Hacker News Reader

Comment by fvdessen | Hacker News Reader

While I can't say I am that surprised about that happening in Singapore, a country that already had a reputation of placing order above everything, I am surprised at how easily fundamental freedoms have been taken away in more democratic countries like in Western Europe. We reassure ourselves that those measures are temporary, but people have come to see a lot of those as now being part of life, turning their anger instead at those who question the effectiveness and lawful nature of those measures.

I am afraid that as this virus will stay, even if becoming far less threatening thanks to vaccines, society will keep seeing those measures as necessary to 'keep numbers low' and that we'll never really go back to the way things were before

View on HN

Really though, what "fundamental freedoms" actually have been taken away? I'm not sure how it is in Western Europe, but in the USA, very little has actually changed. All mask "mandates", distancing "requirements", most travel "restrictions" and many business "closures" have been voluntary and ultimately unenforced. Fortunately, enough people are voluntarily doing the right thing, but it could have really gone sideways if there were more idiots who refused.

For some reason this whole mask thing has really gotten people all worked up about their rights, over such a tiny thing. Suddenly, everyone is Braveheart--fighting for their freedom against the oppression of... uh... wearing a little piece of cloth on their face. I mean, generations past were drafted off to war for their country, many of them losing their lives. Talk about your freedom being under attack! Today people are losing their minds over a piece of cloth.

>but it could have really gone sideways if there were more idiots who refused.

not disagreeing with the bottom half of the post but can we not forget that the US lost more than half a million people and accounted for abouth a fifth of global deaths. We're still in this thing and the usual indifference to disaster appears to be setting in

No, totally not saying US did a good job at all--just that it could have been a hell of a lot worse if more of the population went "Freedom Fighter" bananas over the masks and distancing.

In France it's currently illegal to go outside after 7pm, all gyms, museums, cinemas are closed, and all restaurants and bars are take-out only (not even outdoor dining). Of course a mask mandate indoors and outdoors, but I agree that's not a huge inconvenience relative to the others...

Those are just the restrictions actively enforced. Technically one can't go more than 10 km from their house, but I'm not sure how much that's really enforced.

Similar restrictions were also implemented in Ireland.

If France is on the same course as the UK, then they will have to reach 50% vaccinated for the first time, before the government will lift many of the restrictions.

To me curfews that dictate that you cannot go outside is not the european way.

Agreed on curfews. The police effectively corral all the aperos and picnics from open-air parks into tiny overcrowded apartments every evening.

Though the French government has already announced plans to gradually lift restrictions throughout May and June. No telling if they'll stick to it though :)

> To me curfews that dictate that you cannot go outside is not the european way.

Is death the European way? In France, the curfew was implemented in order to avoid a more serious lockdown, and tightened when needed, only after hospital admission rates' progression were dangerously close to hospital capacity.

Nobody wants to limit personal freedoms, but considering the alternative was to let hospitals overflow and people die waiting for care, was there really any actual choice?

If temporary limits to personal freedom are the price to pay to not sacrifice your fellow co-citizens.. Who is still arguing against them? Are human lives less important than your right to go outside?

And of course everything is temporary. It has real life economic costs, people don't like it, and there will be elections sooner or later. Even if a power tripping politician likes keeping the population under curfew, they won't last.

I'm all for fighting the pandemic and not dying, I just doubt curfews are the way to do it. They force people to gather in shops and public transportation at the same time.

> Are human lives less important than your right to go outside?

Yes, of course. Depending on the number of years potentially lost.

These restrictions are so stupid. Meanwhile people go to large weddings [1], meet in homes for parties and of course have to go to the supermarket.

Are there even numbers how many infections occur in supermarkets? Any measurements? What has the government been doing in the past year?

[1] It is of course not politically correct to ask in which population segments such weddings occur.

I think it simply accelerates whatever is going on. In Turkey, for the first time in it’s history, the sale of Alcoholic drinks was banned. It was always the conspiracy theory that the islamist will ban alcohol and impose their way of life on every one, however until now all their actions were justified somehow.

First time ever in 20 years of Erdogan’s reign, there’s an opposition for banning alcohol sales.

However I want to emphasize that it’s not the Covid-19 started the restrictions.

First was gone the sale of alcohol in train restaurants. Then the they restricted the hours to sell in shops, they said somewhere in Europe there are similar restrictions so don’t worry. Step by step more and more restrictions came into play. Too close to school, too close to a mosque etc. etc.

The risks of having your freedoms taken don’t come from the covid-19 measures.

Events like these are just catalyst. Think how many freedoms were lost after 9/11.

Unfortunately stuff that you can’t ignore happens, then you have to react and when you react people with their own agenda also react. It’s a dynamic system.

Many share your fear, but like the Spanish Flu, this too shall pass. The virus is real, and the end of restrictions are near. If not by pragmatism, then surely by election.

Politicians own stocks in corporations too. Generally lockdowns hurt profits and tax base, so there is the profit incentive to get things going back to normal.

Lockdowns hurt profits in some companies, and boost profits in others.

It's easy to be pro lockdown if it's boosting your profits and harming your competitors.

True, but there are simply more people and industries economically hurt than helped by it.

And how do you know the measures are not temporary?

And do you feel your country should go back to normal (a) when the danger is over or (b) when You feel You had enough?

What does 'when the danger is over' mean in practice ? When it becomes zero ? When nobody dies of corona anymore ? If it is that, then the measures are permanent, and if not, what ?

As if there were not clear, published guidelines for such things. In about 6.8 seconds I found this page for my own U. S. county to get you started:

https://kingcounty.gov/depts/health/covid-19/data/key-indica...

That's just one page of many on that site, for just one county out of however many counties there are in the U. S. So I believe it unnecessary to act as if there are not easily-accessed answers to your questions.

It's like with flu in 1918.

The danger will be over as soon as COVID becomes nothing to be worried about. As soon as everyone who wants to can get vaccinated and as soon as everyone who can't be vaccinated don't have to worry about it due to herd immunity.

It's very simple.

But then it will never be over because there won't be herd immunity.

My city is already at 50% vaccination rate. The curve is flattened. COVID cases are surging because of the reduced restrictions. If you go out, you’ll become part of herd immunity. You’ll get COVID.

And then we will have restrictions in place for much much longer than anticipated/needed.

A much better approach is to define an acceptable level and live with Covid, much like we live with the flu, cancer and other deadly diseases.

The US seems to be the most sane part of the world in this regard.

> What does 'when the danger is over' mean in practice ?

That's an important question, and reasonable people can and should disagree on the exact answer. But the proper response is not to throw up our hands!

This question is not significantly more difficult than other questions that most legal systems routinely deal with, like "Precisely how clean does a restaurant kitchen need to be?" or "What exactly constitutes fraud/murder/etc.?" or "How exactly do we determine if a driver was under the influence of alcohol?" or "How educated and skilled must a surgeon be?"

These are all difficult questions with direct consequences on personal liberties, public health, etc. Many of them have fairly uncontroversial answers for a large portion of cases, but they also have tricky edge cases where reasonable people disagree. Legal systems ought to (and generally do) attempt to clearly codify things to handle the large portion of cases, while also having some process for resolving conflicts for the tricky edge cases.

It's simply not reasonable to imply that basic public health mandates in response to a pandemic is some new or uniquely difficult scenario for legal systems to face, and that because it's difficult, legal systems should do absolutely nothing whatsoever.

When a critical mass has been vaccinated and continuing with business-as-usual (pre-pandemic) lifestyle will not cause collapse of the healthcare system in a few weeks' time.

This is real, it's measurable and it's time-limited.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com