Facebook bans German anti-lockdown accounts under new ‘social harm’ policy(marketwatch.com)
marketwatch.com
Facebook bans German anti-lockdown accounts under new ‘social harm’ policy
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-bans-german-anti-lockdown-accounts-under-new-social-harm-policy-01631832325
196 comments
> Anyway, I'm sure it's only temporary
I believe you’re being sarcastic, because as free society and governments move more towards authoritarianism, it will become everything but temporary
I agree with everything else you said
I believe you’re being sarcastic, because as free society and governments move more towards authoritarianism, it will become everything but temporary
I agree with everything else you said
It was the sarcasm of an entire galaxy collapsed into a total singularity of sarcasm, where being anywhere near its event horizon rips the very fabric crappy corporate and political narrative, and nothing that encounters it can persist in that reality thereafter. That's how sarcastic it was.
Beautiful.
[deleted]
Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution.
This is an old Soviet proverb. This also applies to tech.
This is an old Soviet proverb. This also applies to tech.
Genuinely trying to understand the thinking here:
I understand the lack of love for lockdowns.
But, on this piece about it not being temporary: is the belief genuinely that COVID-related lockdowns are really just a nefarious ploy for introducing longer-term control in order to subvert our freedoms and usher in authoritarianism?
I understand the lack of love for lockdowns.
But, on this piece about it not being temporary: is the belief genuinely that COVID-related lockdowns are really just a nefarious ploy for introducing longer-term control in order to subvert our freedoms and usher in authoritarianism?
YES
Why is it so hard to recognize that governments like to give themselves special "temporary" powers and then not give them up?
Why is it so hard to recognize that governments like to give themselves special "temporary" powers and then not give them up?
>Why is it so hard to recognize that governments like to give themselves special "temporary" powers and then not give them up?
No need to be condescending. I understand that it's happened in the past.
But, there's an "unintentional slippery slope" concern; then there's the "willful conspiracy" concern.
So, I'm asking whether, in this specific instance, people believe it to be the actual intent of the U.S. government to willfully and maliciously use COVID as a pretext for turning the U.S. into an authoritarian regime?
No need to be condescending. I understand that it's happened in the past.
But, there's an "unintentional slippery slope" concern; then there's the "willful conspiracy" concern.
So, I'm asking whether, in this specific instance, people believe it to be the actual intent of the U.S. government to willfully and maliciously use COVID as a pretext for turning the U.S. into an authoritarian regime?
> So, I'm asking whether, in this specific instance, people believe it to be the actual intent of the U.S. government to willfully and maliciously use COVID as a pretext for turning the U.S. into an authoritarian regime?
Yes, millions of Americans believe that.
It is also true that the Democratic Party is an authoritarian and corrupt government that is spreading corona throughout the US by opening the southern border to over 2 million illegal aliens in 2021, and allowing Afghanis to enter the US without corona testing or even a reason for admission. (The only quarantine restriction on Afghanis is if there's a measles case on the plane.)
Here's 10,500 illegals on Sept. 16 waiting under a Texas border bridge who likely have corona (the White House ordered the FAA to stop drone s from recording this because it's so horrific):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dcFtbrcr7w
Yes, millions of Americans believe that.
It is also true that the Democratic Party is an authoritarian and corrupt government that is spreading corona throughout the US by opening the southern border to over 2 million illegal aliens in 2021, and allowing Afghanis to enter the US without corona testing or even a reason for admission. (The only quarantine restriction on Afghanis is if there's a measles case on the plane.)
Here's 10,500 illegals on Sept. 16 waiting under a Texas border bridge who likely have corona (the White House ordered the FAA to stop drone s from recording this because it's so horrific):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dcFtbrcr7w
I'm with you that admissions should be merit based. But I suspect it's already difficult to go through the immigration system. The legal system isn't a firehose.
That said, thinking the immigrants are responsible for an uptick in Covid infection rates is ridiculous.
Also you're linking to Hannity and Ted Cruz. It's hard to take those seriously
That said, thinking the immigrants are responsible for an uptick in Covid infection rates is ridiculous.
Also you're linking to Hannity and Ted Cruz. It's hard to take those seriously
Again, yes. That is what some people believe. Maybe all these restrictions won't be in place forever, but some people believe that the government is setting precedent by putting them in place at all, and that they won't hesitate to do it again in the future in response to something far less serious.
Trust me, we all really hope we're wrong. But that's what we think.
Trust me, we all really hope we're wrong. But that's what we think.
Your stance is clear. Thank you. So, it appears we have two scenarios:
In the first scenario, the government is doing exactly what it says and taking the public health measures it feels are necessary to save lives and end a pandemic.
In scenario two, the government is deliberately overreaching and applying unnecessary measures, purely designed to deceive the public and curtail freedoms (or to condition people to accept such limitations in the future) in order to set us on the path to authoritarianism.
This raises a number of earnest questions:
>they won't hesitate to do it again in the future in response to something far less serious
The concern about it being done for some "future far less serious thing" seems to be a tacit acknowledgment that the current thing warrants these measures to some degree:
1. Given that these things aren't very frequent (i.e. the last pandemic of this scale was ~100 years ago and we've already rivaled that death toll), would it be more prudent to worry about hypothetical future abuses if/when they come to pass, versus resisting the current measures?
2. If we were currently dealing with, say, an equally virulent airborne strain of Ebola, would current measures seem more justified, thus significantly allaying your current concerns?
>we all really hope we're wrong
Me too!
1. What do you think the odds are that you're right (roughly speaking)?
2. What if the people actively resisting and interfering with government efforts to contain the pandemic are wrong? What is the cost?
3. How (or perhaps more accurately, when) will you know whether you are wrong?
In the first scenario, the government is doing exactly what it says and taking the public health measures it feels are necessary to save lives and end a pandemic.
In scenario two, the government is deliberately overreaching and applying unnecessary measures, purely designed to deceive the public and curtail freedoms (or to condition people to accept such limitations in the future) in order to set us on the path to authoritarianism.
This raises a number of earnest questions:
>they won't hesitate to do it again in the future in response to something far less serious
The concern about it being done for some "future far less serious thing" seems to be a tacit acknowledgment that the current thing warrants these measures to some degree:
1. Given that these things aren't very frequent (i.e. the last pandemic of this scale was ~100 years ago and we've already rivaled that death toll), would it be more prudent to worry about hypothetical future abuses if/when they come to pass, versus resisting the current measures?
2. If we were currently dealing with, say, an equally virulent airborne strain of Ebola, would current measures seem more justified, thus significantly allaying your current concerns?
>we all really hope we're wrong
Me too!
1. What do you think the odds are that you're right (roughly speaking)?
2. What if the people actively resisting and interfering with government efforts to contain the pandemic are wrong? What is the cost?
3. How (or perhaps more accurately, when) will you know whether you are wrong?
Those two scenarios of yours are not really mutually exclusive, at all. The government can both take the necessary public health measures and realize that those measures are rather drastic and can be used for permanent curtailing of public's control over government. Government is made out of many people, you know, so its overall intention is the combined intentions of people it consists of.
>Those two scenarios of yours are not really mutually exclusive
The difference between the slippery slope concern you're referencing and a willful conspiracy is significant to say the least.
This is why I first explicitly sought to clarify my GP's belief, which they emphatically confirmed as of the purposeful, malicious intent variety. In their view, COVID measures are merely a conspiracy, intended to transform the U.S. into an authoritarian state.
So, that's what my reply was addressing.
The difference between the slippery slope concern you're referencing and a willful conspiracy is significant to say the least.
This is why I first explicitly sought to clarify my GP's belief, which they emphatically confirmed as of the purposeful, malicious intent variety. In their view, COVID measures are merely a conspiracy, intended to transform the U.S. into an authoritarian state.
So, that's what my reply was addressing.
I can help you out with your questions. Remember the #resist movement just from a year ago? It's just like that except instead of imaginary white supremacists patrolling streets to purge LGBTQA, BIPOC and Latinx, imaginary Russian agents infiltrating the government and imaginary Muslim ban we have real COVID compliance patrols, real Chinese agents in the government and real travel bans.
[deleted]
Professor Neil Ferguson: "It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought. And then Italy did it. And we realised we could."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/people-don-t-agree-with-l...
That's a direct quote from one of the principal architects of the lockdown policy. He is, not coincidentally, in an open relationship with a member of the hard left Extinction Rebellion group, and the SAGE committee that he sits on which advises the government also contains a member of the British Communist Party.
The above are all unarguable facts. What you derive from them depends on prior intuitions.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/people-don-t-agree-with-l...
That's a direct quote from one of the principal architects of the lockdown policy. He is, not coincidentally, in an open relationship with a member of the hard left Extinction Rebellion group, and the SAGE committee that he sits on which advises the government also contains a member of the British Communist Party.
The above are all unarguable facts. What you derive from them depends on prior intuitions.
We don’t teach history.
> When did being against lockdowns become harmful?
Around March 2020, for most countries. A bit earlier than that in Japan, China, Italy, South Korea, and Iran.
Around March 2020, for most countries. A bit earlier than that in Japan, China, Italy, South Korea, and Iran.
If the leaders of a country and its specialists completely fail to prepare for such a crisis (even if it was well known that something similar - likely flu - would happen) and then make several immense mistakes while handling it, there's not a lot of options left except lockdowns.
Being against lockdowns in April-May 2020 is problematic, but should still be allowed because of free speech. Being against lockdowns in September 2021 is almost a civic duty. European governments had until now plenty of time to get their act together so that lockdowns would no longer be necessary.
Being against lockdowns in April-May 2020 is problematic, but should still be allowed because of free speech. Being against lockdowns in September 2021 is almost a civic duty. European governments had until now plenty of time to get their act together so that lockdowns would no longer be necessary.
Governments getting their act together? Well they did, and developed a vaccination system which the anti-lockdown people refuse to take, because those people are not only anti-lockdown but are against anything coming from the governments. So there's nothing a government can do to "get their act together" because it will be vilified from moment zero. This is where we are.
> Well they did, and developed a vaccination system which the anti-lockdown people refuse to take, because those people are not only anti-lockdown but are against anything coming from the governments
I take issue with that statement!
I haven't been COVID-jagged for one simple reason: I do not take experimental medical procedures whose only promise is to make me feel better if I catch COVID and doesn't prevent spreading or reinfection - I've had COVID recently with no side effects. I especially don't take experimental drugs made by companies that are immune from prosecution!
There is a reason that vaccines take years to develop! On that note, what are the long-term side effects of the jag? Anyone got data on that?
Edit: forgot a bit... and I'll be downvoted to hell but that will just reinforce my point
I take issue with that statement!
I haven't been COVID-jagged for one simple reason: I do not take experimental medical procedures whose only promise is to make me feel better if I catch COVID and doesn't prevent spreading or reinfection - I've had COVID recently with no side effects. I especially don't take experimental drugs made by companies that are immune from prosecution!
There is a reason that vaccines take years to develop! On that note, what are the long-term side effects of the jag? Anyone got data on that?
Edit: forgot a bit... and I'll be downvoted to hell but that will just reinforce my point
How I see it is the following: we were discussing about anti-lockdown. When I brought an argument against that attitude, I got replies about vaccine safety. When I addressed the vaccine safety, I got replies about diversity. This is what makes me repeat the above (even though heavily downvoted) conclusion: most people "against" are "against everything" on an ideological stance, be it on the streets or on hn. I'm an engineer former researcher and this lack of willingness to dialogue pains me deeply, going against everything I was trained to practice.
> I'm an engineer former researcher and this lack of willingness to dialogue pains me deeply
I want dialogue! I want lots of it. I want people on mainstream media and social media to question all science. They are not able to. They are not allowed.
The BBC will not have anyone on any show that questions the dogma! It's not science. Science is when I can question your results, or try to replicate your results, or come up with alternative hypotheses etc. This isn't allowed today! If I publich legit research on Twitter that goes against the mainstream government data on COVID, it will be banned.
Social media are notorious for only allowing people to speak in positive tones about all the mainstream COVID information.
I'd love to have proper discussions but that's not possible these days!
I want dialogue! I want lots of it. I want people on mainstream media and social media to question all science. They are not able to. They are not allowed.
The BBC will not have anyone on any show that questions the dogma! It's not science. Science is when I can question your results, or try to replicate your results, or come up with alternative hypotheses etc. This isn't allowed today! If I publich legit research on Twitter that goes against the mainstream government data on COVID, it will be banned.
Social media are notorious for only allowing people to speak in positive tones about all the mainstream COVID information.
I'd love to have proper discussions but that's not possible these days!
Can you please be more specific which vaccine you consider experimental? Because there are more types of vaccines underway: the mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) which are studied for the last 30 years including for Sars-cov-1, the vector vaccines with modified viri (J&J, AstraZeneca) used since 2013 against Ebola, and even the subunit vaccines like Novavax which are not approved yet for covid but used successfully for hepatitis B or pertussis. So which one is the experimental one? And why not taking another type?
> Can you please be more specific which vaccine you consider experimental?
All of the COVID-related ones.
There are no known long-term side effects as these drugs that have been injected into humans are only a few years old at most.
According to Reuters [0] the trials are still ongoing. According to the UK government these vaccines were given out while still in trial [1] and some are ongoing.
Whether that's standard practice or not, they are still working out the long-term side-effects.
So what happens in 5 years? What data do we have on these? What happens if Alzheimers cases go through the roof in 5 years? Do we just throw our hands up and say, "Well, we never saw that coming!" By then there will be billions with the injections.
Vaccines take up to 10 years to make [2]. There is no possible way you can simulate the long-term side effects. None whatsoever. You need to observe people that have taken it for years! You also need a diverse group of people: female physiology can change dramatically based on age. Asians, white people and black people may react differently to the injections and so on... there is no long-term data on these injections! None!
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-vaccine-monitor...
[1] - https://post.parliament.uk/covid-19-vaccines-november-update...
[2] - https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/12/vaccine-manufacturing-q-and-a/
All of the COVID-related ones.
There are no known long-term side effects as these drugs that have been injected into humans are only a few years old at most.
According to Reuters [0] the trials are still ongoing. According to the UK government these vaccines were given out while still in trial [1] and some are ongoing.
Whether that's standard practice or not, they are still working out the long-term side-effects.
So what happens in 5 years? What data do we have on these? What happens if Alzheimers cases go through the roof in 5 years? Do we just throw our hands up and say, "Well, we never saw that coming!" By then there will be billions with the injections.
Vaccines take up to 10 years to make [2]. There is no possible way you can simulate the long-term side effects. None whatsoever. You need to observe people that have taken it for years! You also need a diverse group of people: female physiology can change dramatically based on age. Asians, white people and black people may react differently to the injections and so on... there is no long-term data on these injections! None!
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-vaccine-monitor...
[1] - https://post.parliament.uk/covid-19-vaccines-november-update...
[2] - https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/12/vaccine-manufacturing-q-and-a/
Ah you are probably a well educated vaccine researcher? Any papers you like to share?
It are you an established doc?
It's great to have independent experts here on hn.
So we don't need to trust those experts who are in the global pandemic circles since beginning.
Tell me more how you were able to conclude your Statements based in how you Google articles from the Internet which align with your world view :)
It are you an established doc?
It's great to have independent experts here on hn.
So we don't need to trust those experts who are in the global pandemic circles since beginning.
Tell me more how you were able to conclude your Statements based in how you Google articles from the Internet which align with your world view :)
For your information I trust nothing about COVID that has been published either by mainstream media, social media or alt media now. Nothing at all.
As far as I am concerned there are far too many people with vested interests polluting the waters.
I was merely linking to mainstream media sources as most people on here appear to shoot down anything that isn't mainstream media or mainstream thinking.
For the last several months, when I come across an article that has "science" about COVID in it I automatically look for peer-reviewed papers in the text. I don't care if Albert Einstein himself told me that the COVID vaccine is safe, or if he said I will die from COVID... unless there is a peer-reviewed scientific paper I will disregard anything said by that media outlet.
Too many sources are just quoting scientists and celebrities about how safe (or how dangerous) vaccines (and other info) are. No one questions anything [0]
I'm fucking sick of the lack of critical thinking! I'm fucking sick of not being able to question something without getting downvoted, shouted down, branded a conspiracy theorist. The fundamental core of science is that I can question it! This is no longer allowed. It's dogma, religion, whatever you want to call it, not science!
COVID is no longer about science any more. There is literally no science behind giving 12 year old children an experimental drug that has a higher chance of inflaming their heart than it does of preventing COVID symptoms...
FFS, only 25 people in the UK under the age of 18 died last year from COVID! [1]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/14/uk-covid-vacci...
As far as I am concerned there are far too many people with vested interests polluting the waters.
I was merely linking to mainstream media sources as most people on here appear to shoot down anything that isn't mainstream media or mainstream thinking.
For the last several months, when I come across an article that has "science" about COVID in it I automatically look for peer-reviewed papers in the text. I don't care if Albert Einstein himself told me that the COVID vaccine is safe, or if he said I will die from COVID... unless there is a peer-reviewed scientific paper I will disregard anything said by that media outlet.
Too many sources are just quoting scientists and celebrities about how safe (or how dangerous) vaccines (and other info) are. No one questions anything [0]
I'm fucking sick of the lack of critical thinking! I'm fucking sick of not being able to question something without getting downvoted, shouted down, branded a conspiracy theorist. The fundamental core of science is that I can question it! This is no longer allowed. It's dogma, religion, whatever you want to call it, not science!
COVID is no longer about science any more. There is literally no science behind giving 12 year old children an experimental drug that has a higher chance of inflaming their heart than it does of preventing COVID symptoms...
FFS, only 25 people in the UK under the age of 18 died last year from COVID! [1]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/14/uk-covid-vacci...
> only 25 people in the UK under the age of 18 died last year from COVID!
> 15 had life-limiting or underlying conditions, including 13 living with complex neuro-disabilities
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717
This is the (social) media tactic: remove the distinction between 'die with covid / die of covid', don't mention comorbidities, don't mention age, throw in a couple anecdotes of healthy people taken down by covid, and before long people believe that 10% of healthy children are going to die a covid unless we acquiesce to the most drastic measures in perpetuity. At the same time our sophisticated leaders throw large parties with no masks to keep greasing the corruption machine.
> 15 had life-limiting or underlying conditions, including 13 living with complex neuro-disabilities
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717
This is the (social) media tactic: remove the distinction between 'die with covid / die of covid', don't mention comorbidities, don't mention age, throw in a couple anecdotes of healthy people taken down by covid, and before long people believe that 10% of healthy children are going to die a covid unless we acquiesce to the most drastic measures in perpetuity. At the same time our sophisticated leaders throw large parties with no masks to keep greasing the corruption machine.
Numbers tell a different story.
Getting the jab is less risky than not.
I'm most surprised to read comments like yours on hn.
I don't know why but I wouldn't have expected this. People who read hn should be able to Research better and be able to read numbers better than the avg.
Getting the jab is less risky than not.
I'm most surprised to read comments like yours on hn.
I don't know why but I wouldn't have expected this. People who read hn should be able to Research better and be able to read numbers better than the avg.
Ok, so please, show me the list of side effects after 5 or 10 years of trials. Does that information exist?
Edit: sounded a bit snarky, toned it down a touch
Edit: sounded a bit snarky, toned it down a touch
Well, the bet you're making is that the side effects after 5 or 10 years of Coronavirus, a disease that causes literal brain damage, are better than the side effects of the vaccine.
I was also pretty unenthusiastic about taking an experimental vaccine, but I was more unenthusiastic about getting coronavirus or, worse, giving it to somebody who was more vulnerable.
I was also pretty unenthusiastic about taking an experimental vaccine, but I was more unenthusiastic about getting coronavirus or, worse, giving it to somebody who was more vulnerable.
> a disease that causes literal brain damage
For a tiny tiny fraction of the population! You forgot that bit.
For a tiny tiny fraction of the population! You forgot that bit.
Hard to take such a reply seriously since Japan never had lockdown and is doing fine without it.
Anyway I wholly agree the GP, the West had gone crazy in both the handling of the pandemic and how heavy handed it is with opposition against the ambient madness. And now governments know they can get away with such power tripping without any consequence, situation will continue going worst and worst on the freedom front.
Anyway I wholly agree the GP, the West had gone crazy in both the handling of the pandemic and how heavy handed it is with opposition against the ambient madness. And now governments know they can get away with such power tripping without any consequence, situation will continue going worst and worst on the freedom front.
I overall agree with your takes on individual freedom, but the situation in Japan isn't all sunshine and roses like you make it seem.
> Japan never had lockdown and is doing fine without it
Japan does have an emergency lockdown, it's just that it's not legally enforceable. However, people who have disregarded the lockdown have and will be subject to intense public shaming and bashing.
Additionally, the Covid situation in Japan is far from being okay. The government and IOC's insistence on proceeding with the Olympics despite the slow vaccine rollouts have resulted in a surge of new cases and is continuing to put strain on the health care system [1]. The situation is so bad that the current prime minister is quitting over this.
https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/
> Japan never had lockdown and is doing fine without it
Japan does have an emergency lockdown, it's just that it's not legally enforceable. However, people who have disregarded the lockdown have and will be subject to intense public shaming and bashing.
Additionally, the Covid situation in Japan is far from being okay. The government and IOC's insistence on proceeding with the Olympics despite the slow vaccine rollouts have resulted in a surge of new cases and is continuing to put strain on the health care system [1]. The situation is so bad that the current prime minister is quitting over this.
https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/
> is doing fine without it.
17,000 deaths may be a lot better than some other countries, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "doing fine" compared to the near-zero death counts in regions that imposed fast and strict lockdowns.
17,000 deaths may be a lot better than some other countries, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "doing fine" compared to the near-zero death counts in regions that imposed fast and strict lockdowns.
About 60,000,000 people die every year, which is absolutely fine. Everybody who’s alive today will eventually die. Everybody who’s born in the future will also die. Everybody who gets to live will also get sick occasionally. Most of them will eventually get so sick that they can’t continue living.
Nothing can be done to prevent this. It is just a fundamental fact of life. If you believe that it is the governments duty to extend lifespans and prevent illness at literally any cost, then there is literally no level of tyranny that you won’t tolerate. Why should you be free to choose your own diet? Why should you be free to choose for yourself how much you want to exercise? More people die every year from making those choices badly than anything else. Why should you be allowed to leave your house for anything except the most essential purposes? The outside world has so many things that are liable to kill you.
“Oh but x number of people will die” is just a fear based argument that dismisses all other considerations. 100% of people will die. If you believe liberty is important on any level, then you would believe people should generally be able to decide for themselves what risks they want to take with their lives. If you believe in democracy on any level then people should certainly be free to discuss what risk decisions they should be denied by the government making them on their behalf.
The fact that we’re debating whether we should be allowed to leave our houses is somewhat shocking. The fact a significant number of people believe we shouldn’t even be allowed to discuss this is a more dystopian reality than I could have previously imagined.
Nothing can be done to prevent this. It is just a fundamental fact of life. If you believe that it is the governments duty to extend lifespans and prevent illness at literally any cost, then there is literally no level of tyranny that you won’t tolerate. Why should you be free to choose your own diet? Why should you be free to choose for yourself how much you want to exercise? More people die every year from making those choices badly than anything else. Why should you be allowed to leave your house for anything except the most essential purposes? The outside world has so many things that are liable to kill you.
“Oh but x number of people will die” is just a fear based argument that dismisses all other considerations. 100% of people will die. If you believe liberty is important on any level, then you would believe people should generally be able to decide for themselves what risks they want to take with their lives. If you believe in democracy on any level then people should certainly be free to discuss what risk decisions they should be denied by the government making them on their behalf.
The fact that we’re debating whether we should be allowed to leave our houses is somewhat shocking. The fact a significant number of people believe we shouldn’t even be allowed to discuss this is a more dystopian reality than I could have previously imagined.
> If you believe that it is the governments duty to extend lifespans and prevent illness at literally any cost
I do not. The cost of fast and strict lockdowns is very minimal. It's when you wait to enact a proper lockdown that it becomes very very expensive, because it suddenly takes six months to finish instead of six days.
> More people die every year from making those choices [diet, exercise] badly than anything else.
Yep, which is most countries tax things like sugar more heavily than they do vegetables, and why your health insurance is cheaper if you're in good physical health. We already have restrictions to incentivise good habits there.
> If you believe liberty is important on any level, then you would believe people should generally be able to decide for themselves what risks they want to take with their lives.
I'm fine with people deciding what risks they want to take with their own lives, I'm not fine with them deciding what risks they want to take with the lives of anyone who happens to come into contact with them.
I do not. The cost of fast and strict lockdowns is very minimal. It's when you wait to enact a proper lockdown that it becomes very very expensive, because it suddenly takes six months to finish instead of six days.
> More people die every year from making those choices [diet, exercise] badly than anything else.
Yep, which is most countries tax things like sugar more heavily than they do vegetables, and why your health insurance is cheaper if you're in good physical health. We already have restrictions to incentivise good habits there.
> If you believe liberty is important on any level, then you would believe people should generally be able to decide for themselves what risks they want to take with their lives.
I'm fine with people deciding what risks they want to take with their own lives, I'm not fine with them deciding what risks they want to take with the lives of anyone who happens to come into contact with them.
You might not believe that the government must preserve life at any cost, but that is the only argument you have put forward. People will die, so it must be illegal to go outside. You might actually have a more nuanced perspective on why this particular risk warrants the criminalization of going outside (or you might not), but you haven’t made any attempt to express that. But if you chose to, then surely somebody with a different perspective to you should equally be allowed to express their opinion? I honestly can’t think of a more important issue facing society today, and even if your perspective isn’t the one being suppressed, you must think that it’s harmful to disallow debate on the topic?
I also think that the argument you’re putting forward here shows close to zero regard for the welfare of other people. Perhaps the lockdowns are inexpensive to you, but they are life-changingly devastating to others. Perhaps you have a comfortable living arrangement, and the ability to work from home. Perhaps you haven’t had to attend a parents funeral over FaceTime. Perhaps you haven’t lost your career. Perhaps you haven’t been confined to a dormitory for months on end. Perhaps you haven’t been stuck at home with a domestic abuser. Perhaps you haven’t had to liquidate your business. Perhaps you haven’t been driven to suicide by having your entire life taken away. But many people have. Surely we must be allowed to debate the indiscriminate costs of the measures you demand to increase your own personal safety.
Your argument for controlling others to protect your own safety can also be extended without limit. Most of the things that can kill you outside are the decisions of other people. Why should they be allowed out for non-essential purposes when they are clearly imperilling you for their own leisure? I’m going to cook dinner tonight, why should I be allowed to do that when I might burn my house down, and your house too, killing both of us and our entire families? Surely some laws are necessary, but surely we must be entitled to debate them to figure out which ones are reasonable.
I also think that the argument you’re putting forward here shows close to zero regard for the welfare of other people. Perhaps the lockdowns are inexpensive to you, but they are life-changingly devastating to others. Perhaps you have a comfortable living arrangement, and the ability to work from home. Perhaps you haven’t had to attend a parents funeral over FaceTime. Perhaps you haven’t lost your career. Perhaps you haven’t been confined to a dormitory for months on end. Perhaps you haven’t been stuck at home with a domestic abuser. Perhaps you haven’t had to liquidate your business. Perhaps you haven’t been driven to suicide by having your entire life taken away. But many people have. Surely we must be allowed to debate the indiscriminate costs of the measures you demand to increase your own personal safety.
Your argument for controlling others to protect your own safety can also be extended without limit. Most of the things that can kill you outside are the decisions of other people. Why should they be allowed out for non-essential purposes when they are clearly imperilling you for their own leisure? I’m going to cook dinner tonight, why should I be allowed to do that when I might burn my house down, and your house too, killing both of us and our entire families? Surely some laws are necessary, but surely we must be entitled to debate them to figure out which ones are reasonable.
> I also think that the argument you’re putting forward here shows close to zero regard for the welfare of other people. Perhaps the lockdowns are inexpensive to you, but they are life-changingly devastating to others.
So let's minimise how devastating they are by doing them hard and early, so that they don't end up lasting for months.
Or is your proposed alternative not doing them at all? Because dying is a hell of a lot more devastating than a lockdown is.
> Perhaps you haven’t had to attend a parents funeral over FaceTime.
Letting thousands more parents die so that someone can attend a funeral seems rather counter-productive.
> Perhaps you haven’t been stuck at home with a domestic abuser.
Even the harshest lockdowns I'm aware of have explicitly allowed for accommodations in these types of situations, and I've never seen a single person arguing that they shouldn't.
> Perhaps you haven’t been driven to suicide by having your entire life taken away. But many people have.
Bullshit. Here's a direct quote from the AIHW:
"Since 2020, suicide registers in Victoria and New South Wales have regularly published data on suspected deaths by suicide in 2019, 2020 and 2021. The Suicide in Queensland: Annual Report 2020 (Leske et al. 2020) included data on suspected deaths by suicide from January 2015 to July 2020. In all cases there is no evidence of any increase in 2020 or 2021 relative to previous years."
Source: https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/co...
This is an extremely common blatant lie perpetuated by the exact kind of disinformation merchants this thread is about. COVID-19 related restrictions and lockdowns have had no effect on suicide rates.
> Surely some laws are necessary, but surely we must be entitled to debate them to figure out which ones are reasonable.
You're absolutely entitled to debate them - you're doing that right here. No-one's getting banned for posting "I think this lockdown is unnecessary". They're getting banned for spreading false information and advocating for people to actively break said laws, creating major health risks in the process.
So let's minimise how devastating they are by doing them hard and early, so that they don't end up lasting for months.
Or is your proposed alternative not doing them at all? Because dying is a hell of a lot more devastating than a lockdown is.
> Perhaps you haven’t had to attend a parents funeral over FaceTime.
Letting thousands more parents die so that someone can attend a funeral seems rather counter-productive.
> Perhaps you haven’t been stuck at home with a domestic abuser.
Even the harshest lockdowns I'm aware of have explicitly allowed for accommodations in these types of situations, and I've never seen a single person arguing that they shouldn't.
> Perhaps you haven’t been driven to suicide by having your entire life taken away. But many people have.
Bullshit. Here's a direct quote from the AIHW:
"Since 2020, suicide registers in Victoria and New South Wales have regularly published data on suspected deaths by suicide in 2019, 2020 and 2021. The Suicide in Queensland: Annual Report 2020 (Leske et al. 2020) included data on suspected deaths by suicide from January 2015 to July 2020. In all cases there is no evidence of any increase in 2020 or 2021 relative to previous years."
Source: https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/co...
This is an extremely common blatant lie perpetuated by the exact kind of disinformation merchants this thread is about. COVID-19 related restrictions and lockdowns have had no effect on suicide rates.
> Surely some laws are necessary, but surely we must be entitled to debate them to figure out which ones are reasonable.
You're absolutely entitled to debate them - you're doing that right here. No-one's getting banned for posting "I think this lockdown is unnecessary". They're getting banned for spreading false information and advocating for people to actively break said laws, creating major health risks in the process.
Then discussion of any form of civil disobedience should be banned. All of it is by nature illegal. A sit in is a mass trespassing event. A march illegally shuts down traffic and critical infrastructure.
Having a loose association with groups that promote civil disobedience, or even directly promoting it is clearly not the reason that Facebook is banning these accounts. Because Facebook doesn’t do this with any other cause that promotes or associates with the promoters of civil disobedience (in democratic jurisdictions at least).
You also can’t make the case that civil disobedience during the pandemic is disallowed. Because the promotion of civil disobedience and mass gatherings was very clearly allowed, depending on the cause that was being promoted.
I also find the suggestion that one of the least trusted companies in the world should be entrusted with the authority to police “false information” to be completely laughable. Your own interpretation of what constitutes “false information” is clearly rather inadequate. I made the claim that people who would not have otherwise committed suicide did as a result of the lockdown. Something I know for a fact to be true. Your claim is that this is not true because you claim that the total number of suicides hasn’t changed. Which, even if true, doesn’t refute my point in any way. Which demonstrates perfectly why preserving democratic principles is so important.
Having a loose association with groups that promote civil disobedience, or even directly promoting it is clearly not the reason that Facebook is banning these accounts. Because Facebook doesn’t do this with any other cause that promotes or associates with the promoters of civil disobedience (in democratic jurisdictions at least).
You also can’t make the case that civil disobedience during the pandemic is disallowed. Because the promotion of civil disobedience and mass gatherings was very clearly allowed, depending on the cause that was being promoted.
I also find the suggestion that one of the least trusted companies in the world should be entrusted with the authority to police “false information” to be completely laughable. Your own interpretation of what constitutes “false information” is clearly rather inadequate. I made the claim that people who would not have otherwise committed suicide did as a result of the lockdown. Something I know for a fact to be true. Your claim is that this is not true because you claim that the total number of suicides hasn’t changed. Which, even if true, doesn’t refute my point in any way. Which demonstrates perfectly why preserving democratic principles is so important.
tasogare(1)
> About 60,000,000 people die every year, which is absolutely fine
Which is about half the japanese population. Or are we comparing apples to jetskis here?
There is more to death than numbers. 16.000 genocidal industrialized slaughterings or 16.000 targeted kindergarden assassinations are certainly something a free society cannot tolerate, while 16.000 dying of old age is something a free society has to tolerate because it is part of nature.
Now that we are clear what kind of deaths a free society has incentives to prevent for sure (genocides, assassinations) we can move on into murkier territory: Preventable pandemic deseases. Note the pandemic in there, it is the thing that makes the difference between "you lead an unhealthy lifestyle and now it comes back to haunt you" and "you did everything right, but your neighbour caughed in your face today". Being in a pandemic situation where everybody can potentially become another ones killer is a delicate situation for any form of society, but especially for a free one. But compared to the times of the black death it is much, much easier if you know what is killing you, how it is doing it and how to prevent people from getting it, either by organisational changes (lockdowns, mask mandates, home office) and/or by medical means (vaccinations).
Now any free society usually also values life itself. Preventable deaths are bad. Preventable pandemic death is worse, because it is not a fixed number ("x people get struck by lightning a year"), but a partially exponentially developing one.
I think it is totally rational for any kind of free society to:
- do more to avoid preventable death than unpreventable death (the easier this prevention is the bigger the moral duty to do sth)
- do more to avoid preventable pandemic death than preventable non-pandemic death (because logistic function)
The easier and the less side effects this prevention has the more moral mandate there is to do it.
Of course measures can go over the top as well. Politicians/corporations can abuse the situation to extend their powers and these are legitimate concerns.
Sadly nowadays they are filled with very un-nuanced, self-lying fundamentalist people ("My freedom to not wear a mask is more important than your freedom not to die") that are quite frankly right now the reason why this pandemic is still rolling.
It is hard to form reasonable criticism in companionship of people who do as if a piece of cloth in front of their mouth is the most fundamental breach of human rights ever.
Which is about half the japanese population. Or are we comparing apples to jetskis here?
There is more to death than numbers. 16.000 genocidal industrialized slaughterings or 16.000 targeted kindergarden assassinations are certainly something a free society cannot tolerate, while 16.000 dying of old age is something a free society has to tolerate because it is part of nature.
Now that we are clear what kind of deaths a free society has incentives to prevent for sure (genocides, assassinations) we can move on into murkier territory: Preventable pandemic deseases. Note the pandemic in there, it is the thing that makes the difference between "you lead an unhealthy lifestyle and now it comes back to haunt you" and "you did everything right, but your neighbour caughed in your face today". Being in a pandemic situation where everybody can potentially become another ones killer is a delicate situation for any form of society, but especially for a free one. But compared to the times of the black death it is much, much easier if you know what is killing you, how it is doing it and how to prevent people from getting it, either by organisational changes (lockdowns, mask mandates, home office) and/or by medical means (vaccinations).
Now any free society usually also values life itself. Preventable deaths are bad. Preventable pandemic death is worse, because it is not a fixed number ("x people get struck by lightning a year"), but a partially exponentially developing one.
I think it is totally rational for any kind of free society to:
- do more to avoid preventable death than unpreventable death (the easier this prevention is the bigger the moral duty to do sth)
- do more to avoid preventable pandemic death than preventable non-pandemic death (because logistic function)
The easier and the less side effects this prevention has the more moral mandate there is to do it.
Of course measures can go over the top as well. Politicians/corporations can abuse the situation to extend their powers and these are legitimate concerns.
Sadly nowadays they are filled with very un-nuanced, self-lying fundamentalist people ("My freedom to not wear a mask is more important than your freedom not to die") that are quite frankly right now the reason why this pandemic is still rolling.
It is hard to form reasonable criticism in companionship of people who do as if a piece of cloth in front of their mouth is the most fundamental breach of human rights ever.
> Sadly nowadays they are filled with very un-nuanced, self-lying fundamentalist people ("My freedom to not wear a mask is more important than your freedom not to die") that are quite frankly right now the reason why this pandemic is still rolling.
“X number of people will die” is an equally un-nuanced argument, and in the comment I was replying to above, it was the entirety of the argument they put forward.
It is possible to have a nuanced and properly considered discussion or debate about the intricacies of this topic. But on Facebook, you’re only allowed to do this if your perspective is on the list of approved perspectives. It’s the same for a lot of other social media outlets. Even if you don’t necessarily get banned, the idiots who are only capable of seeing black and white tend to do their best to drown out any opinions they don’t like.
“X number of people will die” is an equally un-nuanced argument, and in the comment I was replying to above, it was the entirety of the argument they put forward.
It is possible to have a nuanced and properly considered discussion or debate about the intricacies of this topic. But on Facebook, you’re only allowed to do this if your perspective is on the list of approved perspectives. It’s the same for a lot of other social media outlets. Even if you don’t necessarily get banned, the idiots who are only capable of seeing black and white tend to do their best to drown out any opinions they don’t like.
I'm actually astonished people still believe "fast and strict" lockdowns work, or that they actually happened anywhere.
Edit because rate limiting:
In any "lockdown" situation, a large percentage of the population must, by definition, exist in the world to enforce the lockdown, deliver food, keep critical services running, tend to the sick, etc.
The desirability and feasibility of a "fast and strict" lockdown is a fantasy of the laptop class and/or authoritarian propaganda.
Closing borders before there is community spread, a la Australia and NZ, is a separate issue. Those were not "fast". The borders to those countries have been closed since early 2020. In the case of Australia, their citizens cannot even leave without a special permit that is almost never approved.
There is currently no end in sight to their "fast and strict" lockdown. In fact, they have increased restrictions in the last several months in an attempt to prevent interstate spread within the country.
Edit because rate limiting:
In any "lockdown" situation, a large percentage of the population must, by definition, exist in the world to enforce the lockdown, deliver food, keep critical services running, tend to the sick, etc.
The desirability and feasibility of a "fast and strict" lockdown is a fantasy of the laptop class and/or authoritarian propaganda.
Closing borders before there is community spread, a la Australia and NZ, is a separate issue. Those were not "fast". The borders to those countries have been closed since early 2020. In the case of Australia, their citizens cannot even leave without a special permit that is almost never approved.
There is currently no end in sight to their "fast and strict" lockdown. In fact, they have increased restrictions in the last several months in an attempt to prevent interstate spread within the country.
> I'm actually astonished people still believe "fast and strict" lockdowns work, or that they actually happened anywhere.
I live in Adelaide, a city of over a million people that has done two strict lockdowns (at 17 and 6 cases respectively), and neither of them lasted more than a week. Both of them completely eradicated the virus from the state, and we've had 0 COVID-related deaths in over a year. Looking at the absolute disasters happening everywhere else that doesn't react as quickly (even just over in Sydney) shows exactly how well those have worked.
> Closing borders before there is community spread, a la Australia and NZ, is a separate issue.
For the record, we actually didn't do this - borders we only unilaterally closed after community spread had occurred. It was only after eradicating the virus from the community in early 2020 that it became a primary line of defence against further spread.
> Those were not "fast". The borders to those countries have been closed since early 2020.
By "fast" I meant reacting quickly, not that the lockdown was over quickly. However usually those are the same thing - it's a hell of a lot easier to eradicate the virus when you start at 10 cases instead of 10,000.
Conflating closed international borders with a lockdown is somewhat confusing. Australia and New Zealand closing their borders to countries that couldn't successfully restrict COVID spread has had virtually no impact on anyone's day-to-day life.
> There is currently no end in sight to their "fast and strict" lockdown.
Only 2 Australian states are currently locked down (Victoria and New South Wales), and describing NSW's as "fast" or "strict" would be downright laughable.
I live in Adelaide, a city of over a million people that has done two strict lockdowns (at 17 and 6 cases respectively), and neither of them lasted more than a week. Both of them completely eradicated the virus from the state, and we've had 0 COVID-related deaths in over a year. Looking at the absolute disasters happening everywhere else that doesn't react as quickly (even just over in Sydney) shows exactly how well those have worked.
> Closing borders before there is community spread, a la Australia and NZ, is a separate issue.
For the record, we actually didn't do this - borders we only unilaterally closed after community spread had occurred. It was only after eradicating the virus from the community in early 2020 that it became a primary line of defence against further spread.
> Those were not "fast". The borders to those countries have been closed since early 2020.
By "fast" I meant reacting quickly, not that the lockdown was over quickly. However usually those are the same thing - it's a hell of a lot easier to eradicate the virus when you start at 10 cases instead of 10,000.
Conflating closed international borders with a lockdown is somewhat confusing. Australia and New Zealand closing their borders to countries that couldn't successfully restrict COVID spread has had virtually no impact on anyone's day-to-day life.
> There is currently no end in sight to their "fast and strict" lockdown.
Only 2 Australian states are currently locked down (Victoria and New South Wales), and describing NSW's as "fast" or "strict" would be downright laughable.
What is the exit strategy going forward for Adelaide or NZ? Is there any, or are you going to keep the borders closed or quarantine every incoming traveler forever throughout the rest of human society?
When does this end? "Until Covid goes away" isn't an answer if Covid never goes away.
When does this end? "Until Covid goes away" isn't an answer if Covid never goes away.
> What is the exit strategy going forward for Adelaide or NZ?
Right now the magic number for Australia is getting 80% of the population vaccinated, at which point the current COVID-zero approach will be abandoned.
I believe New Zealand has a similar approach, although I'm not sure on the exact number they're targeting.
Right now the magic number for Australia is getting 80% of the population vaccinated, at which point the current COVID-zero approach will be abandoned.
I believe New Zealand has a similar approach, although I'm not sure on the exact number they're targeting.
Israel had a ~80% vaccination rate. Didn't help them. Had the world's highest daily infection rate last week.
[deleted]
> Israel had a ~80% vaccination rate.
My source shows them at 64.4%, where are you seeing 80%?
> Had the world's highest daily infection rate last week.
And the world's ~50th highest death rate.
The point of the vaccine isn't simply to prevent you from getting the virus, it's to prevent you from getting sick or dying. Ideally it makes transmission harder too (a less severe infection means less viral load to spread), but that's just a secondary benefit. The primary thing is to stop people from being hospitalised.
My source shows them at 64.4%, where are you seeing 80%?
> Had the world's highest daily infection rate last week.
And the world's ~50th highest death rate.
The point of the vaccine isn't simply to prevent you from getting the virus, it's to prevent you from getting sick or dying. Ideally it makes transmission harder too (a less severe infection means less viral load to spread), but that's just a secondary benefit. The primary thing is to stop people from being hospitalised.
https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vac...
Israel has among the world’s highest levels of vaccination for COVID-19, with 78% of those 12 and older fully vaccinated, the vast majority with the Pfizer vaccine. Yet the country is now logging one of the world’s highest infection rates, with nearly 650 new cases daily per million people.
More than half are in fully vaccinated people, underscoring the extraordinary transmissibility of the Delta variant and stoking concerns that the benefits of vaccination ebb over time.
I think that 60% figure is the percentage of vaccinated and hospitalised. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/nearly-6...
Israel has among the world’s highest levels of vaccination for COVID-19, with 78% of those 12 and older fully vaccinated, the vast majority with the Pfizer vaccine. Yet the country is now logging one of the world’s highest infection rates, with nearly 650 new cases daily per million people.
More than half are in fully vaccinated people, underscoring the extraordinary transmissibility of the Delta variant and stoking concerns that the benefits of vaccination ebb over time.
I think that 60% figure is the percentage of vaccinated and hospitalised. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/nearly-6...
It's sort of fascinating that Australians believe that we didn't take measures to stop community spread in the U.S similar to what was done in their home country.
For months we were confined to our homes. The lockdowns began in March, just like they did in Australia.
We wore masks (after our health agencies recommended them in late March/early April), we didn't go outside, we didn't go to work. At least those that were lucky enough to not be in one of the essential groups I mentioned above.
Your international border was completely shut to non-citizens (correct?). You live in one of the most remote places on Earth, surrounded by the South Pacific and Indian oceans. You control your entire continent.
In the U.S., we are unable to prevent millions of people from entering the country via our southern border, that stretches many thousands of miles, in any year. Many who are otherwise very serious about the pandemic are indifferent to this issue. Even if we had been able to eradicate the virus in the lower 48 states, it would have been instantly reintroduced into the country.
I'm only discussing closed borders because, from what I can gather, that's the only meaningful, discernable policy difference.
I'm curious which restrictions you believe were implemented in Australia, aimed at reducing community spread, that were not in the U.S.? What did you do that "eradicated" the virus that we were unable or unwilling to do? This is an honest question.
I've never been to Adelaide but judging by the map, and your response, it's a more remote area of the country. Those that lived in mega-cities like Sydney had much more community spread, before the seriousness of the issue was known, due to their global interconnectedness. Those of us who live in such places might wish they had the type of advanced warning that others did. But we didn't. Once the virus was widespread within the community, it was not possible to stop it. I say this as someone who spent the pandemic in New York City.
So maybe you are right that "fast and strict" is the way to go (if you define fast by meaning, before uncontrollable community spread). But if that's the case, can't you understand how that was never an option for many places? While Adelaide/Australia as a whole was dealing with its 10 cases, NYC alone likely had many more than 10,000. This is why many Americans were furious at the endless, largely pointless restrictions that occurred after the initial 2-3 month lockdown.
For months we were confined to our homes. The lockdowns began in March, just like they did in Australia.
We wore masks (after our health agencies recommended them in late March/early April), we didn't go outside, we didn't go to work. At least those that were lucky enough to not be in one of the essential groups I mentioned above.
Your international border was completely shut to non-citizens (correct?). You live in one of the most remote places on Earth, surrounded by the South Pacific and Indian oceans. You control your entire continent.
In the U.S., we are unable to prevent millions of people from entering the country via our southern border, that stretches many thousands of miles, in any year. Many who are otherwise very serious about the pandemic are indifferent to this issue. Even if we had been able to eradicate the virus in the lower 48 states, it would have been instantly reintroduced into the country.
I'm only discussing closed borders because, from what I can gather, that's the only meaningful, discernable policy difference.
I'm curious which restrictions you believe were implemented in Australia, aimed at reducing community spread, that were not in the U.S.? What did you do that "eradicated" the virus that we were unable or unwilling to do? This is an honest question.
I've never been to Adelaide but judging by the map, and your response, it's a more remote area of the country. Those that lived in mega-cities like Sydney had much more community spread, before the seriousness of the issue was known, due to their global interconnectedness. Those of us who live in such places might wish they had the type of advanced warning that others did. But we didn't. Once the virus was widespread within the community, it was not possible to stop it. I say this as someone who spent the pandemic in New York City.
So maybe you are right that "fast and strict" is the way to go (if you define fast by meaning, before uncontrollable community spread). But if that's the case, can't you understand how that was never an option for many places? While Adelaide/Australia as a whole was dealing with its 10 cases, NYC alone likely had many more than 10,000. This is why many Americans were furious at the endless, largely pointless restrictions that occurred after the initial 2-3 month lockdown.
This is a genuinely good comment that touches on a lot of issues I could write whole essays on, but I've tried to keep each point relatively brief here. I will note that most of these points are in the context of March 2020. With vaccinations edging closer to herd immunity and case counts in most of the world at absolutely uncontrollable levels, none of this advice is really helpful without a time machine. Maybe next pandemic we'll get it right?
> It's sort of fascinating that Australians believe that we didn't take measures to stop community spread in the U.S similar to what was done in their home country. [...] I'm curious which restrictions you believe were implemented in Australia, aimed at reducing community spread, that were not in the U.S.? What did you do that "eradicated" the virus that we were unable or unwilling to do? This is an honest question.
Last year my state enacted a lockdown after the discovery of 17 cases over a period of two days. During that lockdown you were not allowed to leave your house unless you were an essential worker. The only exception to this was one person per household being allowed to go directly to the nearest grocery store and directly back once per day.
This lockdown was meant to last for a week, it ended up only lasting for three days as that was all that was necessary to eradicate the virus.
I'm unaware of any state or even city in the United States that has done anything even remotely comparable to that at any case count, let alone having done it at the onset of an outbreak. Yes, not even allowing exercise is extreme, but it then gave us six months of having absolutely no cases or restrictions whatsoever. Very much worth it as far as I'm concerned.
I will also note that compliance seems much better in Australia (or at least, my corner of it). I don't think I've seen a single person in a public building without a mask since our mask mandates were first introduced. Based on what I've heard from my American friends, this is extraordinarily far from the case in even the most pandemic-conscious communities in the States.
> Claiming that you only shut your borders to "countries that could not control spread" is incorrect, no? Your international border was completely shut to non-citizens.
Australia's border had been open to New Zealand (and vice versa) for significant chunks of the last year. It no longer is due to ongoing outbreaks in Sydney and Auckland, but generally speaking free travel between countries that had eradicated COVID-19 did exist.
> Even if we had been able to eradicate the virus in the lower 48 states, it would have been instantly reintroduced into the country.
Yep, reintroduction is a major issue and every time it happens carries a major risk (just look at Sydney right now). However, exponential growth having to start from the ground floor buys you so much time to get vaccinations up to an acceptable level. And while expecting everywhere to successfully eradicate the virus is optimistic at best, if the US actually set a good example rather than being an absolute dumpster fire in its pandemic response, I believe that the rest of the world would have followed suit and made things at least slightly manageable. I really can't understate how much of the anti-lockdown and "COVID is a hoax" conspiracy sentiment in Australia is very clearly directly copied from the talking points of the previous US President. There's thankfully not much of it, but almost all of it comes from people who can't even name the leader of the main left-wing party in Australia but spend 3 hours a day posting about Joe Biden on Facebook.
> I've never been to Adelaide but judging by the map, and your response, it's a more remote area of the country.
I wouldn't really describe it like that, but I suppose it depends on your definition of "remote". It's definitely heavily urban, and travel between different major cities is still high despite the large distances involved.
>Those that lived in mega-cities like Sydney had much more community spread, before the seriousness of the issue was known, due to their global interconnectedness.
This is correct, but given that all of Australia - Sydney included - successfully eradicated the virus the first go around, it doesn't seem to have been a major sticking point.
> Once the virus was widespread within the community, it was not possible to stop it.
This is possibly true in some environments now with the Delta strain (although we may never know for sure - increased vaccination rates mean that eradication is no longer the only strategy), but it certainly wasn't a year ago. In mid-2020 Melbourne (a city of over 5 million people) had uncontrolled community spread during its second wave, with up to 700 cases a day and about 20,000 cases through the course of that outbreak. They managed to completely eradicate the virus. It took a long time because of how slowly they reacted to the outbreak (initially attempting postcode restrictions instead of a full-city lockdown, something that turned out to be woefully ineffective), but they did get down to zero again.
Now perhaps you're using a definition of "widespread" that is far greater than was the case for Melbourne. That would be reasonable - even that major outbreak pales in comparison to almost anything overseas - but I would make the argument that almost every city in the world knew that COVID was a serious problem well before they got to that point.
> But if that's the case, can't you understand how that was never an option for many places?
If China managed to eradicate the virus in Wuhan, then it should have been possible for any developed country. Sure, Western nations can't exactly go to the same extremes that China did (thankfully), but we also had the advantage of 2 months to prepare before things got really bad.
> It's sort of fascinating that Australians believe that we didn't take measures to stop community spread in the U.S similar to what was done in their home country. [...] I'm curious which restrictions you believe were implemented in Australia, aimed at reducing community spread, that were not in the U.S.? What did you do that "eradicated" the virus that we were unable or unwilling to do? This is an honest question.
Last year my state enacted a lockdown after the discovery of 17 cases over a period of two days. During that lockdown you were not allowed to leave your house unless you were an essential worker. The only exception to this was one person per household being allowed to go directly to the nearest grocery store and directly back once per day.
This lockdown was meant to last for a week, it ended up only lasting for three days as that was all that was necessary to eradicate the virus.
I'm unaware of any state or even city in the United States that has done anything even remotely comparable to that at any case count, let alone having done it at the onset of an outbreak. Yes, not even allowing exercise is extreme, but it then gave us six months of having absolutely no cases or restrictions whatsoever. Very much worth it as far as I'm concerned.
I will also note that compliance seems much better in Australia (or at least, my corner of it). I don't think I've seen a single person in a public building without a mask since our mask mandates were first introduced. Based on what I've heard from my American friends, this is extraordinarily far from the case in even the most pandemic-conscious communities in the States.
> Claiming that you only shut your borders to "countries that could not control spread" is incorrect, no? Your international border was completely shut to non-citizens.
Australia's border had been open to New Zealand (and vice versa) for significant chunks of the last year. It no longer is due to ongoing outbreaks in Sydney and Auckland, but generally speaking free travel between countries that had eradicated COVID-19 did exist.
> Even if we had been able to eradicate the virus in the lower 48 states, it would have been instantly reintroduced into the country.
Yep, reintroduction is a major issue and every time it happens carries a major risk (just look at Sydney right now). However, exponential growth having to start from the ground floor buys you so much time to get vaccinations up to an acceptable level. And while expecting everywhere to successfully eradicate the virus is optimistic at best, if the US actually set a good example rather than being an absolute dumpster fire in its pandemic response, I believe that the rest of the world would have followed suit and made things at least slightly manageable. I really can't understate how much of the anti-lockdown and "COVID is a hoax" conspiracy sentiment in Australia is very clearly directly copied from the talking points of the previous US President. There's thankfully not much of it, but almost all of it comes from people who can't even name the leader of the main left-wing party in Australia but spend 3 hours a day posting about Joe Biden on Facebook.
> I've never been to Adelaide but judging by the map, and your response, it's a more remote area of the country.
I wouldn't really describe it like that, but I suppose it depends on your definition of "remote". It's definitely heavily urban, and travel between different major cities is still high despite the large distances involved.
>Those that lived in mega-cities like Sydney had much more community spread, before the seriousness of the issue was known, due to their global interconnectedness.
This is correct, but given that all of Australia - Sydney included - successfully eradicated the virus the first go around, it doesn't seem to have been a major sticking point.
> Once the virus was widespread within the community, it was not possible to stop it.
This is possibly true in some environments now with the Delta strain (although we may never know for sure - increased vaccination rates mean that eradication is no longer the only strategy), but it certainly wasn't a year ago. In mid-2020 Melbourne (a city of over 5 million people) had uncontrolled community spread during its second wave, with up to 700 cases a day and about 20,000 cases through the course of that outbreak. They managed to completely eradicate the virus. It took a long time because of how slowly they reacted to the outbreak (initially attempting postcode restrictions instead of a full-city lockdown, something that turned out to be woefully ineffective), but they did get down to zero again.
Now perhaps you're using a definition of "widespread" that is far greater than was the case for Melbourne. That would be reasonable - even that major outbreak pales in comparison to almost anything overseas - but I would make the argument that almost every city in the world knew that COVID was a serious problem well before they got to that point.
> But if that's the case, can't you understand how that was never an option for many places?
If China managed to eradicate the virus in Wuhan, then it should have been possible for any developed country. Sure, Western nations can't exactly go to the same extremes that China did (thankfully), but we also had the advantage of 2 months to prepare before things got really bad.
> This lockdown was meant to last for a week, it ended up only lasting for three days as that was all that was necessary to eradicate the virus.
It's really hard to buy this notion. 3 days is not long enough for symptoms to manifest after infection. There seems to have been a great deal of luck that this was all that was required. And like you said, it started from an extremely low basepoint. One that's basically impossible for more densely populated countries or cities given the situation.
A 3 day lockdown would have done nothing for NYC. Monitoring and enforcing the goings on of the 9 million people in the city itself (20.3 mil in the metro), given the size of the police force, would not have been possible.
When I speak of "the situation", I mean that it would have been nice if China had been more forthcoming about the pneumonia that developed late in 2019, rather than censoring and imprisoning their own public health professionals and front line workers, but that didn't happen. So here we are. It's easy to forget that conservatives were the ones sounding the alarm about a "Chinese virus" in January 2020. Trump wanted to end travel from that nation. He was told in no uncertain terms that he was a hysterical racist and that sensible policy never materialized.
> I wouldn't really describe it like that, but I suppose it depends on your definition of "remote". It's definitely heavily urban, and travel between different major cities is still high despite the large distances involved.
I looked at the aerial photographs. Chinese, Europeans, coastal Americans, would have a hard time thinking of such a place as "dense" or "urban". Certainly it's one of the most remote metros over 1 mil on the globe.
> "COVID is a hoax"
Covid isn't a hoax but it certainly was cynically exploited for political gain by Democrats who sensed this as their opening for the 2020 election. After the March lockdowns (the ones Trump agreed with at the time and helped implement), Democrats then encouraged the most destructive riots in American history (measured in dollars) for more cynical political gain. "White supremacy is the real virus", mass demonstrations all over the country during a pandemic. After we had all been locked in our homes. Insanity. Totally irresponsible.
This absolute nonsense, and the subsequent finger wagging and blame pointing at Trump, despite how widespread the virus had already become in March before we were able to react to it, was the breaking point for most conservative Americans, myself included. The hypocrisy was too much.
When American conservatives say "covid is a hoax", they largely mean the cynical response to it that I just described, and the effect it had on the American election, not that it literally doesn't exist. There are some absolute crazies on the far right who post nonsense about "5G", and unfortunately that spread to Australia, I'm sure. But I've never met such a person, and I have many connections to conservative states.
> If China managed to eradicate the virus in Wuhan, then it should have been possible for any developed country.
They're lying. The West used to not be so quick to take the word of authoritarian regimes, especially those so obsessed with the concept of "saving face". Covid still kills people to this day in China despite their unwillingness to be honest about cases and deaths.
It's really hard to buy this notion. 3 days is not long enough for symptoms to manifest after infection. There seems to have been a great deal of luck that this was all that was required. And like you said, it started from an extremely low basepoint. One that's basically impossible for more densely populated countries or cities given the situation.
A 3 day lockdown would have done nothing for NYC. Monitoring and enforcing the goings on of the 9 million people in the city itself (20.3 mil in the metro), given the size of the police force, would not have been possible.
When I speak of "the situation", I mean that it would have been nice if China had been more forthcoming about the pneumonia that developed late in 2019, rather than censoring and imprisoning their own public health professionals and front line workers, but that didn't happen. So here we are. It's easy to forget that conservatives were the ones sounding the alarm about a "Chinese virus" in January 2020. Trump wanted to end travel from that nation. He was told in no uncertain terms that he was a hysterical racist and that sensible policy never materialized.
> I wouldn't really describe it like that, but I suppose it depends on your definition of "remote". It's definitely heavily urban, and travel between different major cities is still high despite the large distances involved.
I looked at the aerial photographs. Chinese, Europeans, coastal Americans, would have a hard time thinking of such a place as "dense" or "urban". Certainly it's one of the most remote metros over 1 mil on the globe.
> "COVID is a hoax"
Covid isn't a hoax but it certainly was cynically exploited for political gain by Democrats who sensed this as their opening for the 2020 election. After the March lockdowns (the ones Trump agreed with at the time and helped implement), Democrats then encouraged the most destructive riots in American history (measured in dollars) for more cynical political gain. "White supremacy is the real virus", mass demonstrations all over the country during a pandemic. After we had all been locked in our homes. Insanity. Totally irresponsible.
This absolute nonsense, and the subsequent finger wagging and blame pointing at Trump, despite how widespread the virus had already become in March before we were able to react to it, was the breaking point for most conservative Americans, myself included. The hypocrisy was too much.
When American conservatives say "covid is a hoax", they largely mean the cynical response to it that I just described, and the effect it had on the American election, not that it literally doesn't exist. There are some absolute crazies on the far right who post nonsense about "5G", and unfortunately that spread to Australia, I'm sure. But I've never met such a person, and I have many connections to conservative states.
> If China managed to eradicate the virus in Wuhan, then it should have been possible for any developed country.
They're lying. The West used to not be so quick to take the word of authoritarian regimes, especially those so obsessed with the concept of "saving face". Covid still kills people to this day in China despite their unwillingness to be honest about cases and deaths.
> It's really hard to buy this notion. 3 days is not long enough for symptoms to manifest after infection.
So in your previous comment you alluded to the idea that infections can creep in to a community where it has been previously eradicated. The virus wouldn't really be dangerous at all if we knew that this was happening in real-time, because we could just isolate every case. The reason the virus is dangerous is because it rapidly spreads undetected, and by the time we find out things could already be pretty bad.
The point of the immediate lockdown isn't that it will inherently prevent spread for long enough the virus dies off - it's just to give the contact tracing teams enough time to find every single person who has interacted with any single person that has interacted with any known case. Then all of those people have to do a proper quarantine (usually 14 days) and get tested regularly. Once you've done that, you wait a couple of days to see if any other seemingly random cases appear out of nowhere, and if they don't, everyone else can be assumed safe to go out as they'd please.
> I looked at the aerial photographs. Chinese, Europeans, coastal Americans, would have a hard time thinking of such a place as "dense" or "urban".
The trick here is that no-one lives in the areas that no-one lives in, so they're not really relevant. Yes, the desert 100km away from Adelaide is empty. But people travel by plane to Melbourne or Sydney, not by wandering around the desert - Australia has one of the most urban populations of any country on the planet.
You wouldn't say that Malé isn't dense or urban just because it's surrounded by water, and indeed that characteristic has not helped the Maldives at all when it comes to COVID-19.
> They're lying.
About having (previously) eradicated COVID in Wuhan? Definitely not. Just ask anyone who actually lives there - life returned to complete normal after a couple of months. If COVID was still present in a megacity with absolutely no restrictions, everyone in the city would have stories of friends and relatives dying. That was happening in February. It wasn't happening in May.
So in your previous comment you alluded to the idea that infections can creep in to a community where it has been previously eradicated. The virus wouldn't really be dangerous at all if we knew that this was happening in real-time, because we could just isolate every case. The reason the virus is dangerous is because it rapidly spreads undetected, and by the time we find out things could already be pretty bad.
The point of the immediate lockdown isn't that it will inherently prevent spread for long enough the virus dies off - it's just to give the contact tracing teams enough time to find every single person who has interacted with any single person that has interacted with any known case. Then all of those people have to do a proper quarantine (usually 14 days) and get tested regularly. Once you've done that, you wait a couple of days to see if any other seemingly random cases appear out of nowhere, and if they don't, everyone else can be assumed safe to go out as they'd please.
> I looked at the aerial photographs. Chinese, Europeans, coastal Americans, would have a hard time thinking of such a place as "dense" or "urban".
The trick here is that no-one lives in the areas that no-one lives in, so they're not really relevant. Yes, the desert 100km away from Adelaide is empty. But people travel by plane to Melbourne or Sydney, not by wandering around the desert - Australia has one of the most urban populations of any country on the planet.
You wouldn't say that Malé isn't dense or urban just because it's surrounded by water, and indeed that characteristic has not helped the Maldives at all when it comes to COVID-19.
> They're lying.
About having (previously) eradicated COVID in Wuhan? Definitely not. Just ask anyone who actually lives there - life returned to complete normal after a couple of months. If COVID was still present in a megacity with absolutely no restrictions, everyone in the city would have stories of friends and relatives dying. That was happening in February. It wasn't happening in May.
Explain Australia and New Zealand.
Australia has an outbreak right now.
New Zealand is currently around the 10-20/day cases mark contained to their largest city which remains in hard lockdown. The rest of the country has eased restrictions.
The delta variant has proven very difficult, the state of Victoria in Australia which really pushed the lockdown strtategy has given up. They're now pushing for vaccination in hopes of easing restrictions further. They remain in lockdown as a larger outbreak would overwhelm the healthcare system.
Similar case for New Zealand - they have a capacity of less than 250 ICU beds for COVID for 5 million people. The risks are much, much worse if the outbreak spreads.
New Zealand is currently around the 10-20/day cases mark contained to their largest city which remains in hard lockdown. The rest of the country has eased restrictions.
The delta variant has proven very difficult, the state of Victoria in Australia which really pushed the lockdown strtategy has given up. They're now pushing for vaccination in hopes of easing restrictions further. They remain in lockdown as a larger outbreak would overwhelm the healthcare system.
Similar case for New Zealand - they have a capacity of less than 250 ICU beds for COVID for 5 million people. The risks are much, much worse if the outbreak spreads.
> Similar case for New Zealand - they have a capacity of less than 250 ICU beds for COVID for 5 million people. The risks are much, much worse if the outbreak spreads.
NZ has had sustained mass immigration for years, and the population grows incredibly fast. All the infrastructure is designed for a country with 80% of the population level we have now, and I don't see it getting better.
NZ has had sustained mass immigration for years, and the population grows incredibly fast. All the infrastructure is designed for a country with 80% of the population level we have now, and I don't see it getting better.
Literally ten times less than the deaths due to tobacco each year in that country. Yet I see cigarettes sold everywhere.
Yep, and I'm also 100% in support of legislation aiming at reducing tobacco consumption, such as plain packaging laws and advertising bans. I'm not sure if Japan are already doing those or not though.
Someone else smoking largely doesn't affect me, and I would hope Japan has also aggressively (like the US) curtailed smoking in public places like restaurants and other public accommodations.
Someone else defying lockdown, test & trace, mask, or vaccine mandates can affect me, especially prior to when I was able to get the vaccine.
That's the difference.
Someone else defying lockdown, test & trace, mask, or vaccine mandates can affect me, especially prior to when I was able to get the vaccine.
That's the difference.
Were all the frequent ads and articles about second-hand smoke over the last 2 decades or so being alarmist?
If someone smokes close to you, it does affect you in about the same way as someone with COVID. Likewise, someone with COVID far away affects you about as much as someone smoking far from you.
Cigarettes are available to every adult. Imagine if every adult in Japan was exposed to covid before vaccinations. Use that number of estimated deaths, not 17k. Why do people always use real death numbers after all the lockdowns, masking and social distancing is applied, for comparison to other death causes, including flu? It's extremely misleading.
Death toll would be way higher than 17k especially with the more older population in Japan compared to other countries. Not to mention hospital overcrowding leading to higher fatality rates compared to now and even highet non covid deaths due to lack of emergency medical care.
Death toll would be way higher than 17k especially with the more older population in Japan compared to other countries. Not to mention hospital overcrowding leading to higher fatality rates compared to now and even highet non covid deaths due to lack of emergency medical care.
You totally missed the chance to mention the word 'sheep'.
Trust me I would stand up for my rights if I would not totally align with mask Mandates and co.
And yes mask waearing is for me similar to a car safety belt.
I just wanted to clarify this because it Sounds sometimes that no one agrees but only follow blindly. That's bullshit.
I was more surprised that our politicians actually went so far.
But I also watched docus about sars outbreak and you can see how little we knew back than. It actually transmitted through vents from one Tower to two others!
Trust me I would stand up for my rights if I would not totally align with mask Mandates and co.
And yes mask waearing is for me similar to a car safety belt.
I just wanted to clarify this because it Sounds sometimes that no one agrees but only follow blindly. That's bullshit.
I was more surprised that our politicians actually went so far.
But I also watched docus about sars outbreak and you can see how little we knew back than. It actually transmitted through vents from one Tower to two others!
Given that lockdowns do not work and that in March 2020 that was even the official position of the WHO, it was always good to be against them. Sweden correctly stayed the course that had been decided on in calmer times and now has dramatically lower per-capita COVID mortality than the European average.
It is really depressing that even 18 months in, and even with instant access to the case curves of every country, significant numbers of people still believe that these tactics worked. You can just look at the development of cases over time and compare countries to each other to see that they've had no effect at all.
It is really depressing that even 18 months in, and even with instant access to the case curves of every country, significant numbers of people still believe that these tactics worked. You can just look at the development of cases over time and compare countries to each other to see that they've had no effect at all.
Here Facebook is not targeting anti-lockdown accounts here. It's just the shortcut used by the article's title but the targeting is different. They are targeting accounts that are coordinating themselves to spread misinformation and incite violence.
That's all well and good, save for the fact that "violence" has become a much squishier term lately. Particularly, though not exclusively, on the the left there's an increasing tendency to classify unpopular or ugly speech (as opposed to actions) as a form of violence. It's not hard to see where this goes.
Conflating anti-lockdown accounts and misinformation/violence is the motte and bailey fallacy that got them their clicks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
That context changes everything.
Being against lockdowns is harmful to Facebook, because locked-down people consume more Facebook. That's all Facebook really cares about, and everything else is just justification for that.
>because locked-down people consume more Facebook.
Do they?
If it's all about the money, my guess would be Facebook has lost out on ad revenue, because a lot of the ad payers don't have customers.
There's still a third possibility, they're making some moral decision, although that's hard for me to believe given the company's past decisions. Maybe the lost revenue has made them make a moral decision?
It could always be a combination of these reasons, and I'm sure there's others I haven't accounted for.
Do they?
If it's all about the money, my guess would be Facebook has lost out on ad revenue, because a lot of the ad payers don't have customers.
There's still a third possibility, they're making some moral decision, although that's hard for me to believe given the company's past decisions. Maybe the lost revenue has made them make a moral decision?
It could always be a combination of these reasons, and I'm sure there's others I haven't accounted for.
This is not coming from „east german authoritarian spirit“. This is the west and the uprising „progressive left“ (whatever you want to call it). To me it seems they take on lots of ideas from the US progressives. Especially these „suppress for freedom“ type of thinking.
The label they put on the protesters is „querdenker“ - which used to be a cool word to describe thinking differently.
The media said they are dangerous since the beginning. Some estimates say there are up to 15-20% of right-extremists partaking in the „protests“. The conclusion for the majority in germany is: there are nazis and that‘s why the protests should be forbidden.
Obviously we shouldn‘t allow people fighting against minorities to do whatever they want. But the remaining 80-85% are „normal“ people (a lot might be too esoteric, but hey, that‘s nothing bad per se).
„One bad apple, spoils the bunch“, it seems.
Though, the current government (mostly of the CDU, party of chancellor Merkel), was involved in a few corruption scandals lately. Politicans are no apples, but these dangerous people wanting their constitutional rights back obviously are.
I don‘t like the opinion of the „querdenker“ movement. But i am much more concerned with the german acceptance to restrict their constitutional rights.
Germans are good following rules. They‘re no revolutionaries, they‘re top executors. So they should be extra careful on which rules get set. There will not be a lot of people questioning rules as soon as they are set but rather just live by them. as history has taught us more than the one, bad, bad, time.
Btw: Even most people in east germany who have important roles are from the west.
The media said they are dangerous since the beginning. Some estimates say there are up to 15-20% of right-extremists partaking in the „protests“. The conclusion for the majority in germany is: there are nazis and that‘s why the protests should be forbidden.
Obviously we shouldn‘t allow people fighting against minorities to do whatever they want. But the remaining 80-85% are „normal“ people (a lot might be too esoteric, but hey, that‘s nothing bad per se).
„One bad apple, spoils the bunch“, it seems.
Though, the current government (mostly of the CDU, party of chancellor Merkel), was involved in a few corruption scandals lately. Politicans are no apples, but these dangerous people wanting their constitutional rights back obviously are.
I don‘t like the opinion of the „querdenker“ movement. But i am much more concerned with the german acceptance to restrict their constitutional rights.
Germans are good following rules. They‘re no revolutionaries, they‘re top executors. So they should be extra careful on which rules get set. There will not be a lot of people questioning rules as soon as they are set but rather just live by them. as history has taught us more than the one, bad, bad, time.
Btw: Even most people in east germany who have important roles are from the west.
What is the rhetoric from the different political parties?
Will the election on the 26th be a referendum on covid policies?
One last addition: i have been to a east german city recently. When i was there, there was no mask mandate anywhere.
Not in malls, not in bars, clubs (which weren‘t even open in other cities at that time). Nowhere, except for public transportation.
While my city was still in „lockdown“, no private meetings with groups bigger than 10, police checking in on private parties, we had 13x the „incidence rate“.
This was one of the cities with the lowest cases in all of germany.
I wonder how that‘s possible. Might all these measures not be as effective as we hoped? Should we return to accept that life is a risk, thank science for the vaccine, take it or not and live life?
I know it sounds bad, but to me, this whole pandemic politic still seems fishy.
While my city was still in „lockdown“, no private meetings with groups bigger than 10, police checking in on private parties, we had 13x the „incidence rate“.
This was one of the cities with the lowest cases in all of germany.
I wonder how that‘s possible. Might all these measures not be as effective as we hoped? Should we return to accept that life is a risk, thank science for the vaccine, take it or not and live life?
I know it sounds bad, but to me, this whole pandemic politic still seems fishy.
Whan was "recently"? This time the wave started later in East Germany than West Germany, but since a week or so it seems to catch up. One reason could be that school holidays ended earlier in West German states (although in 2020 this didn't seem to make a difference).
Rest assured, the lockdowns will be lifted as soon as we eliminate Covid.
We've tested and found covid-positive white-tailed deer all over New York state. Presumably there are other animal reservoirs.
We now know that the vaccines widely available (at least those used in the US, Israel, the UK) have waning effectiveness, likely requiring periodic boosters.
We also know those vaccines are non-sterilizing, meaning it is at least possible for fully vaccinated individuals to contract and transmit the virus.
Even assuming vaccine mandates in perpetuity, and widespread compliance, there will presumably be some overlap of "lapsed effectiveness" in the population between boosters. We literally don't have the capacity to administer boosters to all 200 million American adults exactly at the same instant, or even in the same month. Nor do we know for sure how long the effectiveness window lasts, or whether that may vary between individuals or type of vaccine.
How exactly are we going to "eliminate" covid, given this reality? Many Americans are terrified that the goal is "elimination" of the virus. Similar to the War on Terror, wherein we did a tremendous amount of collateral damage endlessly chasing an unattainable ideal.
We now know that the vaccines widely available (at least those used in the US, Israel, the UK) have waning effectiveness, likely requiring periodic boosters.
We also know those vaccines are non-sterilizing, meaning it is at least possible for fully vaccinated individuals to contract and transmit the virus.
Even assuming vaccine mandates in perpetuity, and widespread compliance, there will presumably be some overlap of "lapsed effectiveness" in the population between boosters. We literally don't have the capacity to administer boosters to all 200 million American adults exactly at the same instant, or even in the same month. Nor do we know for sure how long the effectiveness window lasts, or whether that may vary between individuals or type of vaccine.
How exactly are we going to "eliminate" covid, given this reality? Many Americans are terrified that the goal is "elimination" of the virus. Similar to the War on Terror, wherein we did a tremendous amount of collateral damage endlessly chasing an unattainable ideal.
> We've tested and found covid-positive white-tailed deer all over New York state. Presumably there are other animal reservoirs.
Do you regularly interact with white-tailed deer in confined spaces?
> We now know that the vaccines widely available (at least those used in the US, Israel, the UK) have waning effectiveness, likely requiring periodic boosters.
What's wrong with a vaccine needing boosters? Many do.
> We also know those vaccines are non-sterilizing, meaning it is at least possible for fully vaccinated individuals to contract and transmit the virus.
Even more reason for people to be vaccinated. It keeps them out of the hospital.
Even assuming vaccine mandates in perpetuity, and widespread compliance, there will presumably be some overlap of "lapsed effectiveness" in the population between boosters. We literally don't have the capacity to administer boosters to all 200 million American adults exactly at the same instant, or even in the same month.
> Even assuming vaccine mandates in perpetuity, and widespread compliance, there will presumably be some overlap of "lapsed effectiveness" in the population between boosters.
Lapsed effectiveness isn't something that prohibits us from containing the virus
> We literally don't have the capacity to administer boosters to all 200 million American adults exactly at the same instant, or even in the same month.
It's honestly pretty sad that you think we couldn't do this. Have Americans really gotten that lazy?
> How exactly we are going to "eliminate" covid, given this reality? Many Americans are terrified that the goal is "elimination" of the virus. Similar to the War on Terror, wherein we did a tremendous amount of collateral damage chasing an endless, unattainable ideal.
I'm not sure what to say to this. "We don't care to contain it, therefore its' impossible to contain"?
Do you regularly interact with white-tailed deer in confined spaces?
> We now know that the vaccines widely available (at least those used in the US, Israel, the UK) have waning effectiveness, likely requiring periodic boosters.
What's wrong with a vaccine needing boosters? Many do.
> We also know those vaccines are non-sterilizing, meaning it is at least possible for fully vaccinated individuals to contract and transmit the virus.
Even more reason for people to be vaccinated. It keeps them out of the hospital.
Even assuming vaccine mandates in perpetuity, and widespread compliance, there will presumably be some overlap of "lapsed effectiveness" in the population between boosters. We literally don't have the capacity to administer boosters to all 200 million American adults exactly at the same instant, or even in the same month.
> Even assuming vaccine mandates in perpetuity, and widespread compliance, there will presumably be some overlap of "lapsed effectiveness" in the population between boosters.
Lapsed effectiveness isn't something that prohibits us from containing the virus
> We literally don't have the capacity to administer boosters to all 200 million American adults exactly at the same instant, or even in the same month.
It's honestly pretty sad that you think we couldn't do this. Have Americans really gotten that lazy?
> How exactly we are going to "eliminate" covid, given this reality? Many Americans are terrified that the goal is "elimination" of the virus. Similar to the War on Terror, wherein we did a tremendous amount of collateral damage chasing an endless, unattainable ideal.
I'm not sure what to say to this. "We don't care to contain it, therefore its' impossible to contain"?
> Do you regularly interact with white-tailed deer in confined spaces?
You do realize that people eat deer? And other livestock? Is it not a leading hypothesis that the origin of COVID-19 was an animal market? If it exists in the surrounding environment that's not "elimination". There will always be a risk of an outbreak.
> It's honestly pretty sad that you think we couldn't do this. Have Americans really gotten that lazy?
Yes? Is that not obvious? Though, not the point I'm making.
> I'm not sure what to say to this. "We don't care to contain it, therefore its' impossible to contain"?
You've interpreted my comment precisely backwards. Try this:
"It's impossible to contain, therefore we should approach it as a harm mitigation problem, rather than a candidate for 'elimination', through vaccination and early treatment, not dystopian lockdowns and restrictions"
Can you name another respiratory virus we've been able to completely eliminate? Any coronaviruses? Flu? Common cold? The ones I'm aware of are endemic.
You do realize that people eat deer? And other livestock? Is it not a leading hypothesis that the origin of COVID-19 was an animal market? If it exists in the surrounding environment that's not "elimination". There will always be a risk of an outbreak.
> It's honestly pretty sad that you think we couldn't do this. Have Americans really gotten that lazy?
Yes? Is that not obvious? Though, not the point I'm making.
> I'm not sure what to say to this. "We don't care to contain it, therefore its' impossible to contain"?
You've interpreted my comment precisely backwards. Try this:
"It's impossible to contain, therefore we should approach it as a harm mitigation problem, rather than a candidate for 'elimination', through vaccination and early treatment, not dystopian lockdowns and restrictions"
Can you name another respiratory virus we've been able to completely eliminate? Any coronaviruses? Flu? Common cold? The ones I'm aware of are endemic.
You do realize that people eat deer? And other livestock? Is it not a leading hypothesis that the origin of COVID-19 was an animal market? If it exists in the surrounding environment that's not "elimination". There will always be a risk of an outbreak.
How many people are eating raw deer? Do you have evidence of spread of covid-19 from deer to people?
> "It's impossible to contain, therefore we should approach it as a harm mitigation problem, rather than a candidate for 'elimination', through vaccination, not dystopian lockdowns and restrictions"
Why not both, (as long as you don't include the word 'dystopian' which is clearly just an emotional word). Vaccination and restrictions can work together to address the pandemic.
If you're implying mandatory vaccinations, sure. But when you've got a percentage of the population not willing to be vaccinated, if that percentage of the population is high enough to overwhelm our hospitals, restrictions make sense.
How many people are eating raw deer? Do you have evidence of spread of covid-19 from deer to people?
> "It's impossible to contain, therefore we should approach it as a harm mitigation problem, rather than a candidate for 'elimination', through vaccination, not dystopian lockdowns and restrictions"
Why not both, (as long as you don't include the word 'dystopian' which is clearly just an emotional word). Vaccination and restrictions can work together to address the pandemic.
If you're implying mandatory vaccinations, sure. But when you've got a percentage of the population not willing to be vaccinated, if that percentage of the population is high enough to overwhelm our hospitals, restrictions make sense.
> How many people are eating raw deer?
Tell me you don't hunt without telling me you don't hunt. Typically, after killing an animal, you skin it and hang it to drain before cutting it into steaks and cooking it. Similar to what happens in a wet market.
> If you're implying mandatory vaccinations, sure.
I'm not. At-risk populations will make the right decisions for themselves. Even republicans have high vaccination rates above a certain age. To any extent that this isn't happening, more education is the way to go.
Remember: the vaccines are about preventing serious illness. Not eliminating the virus.
As for hospital capacity, it's interesting how vaccine mandates are drastically exacerbating this issue, given how many frontline health care workers, who are largely naturally immune, are being fired or walking off the job due to these mandates.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. We largely do have physical capacity. We even have the ability to spin up more than is current online. Our bottleneck is the supply of medical professionals themselves.
Tell me you don't hunt without telling me you don't hunt. Typically, after killing an animal, you skin it and hang it to drain before cutting it into steaks and cooking it. Similar to what happens in a wet market.
> If you're implying mandatory vaccinations, sure.
I'm not. At-risk populations will make the right decisions for themselves. Even republicans have high vaccination rates above a certain age. To any extent that this isn't happening, more education is the way to go.
Remember: the vaccines are about preventing serious illness. Not eliminating the virus.
As for hospital capacity, it's interesting how vaccine mandates are drastically exacerbating this issue, given how many frontline health care workers, who are largely naturally immune, are being fired or walking off the job due to these mandates.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. We largely do have physical capacity. We even have the ability to spin up more than is current online. Our bottleneck is the supply of medical professionals themselves.
> Our bottleneck is largely the supply of medical professionals themselves.
Yes, and these medical professionals take a long time to train, hence why we care about hospital capacity.
Yes, and these medical professionals take a long time to train, hence why we care about hospital capacity.
In that case we should allow serologic tests to prove natural immunity for the workers we are firing. What we are doing is pretty insane. Natural immunity is accepted most other places in the developed world. The U.S. is an outlier.
>How exactly we are going to "eliminate" covid, given this reality?
thatsthejoke.jpg
thatsthejoke.jpg
Wooshed myself, didn't I? And yet, somehow there was someone willing to defend it.
> When did being against lockdowns become harmful?
When it leads to a healthcare crisis.
When it leads to a healthcare crisis.
Normally censorship like this is the sort of thing I'd look at and say, "this will be used for malicious purposes eventually", but FB went ahead and jumped straight to step two in this case and started out using it maliciously.
It's a basic public health measure during emergence of a novel communicable disease. No one would question locking down a small town temporarily if it was airborne ebola. You can argue about severity and what is an appropriate response, but to just say lockdown is harmful and off the table no matter how severe and contagious seems insane and suicidal for a society.
I'm not responding to what Facebook is doing in the article or coronavirus lockdown response specificly, just your statement: 'Seriously, they're called "lockdowns," because they are the very opposite of things you want to normalize in a free society.'
In a free society you still can't drive on the wrong side of the road. You can't go into a business and fire off shots in random directions (maybe won't hit anyone, like you maybe won't infect anyone vulnerable or infect someone else who will go on to during a deadly outbreak).
I'm not responding to what Facebook is doing in the article or coronavirus lockdown response specificly, just your statement: 'Seriously, they're called "lockdowns," because they are the very opposite of things you want to normalize in a free society.'
In a free society you still can't drive on the wrong side of the road. You can't go into a business and fire off shots in random directions (maybe won't hit anyone, like you maybe won't infect anyone vulnerable or infect someone else who will go on to during a deadly outbreak).
The headline is very generous, this is not about merely being "anti-lockdown". The problem isn't that the Querdenkers are "anti-lockdown", but that they are actively spreading much more harmful misinformation, like anti-vaxxing propaganda. Parts of the movement have also been classified as extremist in December 2020 and are observed by the "Verfassungsschutz" ("Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution").
> Querdenkers
Does this word mean something akin to alt-thinkers? Or maybe sideways thinkers?
Does this word mean something akin to alt-thinkers? Or maybe sideways thinkers?
Basically "not thinking like the mainstream", heavily implying that the "masses" are manipulated by the government and media, same shtick as every other conspiracy theory group.
When "anti-lockdown" became an euphemism for a lot of missinformation and lies.
Yeah, like it's totally fine to be against lockdowns on principle -- I know a lot of people in my social circle that are against mandatory lockdowns (and want advisory only) because it gives yet another thing for police to selectively enforce in poor and minority areas.
But then there's this internet mass that self-identifies using the label "anti-lockdown" which is full of people who are at best crazy and unhinged. But people read the headline and assume that "$social_media is censoring my opinions!" when it really just a specific group that has co-opted some label to pseudolegitimze their views.
But then there's this internet mass that self-identifies using the label "anti-lockdown" which is full of people who are at best crazy and unhinged. But people read the headline and assume that "$social_media is censoring my opinions!" when it really just a specific group that has co-opted some label to pseudolegitimze their views.
Can we ban Facebook under the same social harm policy? I think there is little doubt that social media in general is harmful to society. I wonder if it will be one of those mistakes we look back on as a society and wonder how we allowed it.
HN is social media too.
Touché.
This is the danger of these kinds of discussions. As humans, our rhetoric normally veers precariously close to:
"We should get rid of [insert troublesome thing here]. But not my [insert troublesome thing here]. My [insert troublesome thing here] is good."
This is the danger of these kinds of discussions. As humans, our rhetoric normally veers precariously close to:
"We should get rid of [insert troublesome thing here]. But not my [insert troublesome thing here]. My [insert troublesome thing here] is good."
I'm under no illusions about HN either. It's my guilty pleasure, but it's also largely a waste of time. It's blocked on my computer, I only use it from my phone and I keep my phone out of reach when I'm working.
Even on HN, the most voted submissions (this one included) tend to be some sort of outrage or controversy -- very often something you can do little or nothing about. I'm seeing rather polarized views, but even without it, neverending controversy seems like a negative thing for individuals' mental wellbeing and probably the society at large.
HN is run by a benevolent dictator for now, I suspect the moment it started shadow-banning or deploy the same sleazy tactics as FB no one would tolerate it here. It would probably go to the oblivion.
HN regularly uses shadowbans, although there's a setting that lets you opt into shadowbanned comments if you really want to see them. The unfortunate reality, as anyone who's tried to run a discussion forum can tell you, is that some users are very dedicated to ruining the quality of discourse and they'll find a way around any attempt to stop them from posting.
> I suspect the moment it started shadow-banning [...] no one would tolerate it here
HN has been shadow-banning accounts since at least 2012 so I'm not too sure about that one.
HN has been shadow-banning accounts since at least 2012 so I'm not too sure about that one.
[deleted]
[deleted]
How would you define "social media"?
Its only a matter a time before those internet killswitches get used on social media companies and data brokers under public health orders
I'm looking forward to the simultaenous multi-pronged state level actions using the tools we already have
Where we are now is purely tolerance and pretend
I'm looking forward to the simultaenous multi-pronged state level actions using the tools we already have
Where we are now is purely tolerance and pretend
Pretty rich that the same organization that figured out that its own product was hurtful to teen girls (and promptly did nothing)[0] is now shutting down anti-lockdown accounts because of "social harm".
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688
I'm glad we have unaccountable mega-corporations telling me what does and what does not constitute 'social harm'.
They are accountable. Don't use them. I could not give less of a shit about what platforms like Facebook do because I'm not on them. Do I have less speech?
I can see your speech just fine here on HN, one of the many alternative social media sites to Facebook.
Facebook is in a no-win situation here. Regardless of what action they take, they are either accused of suppressing free exchange of ideas or of permitting the exchange of dangerous ideas.
While they are a private company, and there are arguments about their rights as such, having free speech means being willing to "permit the exchange of dangerous ideas" to avoid the suppression of 'good' ones. That is actually the whole idea and there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society.
>there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society.
How do you feel about copyright? Or false advertising? Or slander? Or bribery? Or harassment? Or threats of violence? Or conspiracies to commit crime? Or revenge porn? Or child porn?
It is so weird when people pretend that free speech is binary considering we already outlaw so many different forms of speech. Free speech is a spectrum and there is valid debate on where on the spectrum we draw the line. Germany happens to be draw the line in a difference place than the US but that doesn't mean they aren't a "free society".
How do you feel about copyright? Or false advertising? Or slander? Or bribery? Or harassment? Or threats of violence? Or conspiracies to commit crime? Or revenge porn? Or child porn?
It is so weird when people pretend that free speech is binary considering we already outlaw so many different forms of speech. Free speech is a spectrum and there is valid debate on where on the spectrum we draw the line. Germany happens to be draw the line in a difference place than the US but that doesn't mean they aren't a "free society".
This is a dishonest argument.
There is a lot to unpack there, and I don't have time to expound on all those individually, but I'd come down as more of a hardliner on the side of free speech while letting other societal mechanisms moderate the extremes to varying degrees.
The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism. Yes, this is a slippery slope argument but given the historical evidence I believe it is warranted.
The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism. Yes, this is a slippery slope argument but given the historical evidence I believe it is warranted.
The US is at an extreme in where it draws the line on free speech compared to other western democracies. Would you say that every other western democracy is on the path to authoritarianism because they drew the line somewhere else?
I can't say they are without looking into them individually. How can you expect me to know one way or another? Do you claim to know?
My point was it may be wise to err on the side of history and what your eyes tell you about the nature of politics in modern democracies. I don't want my fundamental rights subject to political whims and opportunism.
Also, I don't think there is anything extreme about the US's free speech laws. What do you think is extreme about them?
My point was it may be wise to err on the side of history and what your eyes tell you about the nature of politics in modern democracies. I don't want my fundamental rights subject to political whims and opportunism.
Also, I don't think there is anything extreme about the US's free speech laws. What do you think is extreme about them?
Hate speech, political advertising, and lobbying are some of the big types of speech that are heavily restricted in other western democracies compared to the US.
You said previously that "there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society" and "The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism."
I took those two statements as implying that countries that have "compromised" in comparison to the US will have trouble "maintaining a free society" and are pushing "for less freedom, not more" and that therefore they have begun "a slow slide into authoritarianism."
You said previously that "there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society" and "The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism."
I took those two statements as implying that countries that have "compromised" in comparison to the US will have trouble "maintaining a free society" and are pushing "for less freedom, not more" and that therefore they have begun "a slow slide into authoritarianism."
I'm opposed to banning `hate speech` solely because it is vague and likely ineffective against stopping hate. The vague-ness is open for abuse, depending on the political winds. I would say this is definitely is a step towards authoritarianism.
As for political advertising and lobbying, those seem like bandages for the larger issue of people blatantly ignoring political corruption and paying attention to political advertising. Has banning / limiting those had any great effect?
As for political advertising and lobbying, those seem like bandages for the larger issue of people blatantly ignoring political corruption and paying attention to political advertising. Has banning / limiting those had any great effect?
Canada, Australia, and basically all of Europe have restrictions on hate speech. So going back to my previous question, it sounds like you are saying that most western democracies are already on the path to authoritarianism.
I think many of the people in those same countries would also say that our relatively unrestricted allowance of political advertising and lobbying is what leads to the corruption. It shifts the importance from the size of one's constituency to the wealth of one's constituency. That is generally bad for the health of democracy as noted by the US dropping in international rankings of the world's democracies[1].
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/24/us-world-dem...
I think many of the people in those same countries would also say that our relatively unrestricted allowance of political advertising and lobbying is what leads to the corruption. It shifts the importance from the size of one's constituency to the wealth of one's constituency. That is generally bad for the health of democracy as noted by the US dropping in international rankings of the world's democracies[1].
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/24/us-world-dem...
I'd argue everyone is (broadly) on a path to authoritarianism, it is just a matter of delaying it as long as possible by refusing to give up ground on basic rights, no matter the reason. It isn't binary though.
I'm not saying that political advertising and lobbying are good, but there are other approaches to stopping it without restricting speech, they are just more extreme in the sense they would require structural changes to the democracies themselves. For example, allowing constituents to override their representatives votes if they reach a quorum.. steps that move us closer to a direct democracy.
I'm not saying that political advertising and lobbying are good, but there are other approaches to stopping it without restricting speech, they are just more extreme in the sense they would require structural changes to the democracies themselves. For example, allowing constituents to override their representatives votes if they reach a quorum.. steps that move us closer to a direct democracy.
>I'd argue everyone is (broadly) on a path to authoritarianism, it is just a matter of delaying it as long as possible by refusing to give up ground on basic rights, no matter the reason. It isn't binary though.
Fair enough. I don't agree with that mindset, but it is certainly a valid one.
>I'm not saying that political advertising and lobbying are good, but there are other approaches to stopping it without restricting speech, they are just more extreme in the sense they would require structural changes to the democracies themselves. For example, allowing constituents to override their representatives votes if they reach a quorum.. steps that move us closer to a direct democracy.
I don't think there is evidence that direct democracy can overcome this money in politics issue. The most recent example is Prop 22[1] in California. That was voted on by direct democracy. It was also the most expensive Prop in history by a sizable margin. The Yes side won with 58% of the vote. That was at least partially because the rideshare companies spent over $200m which was more than 10x what the No side spent. This also doesn't factor in the non-paid advertising that these companies did natively in their various apps. I don't know how someone could see that $200m spent by corporations with a financial interest in that law passing without thinking of it as some form of corruption.
[1] - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
Fair enough. I don't agree with that mindset, but it is certainly a valid one.
>I'm not saying that political advertising and lobbying are good, but there are other approaches to stopping it without restricting speech, they are just more extreme in the sense they would require structural changes to the democracies themselves. For example, allowing constituents to override their representatives votes if they reach a quorum.. steps that move us closer to a direct democracy.
I don't think there is evidence that direct democracy can overcome this money in politics issue. The most recent example is Prop 22[1] in California. That was voted on by direct democracy. It was also the most expensive Prop in history by a sizable margin. The Yes side won with 58% of the vote. That was at least partially because the rideshare companies spent over $200m which was more than 10x what the No side spent. This also doesn't factor in the non-paid advertising that these companies did natively in their various apps. I don't know how someone could see that $200m spent by corporations with a financial interest in that law passing without thinking of it as some form of corruption.
[1] - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
"The COVID vaccines were rushed through the approval process and have more health risks than the government will admit."
"Ivermectin makes you immune to COVID and will prevent you from spreading the disease to others if you get it."
"You can cure your child of autism by having them drink diluted bleach."
The President of the United States stated that Facebook is "killing people" by not suppressing the discussion of ideas like this (at least, the first two) on their platform.
What do you think of these ideas? Should Facebook allow them to be expressed at all? Should Facebook make it easy for people who believe these ideas to discuss them with other like-minded individuals? Should Facebook permit these ideas to be expressed, but specifically design their product to suppress them so that they are harder to find?
If Facebook shows an ad on a page that also contains a post from a user expressing an idea like this, is Facebook profiting from spreading dangerous ideas? Is that reprehensible? Should they be prohibited from doing so? Does that mean they should, in fact, suppress these ideas?
I said Facebook is accused no matter what they do - I didn't say I agree with the accusers. Regardless, it is clear that mainstream political thought in the US actually doesn't respect free speech all that much these days when it conflicts with their own values.
"Ivermectin makes you immune to COVID and will prevent you from spreading the disease to others if you get it."
"You can cure your child of autism by having them drink diluted bleach."
The President of the United States stated that Facebook is "killing people" by not suppressing the discussion of ideas like this (at least, the first two) on their platform.
What do you think of these ideas? Should Facebook allow them to be expressed at all? Should Facebook make it easy for people who believe these ideas to discuss them with other like-minded individuals? Should Facebook permit these ideas to be expressed, but specifically design their product to suppress them so that they are harder to find?
If Facebook shows an ad on a page that also contains a post from a user expressing an idea like this, is Facebook profiting from spreading dangerous ideas? Is that reprehensible? Should they be prohibited from doing so? Does that mean they should, in fact, suppress these ideas?
I said Facebook is accused no matter what they do - I didn't say I agree with the accusers. Regardless, it is clear that mainstream political thought in the US actually doesn't respect free speech all that much these days when it conflicts with their own values.
This requires you to accept that there are "dangerous ideas" in the first place; or worse, that a business is in a good position to decide what those are for everyone who participates.
I think that might just be a convenient rubric, though. I think their real problem is "advertiser unfriendly ideas."
I think that might just be a convenient rubric, though. I think their real problem is "advertiser unfriendly ideas."
Of course there are dangerous ideas, and it's a bizarre insinuation that they don't exist. Mass shootings are preceded by ideations of committing a mass shooting, how nice it would be to do that, and how it might be performed. These are not good ideas, they are bad ideas. Dangerous ideas.
Some people will reject that dangerous ideas exist because they think to accept that they exist is to approve of censorship, but that's not how it works.
Some people will reject that dangerous ideas exist because they think to accept that they exist is to approve of censorship, but that's not how it works.
Protesting lockdowns doesn't seem to advertise mass shootings...
> and it's a bizarre insinuation that they don't exist
The problem is, if you carry this idea out to it's conclusion then it would be a rational act to jail someone merely for the thoughts they have; if we could in some way prove what they were thinking in a court of law.
> Mass shootings are preceded by ideations of committing a mass shooting [...] Dangerous ideas.
There are dangerous _people_ with the means to act upon these thoughts, but the ideas aren't exclusive to them. There are plenty of people who have such ideations but do not act upon them. People play FPS video games where these actions are not only thinkable but can be simulated. The idea itself clearly does not pose a danger to anyone.
> to accept that they exist is to approve of censorship
It's not censorship on a private platform I'm concerned with, as I've said it's the exceptional governmental and psychiatric injustices that become possible if you begin to accept this as a basic premise.
The problem is, if you carry this idea out to it's conclusion then it would be a rational act to jail someone merely for the thoughts they have; if we could in some way prove what they were thinking in a court of law.
> Mass shootings are preceded by ideations of committing a mass shooting [...] Dangerous ideas.
There are dangerous _people_ with the means to act upon these thoughts, but the ideas aren't exclusive to them. There are plenty of people who have such ideations but do not act upon them. People play FPS video games where these actions are not only thinkable but can be simulated. The idea itself clearly does not pose a danger to anyone.
> to accept that they exist is to approve of censorship
It's not censorship on a private platform I'm concerned with, as I've said it's the exceptional governmental and psychiatric injustices that become possible if you begin to accept this as a basic premise.
>The problem is, if you carry this idea out to it's conclusion then it would be a rational act to jail someone merely for the thoughts they have
No it wouldn't. Moreover, whether or not you find the ramifications of a fact distasteful has no bearing on the validity of that fact. As I already said, that's not how it works.
The ideas that are entertained while playing video games are not the same as entertaining the idea of performing a real-life shooting. People playing the video game aren't planning a real shooting, and planning a real shooting involves ideas that are not held by a typical person playing GTA 5. It's really an easy distinction.
No it wouldn't. Moreover, whether or not you find the ramifications of a fact distasteful has no bearing on the validity of that fact. As I already said, that's not how it works.
The ideas that are entertained while playing video games are not the same as entertaining the idea of performing a real-life shooting. People playing the video game aren't planning a real shooting, and planning a real shooting involves ideas that are not held by a typical person playing GTA 5. It's really an easy distinction.
Human rights aren’t a dangerous idea, brother.
It is indeed a human right to spread disease and death to other human beings. Dying by drowning in an abundance of oxygen being pumped into one's body is the peak of freedom. No one can restrict one's rights after they're dead.
Including people's right to life, right?
This is called Safetyism. It is tyranny dressed up as concern for safety. Life is about risk. If you go down the path of 'trying to make everything safe' you ruin people's lives because a lot of what makes life enjoyable is about risk, ie asking someone on a date is a risk, travelling to a foreign country is a risk, driving is a risk, going on holiday is a risk, having children is a risk, starting a business is a risk. If you box people in and say 'its for your/the greater good' you are a tyrant forcing your will on people who should always have choice and free will. Restricting people's movement, their lives, their speech, criminalising socialising, bankrupting people is tyranny and should never, ever be allowed in a free and democratic society.
I don't know of any single government in the world that doesn't do at least some of the things you describe here. If you're trying to make the case that all goverments are tyrannical because they enact laws to promote safety, that seems like a rather big stretch.
A lot of smart people gave this a lot of thought and this is what they came up with:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
There is no right to life. Everyone dies.
That's the thing. They are quite dangerous. Ask the Jim Crow South, the Chinese Communist Party, or the Bush Administration. They are very threatening to ruling classes that have a vested interest in the status quo, or in some radical vision they'd like to inflict or enforce upon the world.
"That is just a slippery slope fallacy, these account ban tactics won't be used inappropriately, only to go after terrorists!"
The amount of people who don't realize "slippery slope" is only a fallacy if it's not grounded in evidence is insane.
The "slipper slope fallacy" is usually actually just a non sequitur in disguise.
If we'd had this in the '80s, the gay movement would have been crushed like a bug.
Eugyppius on Substack recently pondered what would have happened if the current public health authorities were in charge back then:
> Until now, the Covid bureaucrats have responded with rolling seasonal embargoes on all human social activity that is not mediated by electronics. People who violate these restrictions are behaving irresponsibly and endangering all of society. Consider how much this stance differs from their approach to other viruses. Were gay men, at any point, ever exhorted to abstain from anal sex in the interests of defeating HIV? Was the gay community ever blamed for the AIDS epidemic and scolded by public health bureaucrats for worsening statistics? Were gay bars and bath houses ever targeted for closure or curfews or—imagine!—contact tracing, to flatten the curve? No, they weren’t; and if any of that had happened, we’d be reading to this day what a grave injustice all of it was. HIV is undeniably much harder on those it infects than Sars2, and I submit that, in the hierarchy of human needs, quotidian social interaction ranks well above anal sex. --https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/covid-is-a-social-construct
> Until now, the Covid bureaucrats have responded with rolling seasonal embargoes on all human social activity that is not mediated by electronics. People who violate these restrictions are behaving irresponsibly and endangering all of society. Consider how much this stance differs from their approach to other viruses. Were gay men, at any point, ever exhorted to abstain from anal sex in the interests of defeating HIV? Was the gay community ever blamed for the AIDS epidemic and scolded by public health bureaucrats for worsening statistics? Were gay bars and bath houses ever targeted for closure or curfews or—imagine!—contact tracing, to flatten the curve? No, they weren’t; and if any of that had happened, we’d be reading to this day what a grave injustice all of it was. HIV is undeniably much harder on those it infects than Sars2, and I submit that, in the hierarchy of human needs, quotidian social interaction ranks well above anal sex. --https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/covid-is-a-social-construct
I remember when people wanted an aids tattoo to keep those who have it segregated from the rest of us.
I hear those peoples kids say that vaccine passports are completely different and absolutely essential.
The apple didn't fall far from the tree.
In 2 to 6 years when Gay McBasher comes to power you bet your bottom dollar that anal sex, IV drug use and being in Britain during mad cow disease will be added to those passports, just to give us informed consent of the dangers we face when meeting people in public.
I hear those peoples kids say that vaccine passports are completely different and absolutely essential.
The apple didn't fall far from the tree.
In 2 to 6 years when Gay McBasher comes to power you bet your bottom dollar that anal sex, IV drug use and being in Britain during mad cow disease will be added to those passports, just to give us informed consent of the dangers we face when meeting people in public.
That's a sad part of the current human condition, we all want to rule each other to minimize the possibility of facing whatever it is we fear or loathe - and most of us fear a loss of control, or even a failure to gain as much control as we feel we could have had. Everybody wants to rule the world.
[deleted]
Why? Has there not continued to be considerable movement in the LGBT arena since Facebook and Twitter gained prominence?
This just highlights how deeply flawed the utilitarian moral perspective is. Any form of totalitarianism can be eventually justified with "it's for the public good"
And with that, Facebook will do government biddings to prevent the promotion of peaceful protests, sit-ins, Occupy events, demonstrations, etc.
I was listening to NPR this morning when they reported on this. They stated Facebook “banned far-right German groups that spread conspiracies that the government was responsible for covid”, and no mention of lockdowns. NPR used to seem so center of the road but they have gone in full hog on the leftist perspective.
>"Posts from the accounts included one making the debunked claim that vaccines create viral variants and another that wished death upon police officers who broke up violent anti-lockdown protests in Berlin."
and in addition
"[...]“Simply sharing a belief or affinity with a particular movement or group wouldn’t be enough” to warrant a similar response, he told reporters on a conference call Thursday."
This seems fair enough. Incitement to violence in Germany is taken seriously and threatening the police for upholding the law is ridiculous. It should never fly in any civil society. I know this sort of meta commenting is frowned upon here but people acting as if these were literally just "anti-lockdown" opinions makes me think nobody even bothered to read the article.
and in addition
"[...]“Simply sharing a belief or affinity with a particular movement or group wouldn’t be enough” to warrant a similar response, he told reporters on a conference call Thursday."
This seems fair enough. Incitement to violence in Germany is taken seriously and threatening the police for upholding the law is ridiculous. It should never fly in any civil society. I know this sort of meta commenting is frowned upon here but people acting as if these were literally just "anti-lockdown" opinions makes me think nobody even bothered to read the article.
People read it but just don't trust it. The sort of people who are trying to shut down all anti-lockdown protests are the sort of people who routinely describe any speech they dislike as "violence" that makes people "unsafe" so their claims about inciting violence are worthless. Also, mis-characterising protests is the easiest thing in the world. Remember the BLM protests were "mostly peaceful" even as cars were literally on fire behind the journalists saying that. They would have no problems bending reporting in the other direction.
Here's some footage of the equivalent protests in Paris.
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/16/footage-of-the-protests-...
The protesters are marching whilst heavily armed police tear gas them, try to stop them moving down the streets, fire things into the air (not entirely sure what but it's some kind of projectile weapon), corral them, try to fine them for turning up a few hours early, and so on.
Here's some footage of the equivalent protests in Paris.
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/16/footage-of-the-protests-...
The protesters are marching whilst heavily armed police tear gas them, try to stop them moving down the streets, fire things into the air (not entirely sure what but it's some kind of projectile weapon), corral them, try to fine them for turning up a few hours early, and so on.
Why wouldn't they? Lockdown is good for Facebook's business.
Until we regulate the hell out of these big tech companies (applying laws on natural monopolies, or common carriers, or making new laws just for the internet companies) it's legal for them to do whatever they please with the bytes stored on the servers they own.
Until we regulate the hell out of these big tech companies (applying laws on natural monopolies, or common carriers, or making new laws just for the internet companies) it's legal for them to do whatever they please with the bytes stored on the servers they own.
It's funny how saying vaccines might create variants was "debunked", yet this discussed as a potential risk by the FDA today: https://youtu.be/WFph7-6t34M?t=15138
Are there lockdowns in Germany? No masks or vaccines mandates either, right?
There are currently no lockdowns, but we had an eight-month long one last winter and plenty of people are afraid of having it repeated.
Indoor mask mandates yes, I think there's only one state that lifted it, but could be one or two more, I'm not sure.
Vaccine isn't mandated yet, we currently have the same system as France where you need to show proof of vaccine, recovery or negative test to enter restaurants, bars, clubs, cinemas, gyms, etc. Tests are free as of now, but will have to be paid out of pocket starting on Oct 11. There's a lot of talk about dropping the test option, i.e. make the current system a vaccine/recovered only one, so basically vaccine passports. Many people expect this to happen (or a vaccine mandate) after the election. Some states have implemented a system where venues can choose whether or not they allow guests with negative tests, and if they opt for vaxxed and recovered only, the remaining restrictions (masks and distancing mainly) are lifted for the venue. This regulation is currently in effect in five or six states I believe, and others might follow.
Indoor mask mandates yes, I think there's only one state that lifted it, but could be one or two more, I'm not sure.
Vaccine isn't mandated yet, we currently have the same system as France where you need to show proof of vaccine, recovery or negative test to enter restaurants, bars, clubs, cinemas, gyms, etc. Tests are free as of now, but will have to be paid out of pocket starting on Oct 11. There's a lot of talk about dropping the test option, i.e. make the current system a vaccine/recovered only one, so basically vaccine passports. Many people expect this to happen (or a vaccine mandate) after the election. Some states have implemented a system where venues can choose whether or not they allow guests with negative tests, and if they opt for vaxxed and recovered only, the remaining restrictions (masks and distancing mainly) are lifted for the venue. This regulation is currently in effect in five or six states I believe, and others might follow.
Probably sounded better in the original German.
Before you think this is just Facebook making an arbitrary decision:
> Germany’s domestic intelligence agency has put some Querdenker adherents under surveillance as the movement has become increasingly radicalized and its protests have attracted neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists.
The article does not say anything about the German government making any kind of formal request so this just seems like Facebook is going to be proactive is blocking things countries don't like rather than wait for legislation or a legally binding request.
Pretty harmless in this case but I wonder if Facebook would do the same in countries with speech censorship and human rights violations. Countries may not even need to build a GFW or filter Facebook since they would rather voluntarily comply than be regulated.
> Germany’s domestic intelligence agency has put some Querdenker adherents under surveillance as the movement has become increasingly radicalized and its protests have attracted neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists.
The article does not say anything about the German government making any kind of formal request so this just seems like Facebook is going to be proactive is blocking things countries don't like rather than wait for legislation or a legally binding request.
Pretty harmless in this case but I wonder if Facebook would do the same in countries with speech censorship and human rights violations. Countries may not even need to build a GFW or filter Facebook since they would rather voluntarily comply than be regulated.
>Pretty harmless in this case
No! It's worse. If a democratic government mandates something that some view as unreasonable, they can always hope that the ballot box and elected representatives can at some point reverses the action. If a private company "anticipates" a government's actions in an unreasonable way, what appeal is there?
>but I wonder if Facebook would do the same in countries with speech censorship and human rights violations. Countries may not even need to build a GFW or filter Facebook since they would rather voluntarily comply than be regulated.
I don't disagree. But I suspect that Facebook by and large isn't allowed in such countries in the first place (China, for example).
No! It's worse. If a democratic government mandates something that some view as unreasonable, they can always hope that the ballot box and elected representatives can at some point reverses the action. If a private company "anticipates" a government's actions in an unreasonable way, what appeal is there?
>but I wonder if Facebook would do the same in countries with speech censorship and human rights violations. Countries may not even need to build a GFW or filter Facebook since they would rather voluntarily comply than be regulated.
I don't disagree. But I suspect that Facebook by and large isn't allowed in such countries in the first place (China, for example).
The government acting could mean that all social media companies would have to do X action. See India as an example.
If Facebook does something on its own then people can use other platforms or make their own.
In any case I said harmless because the banned groups were breaking other rules as well and aren't going to be missed.
If Facebook does something on its own then people can use other platforms or make their own.
In any case I said harmless because the banned groups were breaking other rules as well and aren't going to be missed.
Good. They're free to do that as a private company. If Facebook is so important that they shouldn't be allowed to moderate their own platform then designate them a utility.
Just because in a technical sense they are free to do it doesn’t mean they should do it. This is a very pessimistic view of the world.
If everything operated in the very edges of law “because they can” we would have never made any progress. There are countless negative things you could do with your time on this planet but that isn’t a justification.
We can always strive to be better and push others to do so. Laws and hard rules should be the absolute last resort fallback option, not the operating procedure.
If everything operated in the very edges of law “because they can” we would have never made any progress. There are countless negative things you could do with your time on this planet but that isn’t a justification.
We can always strive to be better and push others to do so. Laws and hard rules should be the absolute last resort fallback option, not the operating procedure.
> We can always strive to be better and push others to do so
I agree, but Facebook, and the rest of these companies, are not people. They are legal entities. Technically, US congress can kill them all overnight, without even violating a single UN policy.
Too bad that’s unlikely to happen.
I agree, but Facebook, and the rest of these companies, are not people. They are legal entities. Technically, US congress can kill them all overnight, without even violating a single UN policy.
Too bad that’s unlikely to happen.
That's why I gave an out, if they're so important then regulate them like a utility.
That's not going to happen.
What a useless comment. Of course they’re free to do it. The discussion is about their decision TO do it.
If they're that capable of moderating their platform then maybe they no longer require Section 230 protection. They should now be held liable for failures of that moderation, as many other types of businesses would be.
Nikki Minaj on her twitter being disabled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoAx5hwHPfM
Nikki claimed her cousin had a bad reaction to the vaccine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoAx5hwHPfM
Nikki claimed her cousin had a bad reaction to the vaccine.
Germany is becoming China-light. We are talking about accounts critizising lockdowns for valid reasons, which has NOTHING to do with "fake news" or misinformation. These accounts are usually made by people who got their businesses or lifes destroyed by radical lockdowns, and the topic is far wider than just lockdowns (it's also about closing down all indoor activities): literally the entire nightlife / clubs / sports / gastronomy / travel sectors are killed by questionable rules.
In the last 18 months lots of journalists, artists, activists, scientists and masses of critics on Social Media have been silenced, it's a bizarre situation. If the government says it's correct, then it's correct.
In the last 18 months lots of journalists, artists, activists, scientists and masses of critics on Social Media have been silenced, it's a bizarre situation. If the government says it's correct, then it's correct.
Not sure why a US company deciding to close accounts without being forced to is Germany becoming China-light?
So you don't think the German authorities asked?
Yes! Facebook is not really a "US company", for each country they operate in they have to deal with the local laws, and they have lots of office and crews in each country, simply to comply to local issues.
Facebook is reacting to 10.000s of legal requests in Germany alone PER DAY, coming from a wide range of actors (copyright issues, violence, hate speech, police, government).
It's bizarre that so many people are so naive thinking political issues on the web - especially on the big platforms - are not censored.
It's bizarre that so many people are so naive thinking political issues on the web - especially on the big platforms - are not censored.
You are totally misunderstanding how this works. Accounts are closed because somebody files a complaint, usually somebody capable of the language and with a serious interest in taking down somebody.
In Germany this is usually done by political opponents, "activists", cancel-culture people and surely trolls too, and it has nothing to do with Facebook being originally a US-based company. From legal perspective, they are german company in Germany (and similar in most other countries too) and have to react to requests by authorities too. In China and Russia they (would) have to deal with the local laws too, if you like it or not.
As I explained before, these accounts are (usually) not spreading misinformation, they are doing the opposite: critizing stupid government activities, talking about medicial issues with the vaccination etc. And this is a major problem in Germany, as every critique is quickly shut down.
It doesnt matter what you think or believe, it's a fact that this is happening, and it's a big problem for every science-based society.
In Germany this is usually done by political opponents, "activists", cancel-culture people and surely trolls too, and it has nothing to do with Facebook being originally a US-based company. From legal perspective, they are german company in Germany (and similar in most other countries too) and have to react to requests by authorities too. In China and Russia they (would) have to deal with the local laws too, if you like it or not.
As I explained before, these accounts are (usually) not spreading misinformation, they are doing the opposite: critizing stupid government activities, talking about medicial issues with the vaccination etc. And this is a major problem in Germany, as every critique is quickly shut down.
It doesnt matter what you think or believe, it's a fact that this is happening, and it's a big problem for every science-based society.
Ok I'll take my downvotes, but if you read the article this isn't about people who oppose lockdowns, this is about removing organized groups that unlawfully flout lockdown rules, as well as inciting violence, using hate speech and spreading misinformation that puts lives at stake. If you oppose lockdowns you still need to express your views lawfully just like anyone else.
> If you oppose lockdowns you still need to express your views lawfully just like anyone else.
I'm sure people said much the same about Rosa Parks.
I'm sure people said much the same about Rosa Parks.
[deleted]
This is wrong! I'm german and seeing this every day. It's a commong technique to shut down valid critique, but use edge cases as the argument.
> If you oppose lockdowns you still need to express your views lawfully just like anyone else.
Until expressing your views becomes unlawful?
Until expressing your views becomes unlawful?
Forbid people from leaving their homes. Disrupt their ability to coordinate online. Nothing sinister at all about this.
There's a pandemic, dude. Millions of people have died. Are you for real?
You better believe I'm for real. "State of emergency" is one of the most dangerous and pernicious situations for a society to find itself in. Rights that are taken away are often not reinstated. This is why the right to free assembly is enshrined in the Constitution in the United States.
To be clear, millions of people would have died even if there weren't a pandemic. I know you're probably saying "millions of people have died because of the pandemic", but a better line of argument would be "millions of people have survived who wouldn't have if governments didn't implement lockdowns".[0]
That leaves the question of whether the lives saved were worth the cost of the lockdowns, I suppose, but I'm sure the people who survived due to the lockdowns (if they knew who they were) would generally answer "yes".
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52968523
That leaves the question of whether the lives saved were worth the cost of the lockdowns, I suppose, but I'm sure the people who survived due to the lockdowns (if they knew who they were) would generally answer "yes".
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52968523
When you look at areas with the strictest lockdowns and compare them to areas with the least restrictive or non lockdowns the benefit is nearly zero. You can’t claim those people are saved by them. I don’t think people understand exactly how contagious this disease is. There will never be a point when it is wiped out until herd immunity is reached and at the rate of mutations that will never happen.
How many more years on top of the two we've been through will this pandemic continue for? Maybe 5 or 6?
This is exactly the time, and exactly the reason that we have laws to limit government control.
Governments don’t try and take more and more control when things are calm and peaceful.
If you don’t have your rights during an emergency, you don’t ever have them.
Governments don’t try and take more and more control when things are calm and peaceful.
If you don’t have your rights during an emergency, you don’t ever have them.
If there were a single issue worth organizing a popular social movement around, being confined to your home, your business closed, and your freedoms of movement, association, speech and even religion cancelled in the present would be the specific completely legitimate thing you would organize against. I understand some former east germans in government now are nostaglic for their past glories, and american tech platforms represent the opportunity to them to get it right this time, but come on.
Anyway, I'm sure it's only temporary.