Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnusty_gnurc | Hacker News Reader

"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.

View on HN

> 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.

> You’re being a bit dramatic about this.

This is how an abuser talks. "Why do you care so much?"

Say that to the working class person whose livelihood depends on the continuity of public life.

The person months behind on rent and jobless.

Anyone contemplating suicide.

Millions of children deprived of close to a year and counting of in-person education at a crucial point of their development that will never come back.

People horrified to enter a hospital despite needing medical care.

> People horrified to enter a hospital despite needing medical care.

I have not heard of anyone who is ‘scared’ to go to the hospital. I have heard of many hospitals in coastal states being forced to turn away elective procedures due to lack of bed space (from covid cases).

Have you ever stopped to consider that, lockdown or not, people simply aren’t choosing to do the things they used to? There are no restrictions against travel, yet people aren’t taking as many vacations. Most states today have no restrictions on dining, yet restaurant revenues are down by half. The service and hospitality industries were going to take a hit from covid regardless of lockdowns.

It's hard to square your comment that there are "no restrictions against travel" with reality. These are just three examples I happen to know of off the top of my head. The remainder of the assertions in your post suffer from the same fundamental flaw.

Hawaii: The islands of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Hawaii continue with the state’s pre-travel testing program. Travelers must have their negative test results prior to departing as an alternative to Hawaii’s mandatory 10-day quarantine.

Beginning December 2, Kauai is temporarily pausing participation in this pre-testing program. All incoming trans-pacific and inter-county travelers to Kauai will face a mandatory 10-day quarantine.

https://www.gohawaii.com/travel-requirements

Chicago: Anyone traveling from a state on the Orange list is directed to obtain a negative COVID-19 test result no more than 72 hours prior to arrival in Chicago or quarantine for a 10-day period (or the duration of their time in Chicago, whichever is shorter). Anyone traveling from a state on the Red list must quarantine for a 10-day period or the duration of their time in Chicago, whichever is shorter. The Order is subject to the limited exemptions outlined in the ‘Exemptions tab’.

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/covid-19/home/emergenc...

Massachusetts: All visitors entering Massachusetts, including returning residents, who do not meet an exemption, are required to:

Complete the Massachusetts Travel Form prior to arrival, unless you are visiting from a lower-risk state designated by the Department of Public Health. Quarantine for 10 days or produce a negative COVID-19 test result that has been administered up to 72-hours prior to your arrival in Massachusetts. If your COVID-19 test result has not been received prior to arrival, visitors, and residents must quarantine until they receive a negative test result.

Failure to comply may result in a $500 fine per day.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-travel-order

That’s three states out of 50 and Hawaii is the only one with any sort of enforcement. I travelled to NM (also subject to a 14 day quarantine). Zero enforcement, totally voluntary and business travel exempted.

Ignoring the obvious here that your original statement was there are “NO” travel restrictions, your reply is a no true Scotsman fallacy. There are clearly travel restrictions but you, and most other people, are not adhering to them. Just like the majority of lockdown rules. Maybe if people like you had followed the travel restrictions we wouldn’t be in our current position where you’re still arguing that curtailing fundamental freedoms is necessary?

If you don’t get a ticket, does that mean that no speed restrictions exist?

> Maybe if people like you had followed the travel restrictions

Excuse me, I was traveling for business. I complied with the regulations exactly as they are written.

You can complain about people ‘not following the rules’ all you want but it changes nothing. There are no meaningful travel restrictions enforced anywhere on the US mainland. Without enforcement, Americans do not and will not follow them.

Hawaii is the only state with actual enforcement and compliance.

> Have you ever stopped to consider that, lockdown or not, people simply aren’t choosing to do the things they used to?

So we don’t need mandates?

Mandates will increase compliance and save more lives.

Sorry but your position contradicts itself and smacks of confirmation bias. If the US government really were systematically corrupt and authoritarian, why would they want to curtail economic activity? They would tell everyone not to worry about COVID and keep driving, eating out, shopping etc to maximize tax revenue and the availability of bribes.

I have read that many people believe outlandish conspiracy theories because humans have trouble accepting the reality that sometimes, bad things simply happen for no rational reason. It is easier for many to believe that a secret government cabal is conspiring to keep people in their homes than to accept that a deadly virus has infected millions of innocents and created massive global inconvenience.

> because humans have trouble accepting the reality that sometimes, bad things simply happen for no rational reason

I believe this and I think it applies to all the lockdowns and moral superiority stuff where people are shamed for not following NPIs that don't seem effective.

It's as though the pro-lockdown side can't accept that sometimes tragedy happens and we're relatively powerless to stop it. So, unable to accept that they point fingers to anyone around them. Who must we demonize? Hunt the witch!

They suppose there must be non-compliant people if the lockdowns aren't working. And so they fight the hidden enemy. As though if there's a minority of people not complying, that population wouldn't have been exhausted through infection after a year.

>It's as though the pro-lockdown side can't accept that sometimes tragedy happens and we're relatively powerless to stop it

There are multiple countries (in both northern and southern hemisphere, islands and mainlands) that have eliminated community transmission of covid. It is wrong to say we are powerless to stop it. It is indisputable that if you and your family stay home, you will not get COVID. Likewise, common sense dictates that more people will stay home if required to do so by their government.

You are trying to make the argument, absent data, that the economic and social/emotional impacts of 'stay at home' orders are worse than the economic and social/emotional impacts of uncontrolled viral infection and death.

> You are trying to make the argument, absent data, that the economic and social/emotional impacts of 'stay at home' orders are worse than the economic and social/emotional impacts of uncontrolled viral infection and death.

My argument has the proof of vast majority of countries that’ve failed to mitigate spread with high tradeoffs and costs to society.

If Europe ostensibly can’t manage it - how is the US expected, given the elevated opinion of Europe most people on the pro-lockdown side tend to presume?

Where’s the evidence that NPIs are effective?

You want ivory tower detachment and ignorance? Suggest America just “be Australia or China.”

>My argument has the proof of vast majority of countries that’ve failed to mitigate spread with high tradeoffs and costs to society.

These are anecdotes. You fail to show that the costs of NPIs to society are greater than the cost of uncontrolled spread (ie doing nothing).

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).

> Have you considered that these measures are _temporary_?

I will never consider this given the excesses and absolute indefensible failures of the emergency powers introduced in service of the Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/etc. wars. Nothing has been rolled back.

Emergency powers should never be treated as temporary given history.

> Personally, it seems like objections to basic preventive measures, such as wearing a mask, are more rooted in ego and entitlement

This is a diversion to minimize that the "preventive measures" have continuously failed and been extended. "2 weeks to stop the spread" have turned into multiple years. Practically every "enlightened" & "advanced" system of Europe that the US is compared to has failed. The most drastic measures in South America, likewise have failed. We are told to act like countries on the other side of the globe - it's laughably unrealistic and divorced from reality.

Say "it's just temporary" to someone months behind on rent and unemployed. It's shockingly insensitive and paternalistic. Honestly, it's despotic given the protracted, dire circumstances of anyone that's not stably employed.

I don't even oppose mask usage. If masks solved the issue (which clearly they don't), I'd be happy.

> Personally, it seems like objections to basic preventive measures, such as wearing a mask, are more rooted in ego and entitlement.

Entitlement? Entitlement is how to describe every comfy white collar worker that rolls out of bed and hops on Zoom, and then condescendingly and abusively berates everyone else that does not have that privilege.

You’re acting as if every single blue collar worker lives alone. Don’t they have families they see every day? Also, living in a city and seeing hundreds of people every day is recent. I doubt there’s any natural drive for having such big social circles as we do now.

>Emergency powers should never be treated as temporary given history.

If this were true, why were the lockdowns in China (an unabashedly authoritarian country) temporary? People in Wuhan are going to nightclubs without masks today.

> Emergency powers should never be treated as temporary given history

The TSA. Body Scanners. Removing your shoes (America only; it's the only country out of the 10+ I've flow through that forced you to still remove your shoes. Some people do it in other places out of habit, but no one else actually requires it).

> Entitlement? Entitlement is how to describe every comfy white collar worker that rolls out of bed and hops on Zoom, and then condescendingly and abusively berates everyone else that does not have that privilege

The vast majority of people on here are silicon valley types. They don't understand people are loosing their businesses, their lives, their savings and their minds. They've never been out to the country and seen farms or know people who grow food. They see all republicans as racist and the enemy. It's dissociative, sad and frightening.

> If masks solved the issue (which clearly they don't)

Thank you for having some sense. The numbers are really clear on mask usage. Zero correlation and no better than a coin flip. It has a high social cost too. People are berating others for wearing masks. It's created a new talisman, and ideology and religion. It's causing insane amounts of pollution and textile waste that will further damage our oceans. It's terrifying.

Thank you for saying what you have. I have a comfy job where I can work from home, but I have been in touch with an America and a world that is falling apart, yet also gripped by insane and unreasonable fear. This is a terrible time, for reasons many cannot truly grasp.

> The numbers are really clear on mask usage.

Do you have sources? Legitimately interested.

https://rationalground.com/post-thanksgiving-mask-charts-sti...

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

> temporary

It has been 10 MONTHS!. 10 FUCKING MONTHS. This isn't temporary anymore. There is literally no end in sight. Canada, the UK, and parts of the UK have INCREASED restrictions. Everyone is saying, "Well they didn't lockdown hard enough the first time"

This is morally reprehensible.

I mean, vote for government which invests in science and not in aircraft carriers. This way we’ll eradicate all disease much faster.

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”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com