Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by T-hawk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

T-hawk

I said "fuck it, I'm taking my life back" months ago. And then I realized how little that is possible.

How are you going to protest your way into a concert that isn't performing?

How are you going to demand your way into a university that isn't teaching?

How are you going to riot your way into a Disneyland that isn't running?

How are you going to force your way into a sports stadium that isn't playing?

How are you going to disobey your way onto a cruise ship that isn't sailing?

We are much more at the whim of our authoritarian overlords destroying everything joyful in life than we ever realized. We are no longer ever allowed to make personal risk management decisions.

View on HN

> We are no longer ever allowed to make personal risk management decisions.

Your freedom borders with mine - you should be allowed to do EVERYTHING which doesn't affect others without their consent.

Ignoring COVID-19 precautionary measures isn't one of those things, and I am happy the joy-destroying authoritarian overlords took that choice from you.

> you should be allowed to do EVERYTHING which doesn't affect others without their consent

People don't exist in vacuums. Nearly every decision you make is going to affect society somehow. If you decide to eat fast food for every meal and become obese, that isn't happening in a vacuum. Sooner or later you will start putting strain on the healthcare system and if enough people do the same, the "joy-destroying overlords" are going to start taxing sugar and fat (or other agency-limiting measures) to save you from yourself. Is that the world you want to live in - where the government has to increasingly limit everyone's agency in order to save more lives?

Also see Wickard v. Filburn:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

People can't do these things even WITH everyone's consent.

What if I and 500 of my friends want to have a comics convention? With everyone fully aware and accepting of any risks?

Nope, absolutely not allowed anywhere in the entire damn world.

It's right there in the US Constitution. "No law abridging the freedom of the people to peaceably assemble." It does not say "except in case of arbitrarily-declared forever-lasting so-called emergency." If you want it to say that, amend it. If such an amendment wouldn't pass, that's because it damn well shouldn't.

This is freedom-destroying authoritarianism, and the frightened sheep like you eat it up. This is where democracy breaks, if 51% of people want to lock down the other 49% forever, the other 49% are fucked forever.

If you fear contagion and think you need to stay away from me, that is on YOU to restrict YOUR activities. You do not get to restrict mine.

Are you saying you would like the people in charge to remove all restrictions?

Do you agree that a higher number of people will die if they do this? Are you OK with that?

A higher number of people die of the flu and common cold every normal year because we don’t do lockdowns. Are you okay with that? Why or why not?

If not, then you must admit that, _of course_, increasing longevity to the absolute maximum possible extent should not be the only goal of public policy. And then it becomes clear that we’re talking about degrees. How many deaths are worth how much misery, suffering, and lost time among healthy people? Reasonable people can answer that question in different ways, but clearly the answer isn’t “zero”.

Yes, yes, and yes.

People should choose their own risk management decisions, not have a government forcibly do it for them. If you're concerned, you can choose to restrict yourself, but you have no business restricting me and any number of people that mutually wish to interact with me.

How is this any different than drunk driving? Risk-taking activities that put both the risk-taker and others in mortal danger.

States seem to be able to punish that kind of risk taking without complaints about "joy-destroying authoritarian overlords".

That's just silly. By the same logic you could claim than no one should be allowed to drive cars, because an inattentive driver might kill you. If you're afraid then you're welcome to shelter in place alone for the rest of your life.

> We are no longer ever allowed to make personal risk management decisions.

Living life like there's no pandemic is not just personal risk, it's risk to other people and to society as a whole. If you don't understand that a year in, you're either not capable of understanding or you just don't care.

In a society many things we do expose others to some level of risk, even absent a pandemic. That risk obviously can't be zero. So please quantify the level of risk we should be allowed to create for others.

Sorry if your government cares more about your peers’ health than your entertainment values. Thoughts and prayers.

Why are you scared? Just wear a mask :)

It clearly doesn't though.

Obesity and heart disease have been killing far more people in the US than covid and yet Mcdonalds and Coke advertisements are everywhere inbetween television entertainment.

Also note obesity/heart disease are among the greatest risk factors of poor health outcomes for covid.

Why is there little to no mention of eating healthy and exercising in the government's health guidelines to combat this threat?

There are countless other examples of bureaucrats caring more about money and power than public health - while putting on the appearance of caring for public health. See also: the war on drugs.

Overeating and poor exercise only hurts yourself. The difference is that you going to a concert, contracting corona and passing it around our household/workplace may kill somebody completely unrelated to the initial risk vector, how would you feel if your neighbour eating McDonald’s directly affected your health?

Even before coronavirus, going to a concert, contracting influenza and passing it around could have killed someone. Influenza kills thousands every year, asymptomatic transmission is common, and the vaccine is only partially effective. COVID-19 is significantly more deadly but that's just a difference in degree; the same fundamentals still applied. So by your logic apparently concerts shouldn't have ever been permitted at all.

Corona is substantially more deadly, and long term effects can be permanent, it’s also in addition to the flu. By your logic we should just let corona run it’s course? You’re willing to let others die just so you can see a concert?

Do you think we should let group gatherings happen during flu season?

If not, how much more deadly (be precise) would the flu need to be before we should ban group socialization?

Trying to figure out if you're thinking in terms of a logical metric based risk analysis, or just emotion and terror of death.

We can all ask ourself : How many time I would accept to be confined now to live one more day/week/month/year at the end of my life. Now we can use this ratio and apply it to our current choice to calibrate how much we stay confined.

Isn't it better to live life fully when we are young and healthy, than to hide inside our homes in hopes for an extremely small chance that we might have a little extra time when we are old and decrepit?

Seems like this ratio would vary greatly among such demographics.

>Overeating and poor exercise only hurts yourself.

Obese people are twice as likely to be hospitalized for covid.

When hospital beds are being overrun, someone elses life long decisions to disregard their own health does indeed affect other peoples health negatively.

What that really shows is how much popular culture depends on large organizations which might not agree with you at a given time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com