[makomk]

As far as I can tell, lockdowns that were this widespread and restrictive have never been used before in history ever, the closest examples to them were during the medieval era but were still more targetted and limited in scope than these ones, and the narrative about them always having been used is itself a propaganda tool used to stop people questioning them.

[sofixa]

> As far as I can tell, lockdowns that were this widespread and restrictive have never been used before in history ever, the closest examples to them were during the medieval era but were still more targetted and limited in scope than these ones

Yes, because usually up until present day they were used at the city-level, by city authorities. Why? Well, most epidemic-capable diseases came from trade, usually in port cities, hence quarantines and lockdowns of port cities. ( not to mention that countries and their administration were much less centralised, public health authorities didn't really exist)

But today, with air travel, and the much more connected nature of our existence ( people travel for leisure, a lot), combined with the specifics of the virus ( long incubation period, high chance of no symptoms whatsoever, high spreadability), made country-wide lockdowns a good idea.

Were they a bit too much in some cases? Of course. For instance in France, during the first wave there was a total lockdown, and public places like beaches and parks were closed. There were people complaining in the Brittany region, because they had zero cases ( apart from those transferred to their hospitals), and couldn't use their beaches which are huge and open air. Nonetheless, the risk that the virus "escapes" from hospitals, or that people from nearby regions travel there to use the regional exceptions, and spread the disease further was deemed to be too big. Because, again, many carriers are asymptomatic and the incubation period is rather long.

[lithium_throw]

Ah yes, the asymptomatic aspect of Covid, a disease so deadly most people need to be tested to know they came near it.

How did the "connected" nature of our existence make it necessary to shut down entire countries, as well as the air travel links? My local playgrounds were officially closed until late into 2020 (obviously, I ignored that), as well as all sorts of other places that were obviously harmless. In fact, the worst place to go was hospital, where the infection rate was pretty bad.

It became obvious quite quickly who was at risk of Covid, and I do not understand why patients were not sent home for bed rest with a portable low-flow oxygen kit (as that was found to be the most effective treatment), and the rest of us allowed to continue with life as we saw fit.

[sofixa]

> Ah yes, the asymptomatic aspect of Covid, a disease so deadly most people need to be tested to know they came near it.

Wow. Yes, because while you might have zero symptoms, you still spread it, and will probably infect multiple other people ( the so called R), especially without masks and other such precautions. Those people will infect many more in their turn. Among those, some will develop symptoms, sometimes heavy, and it's highly probable there will be people with comorbidities who can die even with abundant care, which isn't a given if hospitals are full from all those with heavy cases.

> My local playgrounds were officially closed until late into 2020 (obviously, I ignored that), as well as all sorts of other places that were obviously harmless

The point of those restrictions was to stop people from meeting, at all. Of course parks are a better place to be than a store, Covid-wise, but not if you gather in groups.

> How did the "connected" nature of our existence make it necessary to shut down entire countries, as well as the air travel links

People travel between cities, all around the world, daily. Whereas before there'd be a few traders going from Milan to Geneva in the space of a few weeks, now you have multiple daily trains with hundreds of people each. Don't you see how that changes the equation and how that helps spread a virus which is usually without symptoms ?

[mdp2021]

> The point of those restrictions was to stop people from meeting, at all. Of course parks are a better place to be than a store, Covid-wise, but not if you gather in groups.

So the idea of the citizen in these - sorry, _decadent_ - societies is not that of an educated, rational and reasonable (with voting rights) agent who will act responsibly and with appropriate proportionate care,

but that of an unreliable liability which will act with the property and wisdom of a problematic child. ("They could go in the wilderness but then they may mingle".)

A few of us will ask: so, where is dignified Society to be found nowadays?

[lithium_throw]

If you're at risk of Covid, stay at home (which is behaviour very common in old folks anyway, during flu season). Frankly, even then your risk is very low. I know several people in their 90's who tested positive for Covid and survived just fine.

>The point of those restrictions was to stop people from meeting, at all.

Yes, the insidious and damaging idea that meeting people at all is dangerous, as we are all disease-ridden carriers of death. When I made a complaint at work that the Covid policies were making the workplace demoralising and miserable, the head of the Health and Safety committe specifically told me that government guidance was to "eliminate conversations". How is this at all healthy for us as a society?

You're also still taking about planes and trains, when I was asking how does that justify being literally shut in my house. Saying that, I understand your point of view. Covid is so bad, that absolutely no risk of passing it must be tolerated, and policy should be set accordingly.