

[FillardMillmore]

This is the crux of the issue. It's very easy for "emergency" powers leveraged by the government to become permanent powers. Look no further than the Patriot Act. The public should be following the public recommendations/guidelines as much as they possibly can, but they should also keep a close eye on the government and what powers it grants itself.

[VeninVidiaVicii]

I know it's annecdotal, but now I've had two elderly relatives die -- one from covid-19, and one from a heart attack, in the past few weeks. The second wasn't able to get into the healthcare system because it is just too overstretched. Firstly, causes by a very slow ambulance, and got diverted to an ER just about as far away as you can get.

I have also seen more people walking along our city exercise path than ever before. There's not really a good middle ground here, exercising your civil liberties is resulting in deaths.

[soraminazuki]

I'm most certainly not opposed to saving lives. But we can't just mindlessly approve whatever "solutions" the government comes up with. Some "solutions" are bound to do more harm than good, and mass-surveillance is a prime example considering its potential for abuse. Just as people die from disease, people also die from tyrannical governments. Even if we assume that your government, however unlikely, would forever continue to wield its power wisely, other governments wouldn't care. If we justify the use of mass-surveillance, we would give other tyrannical governments a free pass and more people would be killed or tortured as a consequence. But unlike pandemics, time won't cure tyrannical governments.

[VeninVidiaVicii]

Well, I love the positive attitude implying time will cure pandemics. Cure, in the sense that all things come to an end, the way all bleeding stops, yeah.

I'm currently working as an infectious disease researcher for a state with a lot of political turmoil, and I'll have the be honest, my (profesional) opinion doesn't matter. No single recommendation we have made has had any bearing on the action of our state. These opinions we (you and I) have are moot.

[soraminazuki]

Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing the devastating effects this pandemic has brought. More lives will continue to be lost for the foreseeable future and it will likely have lasting economic implications. But if governments around the world go forward with mass-surveillance, it would be 9/11 all over again. As a direct consequence of 9/11, many innocent lives have been lost. But it's the policy decisions after the incident that has had an even more lasting and devastating effect on our democratic society. People need to keep these things in mind, especially in times of emergencies.

[hurricanetc]

The shelter in place orders started off completely voluntary. People ignored them. And it escalated. People continued to ignore and the policies continued to escalate. We didn’t go from zero to where we are now. People caused this.

[soraminazuki]

There always have been people who act selfishly. I'd bet you anything that it has also been this way when the Bill of Rights was written. Does that mean civil rights was a mistake? Absolutely not.

[krapp]

The same government that added the Second Amendment to the Constitution put down Shay's Rebellion, and when Thomas Jefferson wrote that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure" in reference to that rebellion, he wasn't being complementary.

The founding fathers believed in government, they weren't anarchists, they believed that government could be good and do good, not that government is inherently and irreconcilably hostile to liberty. They also believed in society and the concept of the greater good, not that individual liberty and freedom matter above all else.

Indeed, when Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," he was arguing (in a very specific context[0]) against the "temporary safety" of individual liberty versus the "essential liberty" guaranteed by the state.

I wouldn't assume that the founding fathers would side with the people purposely undermining quarantine efforts in this case. They'd probably have such people hanged.

[0]https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-be...

[soraminazuki]

I think you're misunderstanding my intentions.

First, I'm not an anarchist and I'm not suggesting that the founding fathers were either. We all know that governments are necessary for society to function. Still, there must be limits to what the government can do, because after all, governments are run by humans and it'll corrupt eventually if you grant them absolute power. That's why many democratic countries have a constitution to limit governmental powers.

Second, I'm not siding with people undermining quarantine efforts (though I wouldn't agree with hanging them). But that's hardly an excuse for conducting mass surveillance, which this article is about. Mass surveillance simply has no place in a society governed by the rule of law.

[vsareto]

Unless you're an epidemiological or virology expert, you probably are too ignorant to make sound decisions to save lives and prevent damage on a state/national scale for COVID-19. That's not a knock against you, it's just that most of us don't know the details of the many fields of science that go into our daily lives. I have no idea when/if to do mass vehicle recalls in the automotive industry, where to deploy military units for maximum safety like a commanding officer, or how to navigate law with respect to police department enforcing the law in the legal system.

The key difference that didn't settle in with people quickly enough is that they could cause damage with little or no symptoms by just being near other people. Because of how this particular virus works, that meant changing behavior by the time it affected you directly was too late. Many field-ignorant people only change their behavior when it directly affects them.

[soraminazuki]

Yes, we need experts to deal with the pandemic. I'm certainly not opposed to expert opinions influencing policy decisions. But still, a system of mass-surveillance isn't something that should be rushed, even in the face of an emergency. It has far-reaching consequences that is most certainly going to outlast this pandemic, and would likely do more harm than good in the long term. Such things would need full informed consent from the public at the very least, though I'd personally prefer that it wouldn't be considered in the first place given its great potential for abuse.

[programmarchy]

It’s not a simple request for people living paycheck to paycheck. We could’ve shut down international travel, implemented UBI or expanded Medicare instead of trillions in corporate bailouts. It’s laughable to blame idiot citizens for the scale of the devastation, but a convenient scapegoat to shift the focus away from the ones in power who could’ve made the most difference.

[hurricanetc]

Oh yes it’s all paycheck to paycheck people congregating in Central Park.

[coffeefirst]

Going outside is fine and recommended.

Compliance, at least here, has been petty good. Imperfect, sure, but everyone I see out walking is keeping a safe distance.

[bilbo0s]

True.

Exercise is good for your immune system. But I think the public health experts probably meant for us to exercise alone. You still see lots of groups of 4 or 5 or more people out there in my area. And based on what people are saying, this must happen in other areas as well. Or my favorite are the groups of bicyclists exercising and keeping 6 ft away from each other. Think about it, one cyclist towards the front of the pack coughs and what's gonna happen?

I don't think the government needs for us to stay at home per sé, but they do need for us to stay away from each other. Some cooperation on our part would go a long way towards helping. Having conceded that, not sure that tracking everyone is gonna stop the kinds of stupidity I was just outlining. You'll still see the groups out there walking or running up the street together or bicycling. I'm just not sure those guys get it? And the government tracking them probably won't make them get it.

[standardUser]

Don't be too hasty to judge groups of people unless you are certain they don't live together.

"Think about it, one cyclist towards the front of the pack coughs and what's gonna happen?"

Probably nothing. The virus spreads more easily than some, but it's not magic. The original WHO guidance was to stay 3 feet away, not 6 feet, because even at 3 feet transmission is extremely unlikely. It's not impossible to transmit in the scenario you describe, but it's not the kind of scenario social distancing is trying to solve for.

[eeZah7Ux]

> 3 feet transmission is extremely unlikely

Not at all. This is what makes COVID a pandemic.

[standardUser]

Droplets don't travel farther just because they have this coronavirus in them.

Droplet transmission is in fact possible over distances far greater than 6 feet, it just becomes extremely unlikely. Similarly, droplet transmission is less likely at 6 feet than at 3 feet. But even 3 feet reduces the chances substantially, which is why it is the default recommendation for avoiding droplet transmission.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-t...

[tortasaur]

The guidance for keeping six feet apart doesn't apply to people who already live together. Keeping your distance isn't going to work if you're all going to touch the same surfaces at home, anyway. It can be tricky to tell if groups of people close together are family / roommates.

[swiley]

A lot of people can’t help it, we beat them into the dirt and now they don’t have a choice. Also there’s the (probably correct) expectation that corporations and governments will abuse a lot of the emergency provisions and that feeds the rebellion. Also, it shouldn’t be surprising that young people react with apathy toward a large problem like this when older people have at best reacted towards their problems with apathy and at worst have blamed the younger people themselves.

I’m not saying these people are innocent but this isn’t one sided.

[Nasrudith]

Anecdotally I have found it is the older half (latter middle age) that are less likely to take it seriously ironically and likely to complain about inconveniences or that they are "overreacting". I blame Fox News for it, they are outright the world's largest elder abuse network.

Personally I suspect the abysmal leadership and the utterly corrupt fuck ups in preparations who spent more time insider trading than stocking up on medical supplies back when there was fully functioning industrty undermines the legitimacy greatly. How can they ask others to take them seriously when they didn't? The tracking is just plain Reichstagging at this point.

And the worst part is that the threat is real and the leadership being corrupt morons doesn't change that.

[true_religion]

Maybe it’s that older people are more used to the concept of death, so show less fear.

When I was 30, the sudden acceleration in the number of people I knew dying was incredible. Aunts, uncles, friends, teachers all started to die from complications of old age. At first I was shocked, but soon I became jaded since there’s nothing you can do about other people getting old.

Once you get so used to that, it’s seen as an inevitability rather than something to be defended against at all cost of quality of life.

As a further anecdote, during this crisis I see young people in stores studious avoiding the 6 foot distance rule, even going as far as to jump out of my aisle to maintain it. Older people though are congregating in groups, and gossiping like normal instead.

[leetcrew]

older people also more conscious of the risk they expose themselves to in day-to-day life. my aunt died of a catastrophic infection last year. the precipitating event was a slip in the shower where she broke her leg. when taking a shower or going down stairs exposes you to a nontrivial risk of death, it probably doesn't seem that bad to go to the grocery store more often than you need to.

[swiley]

I agree people should be wearing masks, but IMO without any training PPE is probably going to make things worse. The last time I went to the grocery store people had their (often gloved) hands all over their faces readjusting masks. For some reason I thought people understood how to use gloves and masks but now I’m pretty sure most don’t and think they magically make you safer.

[notyourday]

> It’s too bad that people can’t follow simple requests. Governments are forced to choose between allowing idiot citizens to destroy society or to implement draconian policies.

That was Bolshevick's motto.

> The rest of us are being asked to just stay the fuck home for a few weeks.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/41-percent-of-americans-woul...

10M have not had a paycheck for 2 weeks.

[lostmsu]

Do you think they will get paychecks if they go out?

[notyourday]

The government should embrace that so far people resorted to wandering aimlessly as the method of entertainment because normally entertainment requires money and the same government that wants people to stay home deprived them of ability to obtain money by working.

[erfgh]

What if going outside is explicitly allowed? Does your tirade makes sense then?

[_8j50]

What if you don't have a home or your home is unsafe or abusive environment. Adversity is a given, rights are not for good and peaceful times only. FYI,the US is still under emergency from 9/11, patriot act is still a thing.

[appleshore]

You’re right, there are more people outside walking in areas than need to be. Walking in areas where there would be less people or none. People sitting on sidewalks, grass areas etc.

TV news says our city streets are empty — but there’s actually babies, old people, lots of people exercising etc etc everywhere. Farmers markets with huge crowds. Non-essential construction workers all over.

Yet there are a lot of people outside because they have no choice. They are working or surviving. And then yesterday at the grocery store, there are people working there without gloves and without masks. And they’re jovial, walking around carefree.

I seen people preparing food and drinks without gloves and touching lids etc.

I don’t think wealthy people walking around is particularly bad but I understand your sentiment. The worse problem is we just have stupid people everywhere and sadly many are in our government, agencies and so-called elite. And some are critical workers.

[gameswithgo]

there is nothing wrong with going for a walk in a non dense area.

[sershe]

This is a good example of why strong negative rights and freedoms are so important. We don't want, and I quote you, "idiots" dictating what others can and cannot do based mostly on their rightful indignation.

[Bizarro]

You don't blame governments for anything. You think that government is the solution too all problems.

[eeZah7Ux]

How convenient.

[heurifk]

If you want to be cool then you say "fuck the government, fuck the police". Its a big part of the reason, a lot of people want to show off by breaking rules for street cred.

[iamben]

I'm not sure it's that simple. I think most people breaking the rules just think it doesn't apply to them. Like they're healthy, they're low risk, they're good at following all the other rules ("we won't get close to anyone while we're out, we won't touch anything we shouldn't").

I assume it's a bit like washing your hands after using the toilet. Most people do. I don't think those that don't are saying fuck you to society - they just think "I didn't pee on my hands, there's no mess here".

I guess if something doesn't immediately affect you, it's easy to think it will never affect you and it's not your problem to deal with.

[bilbo0s]

Thing is though the government is not saying don't go out. You have to go to work, (if you're essential). You have to go to the grocery store. And truth be told, you should be exercising to keep up your immunity and overall health. That's all good stuff.

But when you're calling up your friends to go on that errand with you, or to go on that walk, or run, or bike ride with you, that's where I think people are going off the rails. I think the government and public health people probably meant for us to do this stuff alone. So there would be no need to say, "WE won't get close to anyone while we're out". Because you're not out with anyone. Only one family member needs to go to the store. Your bicycling group is still unsafe even if you're keeping 2 meters away from each other. Etc etc.

The question is, does ubiquitous surveillance help alleviate this sort of thing? My suspicion is that it doesn't. I'm thinking this is an education issue. A lot of people still aren't getting it.

[amanaplanacanal]

There are certainly a group of folks who are just trolls, and intentionally do the opposite of whatever their political opponents recommend. Look at the idiots who modify their trucks to "roll coal". Or people who intentionally burn more energy because they think climate change is BS.

[iamben]

I'm not saying those people don't exist - just that I suspect they are a significant minority when compared to the group I spoke of.

[seeTheAstroturf]

Medical spends literally billions of dollars to regulate out competition. Then they can't handle demand. Blame them and corrupt politicians.

Also pandemics mean either 70 percent of people will catch it, or we need a vaccine. Why even quarentine?

Flatten the curve so we can die on ventilators instead?

[saalweachter]

The statistics I've seen floating around lately are that ~80% of people who go on the ventilators die.

But keep in mind that 20% of the people who go on the ventilators live. Flattening the curve means that, if you reach the point of requiring a ventilator -- and we haven't run out of ventilators -- your chance of survival goes from 0% to 20%. It's not 100% or even 50%, but it's a lot better than 0%.

[SuoDuanDao]

I'm not surprised you're being downvoted. Of all the institutions that are on shaky ground these days, the medical ones are the ones who should most consider an overhaul as a result of this fiasco. Unfortunately, they seem too concerned with protecting their monopoly to accept any criticism or suggestions.

[monadgonad]

Flatten the curve so that much fewer people will die until a vaccine can be developed.

[lbeltrame]

It's much better to bet on the drugs. A vaccine will take years to be fully available (let's not forget we have just two phase 1 studies going, the efficacy is still yet to be determined): drugs, if the current or upcoming trials are successful, probably within the end of the year.

And like the drugs, a vaccine may not be successful at all. What do we do in that case?

This is a problem for the ICUs only because there is no specific treatment. If we can treat it like we can treat other grave diseases, the impact becomes smaller and more manageable.