Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The graphs are very clear, there are examples of countries in which it worked great.

> "people won't comply with such police-state dystopian policies"

The "but muh freedom" argument is so tired. If folks had stayed in for a few weeks at the start, it would be substantially over now as evidenced by all the countries in which it's substantially over. Instead by going out like petulant children who won't be told no, we have a giant flaming disaster. That would be an example of 'disagree and commit.'

I'm open to the idea that a lockdown would work, and I'm also open to the idea it's not necessary because some subset of restriction is enough, or because we're willing to pay the cost of excess mortality during vaccine development -- the one argument I'm not open to is "but muh freedom."

I'm sorry that reality doesn't always map to the libertarian ideal. Sometimes you have to compromise temporarily for the greater good. For your own greater good. For a net gain in freedom.

[1] https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location...

Not worth the risk/harm due to lockdown, at least for this virus.

I'm still open to the idea that a lockdown would work but not for this virus.

>For your own greater good. For a net gain in freedom

You mean for your greater good because it definitely not for my greater good.

Had we gotten it over and done with your freedom would have been materially improved over the subsequent months would it not? You're unhappy with this awful compromise, as everyone should be -- caused by a refusal to adhere to either opening the economy and paying the cost, or to a proper lockdown.

And you should be upset about it, I am, it's been an abject failure. We've compromised so much, but just not quite enough, in part because of the uneven distribution of compliance. That has led to huge cost for zero reward.

>Had we gotten it over and done with your freedom would have been materially improved over the subsequent months would it not?

No, because we don't even need the lockdown in the first place. I'm not saying nothing should be done to about this virus, but if the answer of 'doing something about it' is lockdown then I can't support because the harm is just immense (compared to the risk of this virus).

Yes, I am upset at the government reaction to this virus.

The hospital around the corner from me had two freezer trucks parked outside for months because there wasn't enough room inside for the dead bodies piling up. The harm from this virus is very real, even if you are lucky enough to have so far avoided the worst of it personally.

I didn't say the harm from the virus is not real. I said the harm from lockdown is more than the harm from virus.

It's not.

[citation needed], but of course would be welcome.

Read my comment more carefully before straw manning my argument. I specifically said: > And no, that isn't because some small amount of "selfish" people Perhaps that distracted you, but my point was that even if everyone intended to comply, there are practical limits to that compliance in practice.

Although I will say, if "freedom" is the "one argument [you are] not open to" I don't think you have the moral high ground.

There are practical limits to compliance, and the countries that have successfully knocked the case counts to single digit daily indicate it is not necessary to breech those limits to achieve material results.

> Although I will say, if "freedom" is the "one argument [you are] not open to" I don't think you have the moral high ground.

We'll have to disagree on this one. "You can't make me" isn't going to win you any arguments at the supermarket with your mom, it's not going to win you any arguments at home with your spouse, it's not going to win you any arguments at work, and it sure as heck isn't going to win you any arguments in public health policy.

Again, I'm open to the idea they may not be necessary to achieve meaningful results, however that is a conversation that can be had without invoking the toddler clause.

> We'll have to disagree on this one.

Yes we will, since you are arguing in bad faith. I can smell the condescension from here. I never said "you can't make me" but YOU said "petulant children who won't be told no" and "toddler clause" and "muh freedom"

THAT is the type of rhetoric that "isn't going to win you any arguments at the supermarket with your mom"

Totally fair.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com