[Slow_Dog]

It's not even that. Plenty of everyday people "swanned around having a lovely time" too; or at least, didn't think the restrictions should apply to them. Sure, in some of the cases he cites there's rank hypocrisy involved that should be called out, and the burden of the restrictions impacted the poor and underpivilged relatively more harshly and some leeway can be given there. But to imply it was just the former is bollocks.

[whimsicalism]

Yeah, although the stuff I saw first-hand around vaccine distribution in affluent/elite circles was mind blowing.

People found so many ways of gaming the system and getting the vaccine instead of the prioritized elderly/immune-compromised. I knew rich college kids with parents who had ownership stakes in elder care companies so they got the shot early, etc. etc., in SF many seemed to get hold of the special codes that were given to communities with low vaccine uptake, etc.

[Aunche]

A few of my friends also got the vaccine much earlier than they should, but they aren't rich or well connected. They merely lied about having preexisting conditions.

[whimsicalism]

To be fair, if you are living in SF and a commentator on HN (as I assume you are), then your friends are certainly among the 1% richest people in the world and likely top 5% in the US.

[tedunangst]

The Venn diagram of (people outraged somebody else got the vaccine first) and (people outraged they were told to get the vaccine).

[mistermann]

> But to imply it was just the former is bollocks.

It is epistemically unsound, as is calling it bollocks.

Because of this, herding sheep is easy, thus I am hyper-vigilant about identifying potential sheep herding maneuvers, of which there were many during the whole covid debacle.

[hospitalhusband]

The everyday people weren't in positions of power.

[VagueMag]

> Plenty of everyday people "swanned around having a lovely time" too; or at least, didn't think the restrictions should apply to them.

The difference is that none of those people were themselves hyping the threat of the virus, or insisting everyone else should stay at home.

[rhaway84773]

Which again is a charge of hypocrisy by the most powerful, and is a legitimate charge, but doesn’t mean the swivel eyed loons have a point.

Non swivel eyed non loons have been pointing out the hypocrisy of the govt and those in charge for a long time. Even the Cummings example created outrage and if it wasn’t for the UK being led by probably the most unethical PM in its history, he would likely have gotten into far more trouble (or more likely wouldn’t have acted so blatantly illegally). Ironically, the reason Boris Johnson was PM was entirely due to Brexit, which the swivel eyed loons at least disproportionately, if not all of them, likely voted for.

[VagueMag]

Person A tells Persons B and C that they're under a grave threat if they step outside and must stay indoors. B and C then observe A strolling around outside without a care in the world. B says, "A is a hypocrite, and they must have been lying to me! I'm not going to follow their edicts" and resumes living life outside as normal. C says, "A is a hypocrite! They're behaving just like that degenerate B and refusing to take this deadly threat seriously!"

Who is the "swivel eyed loon" in this scenario again?