[earthtourist]

Your personal liberty ends where my nose begins.

When it comes to rights, we always have to ask "what are the reasonable trade-offs?". There are no absolute rights, even in the U.S.

Most people believe it's clearly reasonable that we lock down our cities to prevent mass death. The economic pain is great, and it's very inconvenient for all, but it's much better than mass death.

You're entirely free to read/watch/do anything you want in your home, you can exercise, talk to anyone about anything you want, get food, take care of essential things.

You're not free to risk killing many people just so you can enjoy leisure activities. That would be privileging your personal liberty over the lives of your fellow citizens. And, incidentally, you would be depriving some of them of their personal liberty by virtue of killing them...

Does it bother you that you can't own significant quantities of radioactive material and carry them around while you're in public? Clearly laws forbidding this are an infringement of personal liberty. But they're an incredibly reasonable infringement so it doesn't bother you, I'd assume.

A democratic society should be governed by the people. We, The People, have decided that the lock downs are good. We have in effect demanded and endorsed them. So you're disagreeing with the majority of your fellow citizens, not some dictator.

For some unknown reason you believe these lock downs are unreasonable, without any clear rationale.

[syshum]

Your entire post is a series of logical fallacies, first economic decline and extreme unemployment in itself causes increase death and at the ever decreasing lethality of COVID as more and more data comes in there is an increasing probability that the economic impact will cause more death in the long term than COVID itself. Further we are now seeing supply change issues in food production and other markets critical to daily life not just "leisure activities" as you seem to believe.

There seems to me to be an overreaction to this virus over other known health crisis, and for that matter other emergencies simply do to the unknown / novel nature of this event.

The other problem with your response is the pure assumption that a total lockdown of all citizens was the only option, and that anyone daring to suggest there may have been another more measured way is simply wanting to put "leisure activities" over peoples lives, the fact remains that several people have suggested alternative measures that could have been used, including isolated only those of the vulnerable population where more than 80% of the deaths are accounted for, and where outside of that vernable population COVID is less deadly than the normal flu. Do you propose these same lockdowns every flu season? after all the flu does cause "mass death" as you seem to define it every year so it must be a reasonable response to shut down the economy every flu season right?

You do understand that the lockdowns where never to prevent the transmission of the virus, but rather simply slow the rate of transmission to allow the health system to sick and not be overwhelmed.

I will not bother to address your reductio ad absurdum on radio active material as it holds no bearing on this conversation, but I will say my position on that would not be what you expect :)

>>For some unknown reason you believe these lock downs are unreasonable, without any clear rationale.

Well allow me to provide some Rationale then

1. There were / are viable less extreme measures that could have been taken

2. It is yet to be seen if the Lock Downs actually were effective, there is some data to suggest they were not, and simply stating "it would have been worse" is not evidence based. Some data suggests that COVID was already widely spread before the lockdowns even went into effect and a large part of the population was asymptotic or suffers very mild symptoms

3. There is no section of the federal or any state constitution I am aware of that reads "These rights can be suspended in a time of emergency" while I am aware that the courts have played mental gymnastics to carve out these exceptions, the fact remains these acts prove the constitution is powerless to prevent infringement of basic rights by government

4. The precedent set by these unprecedented orders will be used to infringe on rights of the population using thinner and thinner justifications for an "emergency", I can see a flu season being used to trigger a draconian response in a few years.

5. One of the bigger problems I have with the lock downs is the open ended nature of them, and the power to extend or lift them is in a single person, in a single branch of government with out limit, oversight or control. It may be needed for a governor to act quickly to get process started, but that should then need to be follow up with some other branch of government oversight no less than 30 days after a governor acts. This is not a dictatorship and we should not devolve into one in a crisis

[earthtourist]

You seem to have two basic arguments:

1. That the lock downs were unnecessary/ineffective.

And since the evidence and experts disagree with you, it seems incredibly dubious that you're right. As with climate change denial, there is always some minority taking the contrarian view, but the scientific consensus should still rule the day.

And even if it does turn out to be true, it was still the scientific consensus during an emergency, so it made sense to do it as the best available option. We can't undo the lock downs and we're already working to phase them out. So there's really no cogent argument here.

Also, the comparisons to the flu are a sign you don't have your facts straight. Expert models predicted the potential for millions of dead Americans without intervention. And it seems entirely backed up by the actual data we got from New York.

You also don't seem to understand that flattening the curve reduces death, it doesn't just spread it out over time.

2. That the lock downs are bad for freedom.

This is entirely based on the slippery slope argument. You can't actually point to any governmental abuse, at all. Every government official seems to be acting entirely in good faith across a massive country. Which is why no reasonable person is worried about this. The people protesting the lock downs are a tiny minority of extremists and contrarians.

You have to ask yourself "am I being too extreme in my views, or is every educated/informed person blind to the danger?" and it's pretty obvious which of these is the case.

There is simply no justified cause for concern that lock downs are going to become a tool of oppression. The lock downs are happening with the consent of the people and the courts.

And it's extremely time-limited, not open-ended. There is absolutely no way the lock downs will go on indefinitely. And there is no way they will happen again without the consent of the people. There is simply no reasonable cause for alarm.

P.S.

I would expect your position on allowing people to poison their fellow citizens with radioactive material might be similar to your position on poisoning people with a deadly virus. That would be consistent with the extremist views you're espousing.

[syshum]

>>And since the evidence and experts disagree with you, it seems incredibly dubious that you're right.

The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation

The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.

... If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-i...

>>We can't undo the lock downs and we're already working to phase them out. So there's really no cogent argument here.

This is simply not true, there are lots of people claiming we should remained locked down for alot longer with many many governors continuing the lock downs when they should be phasing them now, this main link in this thread is about extending the lockdown and several people pointed out the unrealistic "targets" of the Bay area for them to "phase out" the lockdowns

>You can't actually point to any governmental abuse, at all

I guess that depends on your definition of abuse. Lets go through some of the items I am aware of in the US that has occured by the government that I consider abuse

1. CA Police arresting a man in the middle of the ocean by him self

2. police harassing old people on the beach because they dared sit in a chair instead of directly on the sand

3. WI Police threatening a teen child with arrest over a instagram post

4. RI Police stopping all people with a NY Plate for questioning at the border "Papers Please" style

5. RI Governor sending the national guard door to door to question people about their movements, and activities

6. MI Governor banning the sale of gardening supplies while still allowing lottery sales because she need to protect state revenue

7. CT police using drones to monitor people activities to ensure they are conforming to social distancing

8. KY CPS investigating people with large numbers of children for child abuse for failing to "social distance" with each other

9. TX creating a COVID Task force to go undercover to crack down on home based businesses during the lock down

10. Many States banning the sale of Self Protection Tools as "non-essential"

I could probably list dozens or hundreds more abuses by state and local authorities, that is with out getting in the arbitrary definitions of "essential business" many states have come up with, which many of them seem to be purposefully to aid political supporters and ensure the business owned by those supporters were essential, or hypocritical actions like the Chicago Mayor claiming her getting a hair cut was "essential activity" since she is a public figure but it was non-essential for everyone else, the rules for thee but not for me position has been rampant through out this event

>>Every government official seems to be acting entirely in good faith across a massive country.

If you believe that then our definition of "good faith" is very different or you are not paying attention