> Historians will look back on this
I think they will be more interested in the enthusiastic adoption of totalitarian measures by hitherto democratic societies.
I think they will be more interested in the enthusiastic adoption of totalitarian measures by hitherto democratic societies.
If so, that is as totalitarian as requiring people to stop at red stoplights.
The pattern is entirely that of emergency 'enabling law' examples from the past when equally scary things gave them apparent justification.
Boiling things down to 'just asking to wear a mask' is at best deeply naive and at worst arrogantly dismissive. Break out of the soundbites and take a moment to think about what's happening in historical context.
If you want a serious and reasoned analysis of the worries, concerns and threats under these circumstances (at least from a UK perspective) I firmly recommend you view Lord Sumption's thoughts on this matter (recently retired judge from the supreme court of the UK with a long and highly respected career in the judiciary) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0
Unfortunately under circumstances such as the covid-19 mess we all live under (and thank your lucky stars you are in a 1st world country, the 3rd world will suffer at unimaginable levels, highly likely considerably moreso due to covid-19 aid cuts than covid-19 itself) things are considerably greyer than 'conspiracy theory nuts vs. just asking to put a mask on'. If only it were that simple.
There are an infinite number of things which one might be worried could happen, and it is good to stay vigilant to those things. I have little fear that once the pandemic is mostly behind us that these temporary restrictions will be lifted -- we already know that many republicans think it is a political hoax, and I don't know of a single liberal who wouldn't love to get back to normal.
I am not advocating some absolute zero-measure approach but I also don't agree with the lockdowns which have repeatedly failed to work on any kind of permanent basis and whose costs are entirely ignored.
The rational approach is a measured one taking into account all costs. Unfortunately politics, especially partisan ones don't work that way...
The costs are not being ignored. Government frequently talks about the need to keep schools open to avoid some of those costs; we've recently had rapid release of suicide stats (no rise so far, but lots of caution needed); we're v worried about access to other forms of healthcare (London has today said they can't guarantee ambo service to home birth delivery that goes wrong) etc etc.
People are constantly checking we've got the balance right.
But the fact remains: covid kills lots of people and it seriously harms very many others. Those people who are harmed take time to recover and that has long term financial and health implications for them and their families.
https://twitter.com/rupert_pearse/status/1342020644247130113
Even if you believe these are means to a noble end in the context of COVID-19, I think it is hard to deny that the response has used quite a few tools from the totalitarian toolset. Even explicitly, the early calls for lockdowns used China as a positive example.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think we're in a traditional auth. situation now. It's a classic "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" in my mind.
Sure we're seeing some signs of government overreach, but the impetus is to save lives, not some consipriacy to control the masses. Doing so misses the mark and distracts from the real issue at hand.
Because I think most reps are acting in good faith, and nobody wants these lockdowns - they are just necessary. Why would someone want to continue them after Covid?
I suspect more extreme up-front measures would actually stop the virus up-front. As a result, the other restrictions like masks wouldn’t be necessary for as long. So overall, one might say that the approach of nations like China, while more strict up front, had resulted in less overall restrictions in the long term, many fewer deaths, and even more economic activity. In the case of an out of control virus, people would be too scared to fly, for example, so economic activity would still be severely hindered. (Even with no restrictions at all.)
What are the alternatives for dealing with pandemics which have the possibility to entirely destroy human life and society? If nothing at all is done by governments, it becomes up to individual responsibility and the markets to control the situation. This only works if people are too scared to do anything or go anywhere, which means things would have to get really bad (read: a lot of death) before it would work.
What is the purpose of government if not to provide a safe and stable society to live in? We (unless you’re an anarchist) want laws and enforcement so that we can be free to live our lives without threat from others. You could even argue that infecting others when you knew you could avoid it is something we should restrict. In that way, wearing masks isn’t totalitarian, instead it’s a law which protects us from others.
And if we were to allow these "more extreme measures," what's to stop a hostile actor from weaponizing our submission to totalitarian regime, by creating and releasing more viruses, in order to extend and increase said concentration of power?
You assume benevelonce. You really WANT Drumpf to go full Pol Pot on your ass?
"Only if he does what /I/ say, which is good for society, and not anything else!"
Don't you see the flaw in your logic here? Haven't we see this play out in history many times before?
In the first case, the measures don't benefit the politicians much. People hate wearing masks and not being about to congregate in churches to discuss non-political topics.
In the second case, the measures are usually targeted at suppressing negative sentiment against the political appointees.
But in the cases of the democratic nations and their measures throughout, negative sentiment against politicians and the government who implement these measures are all allowed to run rampant by the government (in some cases by other politicians themselves). Protests are still held, and the government is still scrutinized and criticized by civil society.
So going by your definition, there are important domains of society that the government does not attempt to dominate, that continue to serve as a check. Only those that are essential to the COVID-19 response are temporarily weakened.
Did your government really just ask?
My local government responded by drafting and frequently, but irregularly, updating an increasing complex document—by decree rather than through the legislature—the violation of which was a misdemeanor (or, for businesses, may result in being closed down). To this day, individual businesses are asking the government what steps they need to take in order to operate. The answers they receive are not in any legally drafted document. Effectively businesses are asking government what they need to do to avoid the scrutiny of government; not what they need to do to stay within the law.
This was a massive insertion of government control into the lives of individuals, which is the essence of totalitarianism. I agree that wearing masks, washing your hands, and avoiding unnecessary contact with others are all good things to do. I do those things voluntarily; and would have done so if asked, even if it wasn't a misdemeanor not to do so. That doesn't mean I'm blind to the totalitarian measures some governments took to get there; or to the risks that imposes for the future.
Restricting the density to... Zero? Is that what they are calling the forced shutdown of indoor and outdoor restaurants, gyms and other places of business and subsequent jailing of violators now?
(And jailing of mask violators as well, despite mounting evidence that mask mandates don't work and/or make the problem worse)
Here is a new study (not published) that suggests mask mandates are counterproductive https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1340725086278434821?s...
Would be nice if the mainstream media covered any of this.
>Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective
>From both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact
>Conclusions: A national lockdown has a moderate advantage in saving lives
Yes, you provided a link to a site which has links to 24 other papers. Providing proof in this case required you to cut and past a URL; you are asking me to read and rebut 24 papers, and I'm not about to. However, I did look them up and the wikipedia article about them [1] said the scientific community has condemned their positions on COVID, which is herd immunity -- everyone should get sick, we should live with 3M deaths in the US, so businesses can get back to selling stuff like normal.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Economi...
I have zero worries that this is part of a power grab by evil overlords; they have nothing to gain from this, unlike the power grab to make encryption have government accessible backdoors, or routing all internet traffic through NSA scrapers.
> jailing of mask violators as well
Where are they being jailed? None in the US that I know of. I'm sure there are a few people who have created such a disturbance that they had to be removed by police, but that is ancillary to the reason they are getting nabbed, such as the guy at a Costco screaming at people and threatening to hurt them because they told him to put on a mask. He was arrested (but not jailed) for threatening people, not because he didn't wear a mask.
Yes, the shutdowns are having bad consequences for a lot of businesses. There is a pandemic after all, and pandemics cause negative consequences.
> mounting evidence that mask mandates don't work and/or make the problem worse
I'm sure such studies exist, but there are plenty that contradict your claim, and I do not believe there is a trend in your direction. There are also people who believe condoms not only doesn't reduce the spread of AIDS but makes it worse [1]. Otherwise smart people can believe also sorts of outrageous stuff if it comports with their existing belief system.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-co...
It is happening in the US, you just haven't heard of it. https://www.krtv.com/news/crime-and-courts/sheriff-slaughter...
>I'm sure such studies exist, but there are plenty that contradict your claim, and I do not believe there is a trend in your direction
I'm interested in these studies you mention, can you share them? I shared 25 different studies below that support my assertion.
So that is a bad example.
History tells us govts that gain powers during emergencies are extremely reticent to give them up once the ostensible emergency is over.
Injustices are always justified but never just.
Requiring people to wear something in public? They already do that too with shirts and pants. And again, I think most people prefer it that way.
E.g. the Patriot act...
The thing with stuff like that is people like me who point this out will get sneered at at the time, but later when these powers are abused you'll forget that we warned you. This is NOT trivial. This is NOT small.
New Zealand had a 8-week lockdown from late March to early May, and then they had perfectly normal general elections in October. The government that ordered the lockdown 7 months earlier, did nothing draconian to prevent the free elections taking place.
This feels like a way of contrasting the current situation with measures take post 9/11, which I think are much more nefarious and unjustified.
To be clear, I’m sure historians will be interested in the measures taken to fight this pandemic, just not for some “totalitarian control” reasons but rather for the necessity of fighting the virus on a global scale. The scale of the measures are unprecedented, but locking down isn’t some crazy novel idea. I mean even in Camus’ “The Plague” there is mention of that kind of strategy.