And thus excuse to start pushing authoritarianism. Conditioning the population through threat of force or other intimidation.
You do not see the dangers here?
2 Likes
Let’s see how it works out, then
Operator-dependent mitigations. Are the lockdowns working any better?
Precisely…
2 Likes
Haven’t we already? See: California
In my opinion, the conditioning comes from the rationalizations (moral imperatives).
Yes…within reason. 
Hope that works out for them.
I agree that there are times, perhaps “times of crisis”, when “more” is necessary. The problem is it never gets reset back to zero after the time is passed. The last is also always used as a shortcut for the next. It becomes a circular argument, obviating what should be a hard and fast requirement for strict scrutiny on the need, limitations and impact of the measures in each and every case as individual cases.
It becomes sort of a “stare decisis” rationalization for bureaucratic power.
We’ve seen it as an argument numerous times here; “We already regulate it with this, so we can regulate it with that.”
“Kids shouldn’t use heroin, it’s a drug. Marijuana is a drug, so adults shouldn’t be allowed.”
Or “We regulate atom bombs, so we can outlaw guns.”
Or “We regulate bakeries for health reasons so we can regulate them for social justice reasons.”
We locked it down for COVID, we can lock it down for the flu.
The juice of violating rights has to absolutely be worth the squeeze before it should even be considered. And since they are rights, I’m not sure it should be done even then in this country.
It’s a difficult and age-old problem. I think the Constitution is pretty clear in the Bill of Rights which way it is supposed to go. I think the judiciary has allowed quite a bit of drift in the other direction and the Ruling Class takes full advantage of that drift and continues to push.
2 Likes
Hope is not even a technique, much less “following the science.”
What is the proof that these lockdowns work? Causation, not correlation.
How about hope AND prayers?
Better. Are you following the science?
A little, I wouldn’t claim any degree of insight though.
I tend to listen more to friends and family with domain expertise.
They have PhDs and whatnot.
In general. Hope and prayers are faith, not science.
Indeed.
It’s a little late for me to study microbiology enough to develop a full understanding of the nuances of the pandemic, though.
What I do know is that saying unequivocally that there will be no lockdown over Christmas and pouring scorn and those who suggest it, only to have to impose one is a very good way to erode public trust in your government.
I don’t disagree with your 2nd paragraph at all. I think creating expectations is part and parcel of the Ruling Class and there is really very little penalty for not meeting them. We all want to be the bearer of good tidings.
As for the first, I don’t think you need to; just follow those who did.
No. Biden said he was going to lock the virus down and we should hold him to it. He’s assembling a group of Lib mega geniuses who are going to get real sciencey. I think a week would be sufficient time, then the daily blood will be accounted to the kid sniffer.
Agreed. But symptoms may take 2 weeks to show up. I say we give him 2 weeks.
More likely we’ll return to a time in which the president isn’t too egotistical to accept responsibility for what occurs under their leadership. Whether that is a direct result of their actions or not. That’s a typical trait of a leader.
