[f6v]

> The idea that we can force humans into acting against their fundamental instincts to socialize is folly.

Do you really want to go down that road? Well, here we go: procreation is a fundamental human instinct. Do you want to legalize rape? Didn’t think so. You see how folly your argument is?

[gnusty_gnurc]

> Well, here we go: procreation is a fundamental human instinct. Do you want to legalize rape?

This is non-sequitur.

A better comparison is like legally enforcing abstinence to eradicate HIV.

If you can't get the idea that isolation is counter-intuitive to humans and damaging to their health and psychology, and therefore bound to be hard to get compliance, I'm not sure what to say.

This is why jail is jail. Isolation is unnatural. It's punishment. No one voluntary chooses this.

[f6v]

Individual’s comfort can’t be a number one priority in a times of crisis. Sitting at home in a digital age when video calling anyone in the world is absolutely free, it’s the least you can do. Also all the entertainment which is available nowadays. How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die?

> isolation is counter-intuitive to humans

20 million cities are counterintuitive, and so is math. We get by.

I’m not denying that what is asked from people is a huge sacrifice. But not the biggest sacrifice you can imagine. And it’s definitely manageable.

[matz1]

As if grandma even want to be in isolation in the first place.

My grandma would rather took the small risk of dying of covid to go outside, socialize with their friends and family.

[gnusty_gnurc]

> How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die?

This is where things go wrong.

You're shaming people for feeling natural human instincts to socialize.

As though it's selfish to not want to be locked in your house indefinitely.

There is a striking resemblance here of the tactics used by abusers and emotional manipulators.

> But not the biggest sacrifice you can imagine. And it’s definitely manageable.

That's a completely presumptuous personal view - for a very large and underappreciated segment of the population, the ongoing lockdown measures to combat coronavirus are absolutely devastating.

[jasonlaramburu]

>You're shaming people for feeling natural human instincts

There are many 'natural' human instincts that are harmful to society and are either strongly discouraged or outlawed (violence, drug abuse, overeating to name a few).

[gnusty_gnurc]

"Harmful to society" is a poor standard used to justify a lot of evil stuff. That standard once included homosexuality. It was the basis for eugenics. Also like I mentioned before - Prohibition. It's a standard that's ultimately subjective and self-deceiving.

You're arguing that we should outlaw something that's vital to human life. Social interaction.

Violence, on the other hand, is clearly not necessary or virtuous.

Isolation is a form of punishment and I hope you're not saying that we all must be punished for the greater good and any dissent is evil. That's borderline cultish.

[jasonlaramburu]

> You're arguing that we should outlaw something that's vital to human life. Social interaction.

You’re being a bit dramatic about this. People can still use zoom, have socially-distanced meetups on their lawn etc. That’s a big difference from isolation.

[qubitcoder]

Have you considered that these measures are _temporary_? If people shared the same ideas about sacrifice, the United States would've never prevailed in WWII. Personally, it seems like objections to basic preventive measures, such as wearing a mask, are more rooted in ego and entitlement. And that is often coupled with spurious ideas about government overreach (which, while sometimes valid, isn't exactly a cogent argument in the United States, where shared ideals on liberty and limited government are so deeply ingrained).

[f6v]

You can’t protect “natural” when being in unnatural environments. Sure, if we go back to the population density of 1 person per 10-100 square kilometers... That would mean reducing world population by several orders of magnitude. But if we, as civilization, grow to billions and choose to live in mega cities - the way of life has to be adjusted. And again, we’ve evolved to live in a society, but nowhere near the present day population density. Here in Belgium you are allowed to see some people despite lockdown. You can also meet people outside, go for a jog with your mates. That’s as much social contact as people “require naturally”.

[djsumdog]

Tell that to my best friend in the UK who's Italian flatmate committed suicide back in March.

[c0nducktr]

I truly am not trying to be insensitive, but didn't these restrictions only just barely begin back in March? It's difficult for me to see the causation.

[djsumdog]

I went back and found the e-mail. She said in it, "I was doing OK there until one of my Italian colleagues committed suicide as he couldn't take the lockdown. He was in his 20s..."

So sorry, not flatmate, workmate. If the lock-downs weren't the main cause, I'm sure they certainly didn't help.

Keep in mind Thomas Schäfer, a German minister of fiance, committed suicide by train in March as well.

Another person I know told me his daughter's best friend killed herself during the lockdowns as well, and that was during the fall.

And I'll say this too, if I was in my 20s right now, I'd be at very high risk for suicide. I've had a lot of years under me and am in a much better place right now. But if I was younger and had access to firearms like I did back then, I most likely would not be here.

This has got to stop.

[f6v]

What’s so terrible now? Just trying to understand. Reminds me the hysteria after Trump was elected. Sure, some people have legit mental issues. But the majority is just consumed by the meme.