Latest Reports of Past Actions on COVID

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm familiar with the argument; heaven knows I've heard it over and over again in the last four years. But it doesn't make moral or logical sense even on paper, to say nothing of in the real world. No one who has championed it has ever been able to provide a just or moral or logical or rational basis from which to tell one person, in the interest of the abstract "public health," that he can't work until he's told again that he can, while telling another person he can keep working without obstruction. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We can all easily see how that's going to save lives.

It was about reducing the spread of the disease, coupled with a recognition that certain services need to keep going.

People need to eat, so closing a grocery store has different impacts than, say, closing a movie theatre.

My personal favorite, though largely allegorical as it pertains to human rights, was the one where you you had to wear a mask in the restaurant while walking from the front door to your seat, literally 15 feet away, but once you were seated you could eat, talk, laugh, sneeze, cough—whatever—with all the other presumably asymptomatic spreaders…without a mask. It was, and remains the perfect metaphor for the logic and moral rationale for the COVID-era "rights precedence" public-health argument. It is simply ridiculous, using the word intentionally (meaning, the rationale is worthy of ridicule).

That example certainly happened, but the absurdity came from politicians watering down a reasonable public health approach, not from the public health approach itself.

During the worst of the pandemic, a better approach would have been what we had here:

- the restaurant is closed except for takeout service.
- nobody's taking off their mask inside.
- the business gets government supports to help sustain them through the business disruption.
- laid-off wait staff get government supports so they don't lose their homes.

If you think I've misunderstood what you're saying, please expound. Or, if you think I've chosen poor examples with which to measure the morality and sense of your position, please present the real-world scenario (as in, the scenario actually happened during the COVID era) that BEST exposes the morality and reasonableness of your point.

COVID response in the US generally sucked, which is why your per capita deaths were (IIRC) three times ours in Canada. If you want to see the best responses to the pandemic, look at the countries that kept their death rate down the best.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I haven't looked at the report, but it was put out by these guys according to the article:

About - Unleash Prosperity

Our Mission The mission of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity is to educate policy makers and the public about government policies that have been proven,…

committeetounleashprosperity.com

"The mission of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity is to educate policy makers and the public about government policies that have been proven, in practice, to maximize economic growth and equitable prosperity in America and around the world.

Supply-Side is not, as defamed by its detractors, “trickle-down,” enacting big economic advantages, such as tax cuts, for the rich while workers get scraps."

Barring a reading of their report, why should I trust them versus health experts?

Because Mammon (not Jehovah or Jesus) is god. They may that very clear early on, like when the zealous loons proclaimed they would die for the economy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

please present the real-world scenario (as in, the scenario actually happened during the COVID era) that BEST exposes the morality and reasonableness of your point.

Republicans encouraged and promoted behaviors that over stuffed hospitals, made morgues overflow and forced healthcare providers to make harrowing decisions that should have stayed in their ethics courses.
The moral goodness and reasonableness of what countries like Canada or New Zealand was reducing the rate of infection which meant way fewer people died. Money and businesses are replacable. Life is not. Add in the destruction and disability of long covid, and there's just no moral or ethical justification for letting such an extremely contagious and very destructive virus spread unabated, especially as places with excessive rates of it meant those with other conditions had fewer healthcare providers and rescources for their own ailments.

 

[Koldo]

I'm familiar with the argument; heaven knows I've heard it over and over again in the last four years. But it doesn't make moral or logical sense even on paper, to say nothing of in the real world. No one who has championed it has ever been able to provide a just or moral or logical or rational basis from which to tell one person, in the interest of the abstract "public health," that he can't work until he's told again that he can, while telling another person he can keep working without obstruction. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We can easily see the morality on display there.

Maybe because Joe's work puts everyone at a major health risk but Steve's work is necessary to ensure everyone's survival?

My personal favorite, though largely allegorical as it pertains to human rights, was the one where you you had to wear a mask in the restaurant while walking from the front door to your seat, literally 15 feet away, but once you were seated you could eat, talk, laugh, sneeze, cough—whatever—with all the other presumably asymptomatic spreaders…without a mask. It was, and remains the perfect metaphor for the logic and moral rationale for the COVID-era "rights precedence" public-health argument. It is simply ridiculous, using the word intentionally (meaning, the rationale is worthy of ridicule).

If you think I've misunderstood what you're saying, please expound. Or, if you think I've chosen poor examples with which to measure the morality and sense of your position, please present the real-world scenario (as in, the scenario actually happened during the COVID era) that BEST exposes the morality and reasonableness of your point.

You had many example to pick from but you willingly decide to go for the low hanging fruit. Why is that?

Tell me, for example, what is not sensible in temporarily banning leisure activities that result in significant gatherings, when those gatherings are widely known to disseminate a deadly virus.

 

[Unfettered]

Republicans encouraged and promoted behaviors that over stuffed hospitals, made morgues overflow and forced healthcare providers to make harrowing decisions that should have stayed in their ethics courses.
The moral goodness and reasonableness of what countries like Canada or New Zealand was reducing the rate of infection which meant way fewer people died. Money and businesses are replacable. Life is not. Add in the destruction and disability of long covid, and there's just no moral or ethical justification for letting such an extremely contagious and very destructive virus spread unabated, especially as places with excessive rates of it meant those with other conditions had fewer healthcare providers and rescources for their own ailments.

I don't see any sound moral justifications in there, only flimsy political justifications.

In order for a human being to be denied a right on moral grounds (ie, the contraction of his rights is justified), there must be a real rights collision, not a hypothetical or imagined rights collision.

A real rights collision looks like this: If Unfettered (an identified human being with the unalienable right to live and subsist) goes to work today, Shadow Wolf (another identified human being with the right to live and subsist) will die. That's a real right collision because there are real people who are identified, each of whom have real rights that are identified and will be affected. At this point, though, can we morally inhibit Unfettered from engaging in the activities that constitute his living and subsisting and enjoying liberty and pursuing happiness? No, because we still lack a real cause for the claim. So on what real and actual grounds is it claimed that if Unfettered goes to work today, Shadow Wolf will die? Answer that question substantively, rationally, and within the bounds of reason and common sense, and you've got yourself a moral case for inhibiting Unfettered's right to live and subsist on that day and under those specific circumstances. Without such an answer, anyone who inhibit's his right is an abuser.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In order for a human being to be denied a right on moral grounds (ie, the contraction of his rights is justified), there must be a real rights collision, not a hypothetical or imagined rights collision.

A deadly pandemic is a real thing. Those people really died. People really got sick. Myself, I was so fatigued for so long that in a weakened state once I was better I tore the cartilage n my shoulder.
Your rights end where your neighbors nose begins. If you can't understand how a deadly virus is real, is leaving people disabled and in the morgue then it's all on you to wake up, accept reality and start living in the real world. It's not politics, it's basic biology (something conservative Republicans and Christians have never had a very good grasp of).

 

[Unfettered]

Maybe because Joe's work puts everyone at a major health risk but Steve's work is necessary to ensure everyone's survival?

"Maybe?" Is that the strength of our case against the free exercise of Joe's rights?

And on the question of picking and choosing whose rights are necessary to secure and whose are not... where in the law is that godlike authority granted? And to whom?

You had many example to pick from but you willingly decide to go for the low hanging fruit. Why is that?

Because the low hanging fruit best exposes the moral soundness involved, or the moral soundness that is missing. If simple cases can't pass the smell test, complex ones surely can't.

Tell me, for example, what is not sensible in temporarily banning leisure activities that result in significant gatherings, when those gatherings are widely known to disseminate a deadly virus.

Which gathering? There are real people involved, with real rights. We have to get specific.

 

[Koldo]

"Maybe?" Is that the strength of our case against the free exercise of Joe's rights?

Depends on what policy you were talking about. Since you didn't specify, maybe that was the proper reason.

And on the question of picking and choosing whose rights are necessary to secure and whose are not... where in the law is that godlike authority granted? And to whom?

We work towards securing everyone's rights obviously. Two people in an identical situation are supposed to be afforded the same treatment.

Because the low hanging fruit best exposes the moral soundness involved, or the moral soundness that is missing. If simple cases can't pass the smell test, complex ones surely can't.

Stupid policies were enacted. In no small part because politicians couldn't afford to do what was actually necessary.

Which gathering? There are real people involved, with real rights. We have to get specific.

Movie theaters and festivals, for example. Why shouldn't restrictions have been enacted on them?

 

[Unfettered]

A deadly pandemic is a real thing. Those people really died. People really got sick. Myself, I was so fatigued for so long that in a weakened state once I was better I tore the cartilage n my shoulder.

I agree that the COVID-19 (specific) pandemic was real. I agree that people really died. I know people who did. I agree that people really got sick (I did, as well, and every member of my family, including my wife, who was then 8 months pregnant). I agree that people have really suffered long-term effects, including from the actual disease.

Where the rubber meats the road is in this question: Who is responsible for you, personally, getting sick? Did that person infect you while attempting to respect the rights of others, or while in the act of ignoring the rights of others?

Your rights end where your neighbors nose begins.

That contributes nothing here. It's a cliche. We have to be real. We have to offer substantive ideas and look at them carefully. We're talking about people's rights, and the bar we must clear to curtail those rights and still justly claim to be civilized is high, not cliche.

If you can't understand how a deadly virus is real, is leaving people disabled and in the morgue then it's all on you to wake up

I do understand. I am awake. We've got to attack the question with substance, not superficialities.

It's not politics, it's basic biology (something conservative Republicans and Christians have never had a very good grasp of).

Again, that contributes nothing here. The decisions made during the pandemic were political decisions, not biological decisions, and they are still affecting people's lives. Nor does appealing to labels contribute anything.

 

[Unfettered]

Depends on what policy you were talking about. Since you didn't specify, maybe that was the proper reason.

I didn't advocate for Joe's rights to be infringed; why should I be the one presenting the policy? If you think Joe shouldn't be allowed to work, present the case. Otherwise I'll agree with you that, absent a just case to act against him, Joe is free to live and subsist.

We work towards securing everyone's rights obviously.

Well, no, it was not obvious during the pandemic. Many were favored, others were disfavored. There was not equal protection under the laws; there was faction-based protection under the laws. And you've been advocating that such was justified. If you're walking that back, OK. Otherwise I don't know now what you're saying.

Two people in an identical situation are supposed to be afforded the same treatment.

I agree!

Stupid policies were enacted. In no small part because politicians couldn't afford to do what was actually necessary.

OK, what was actually necessary? We're back in the throes of the pandemic. You have all the power. What do you do? You've advocated for people in the same situation to be afforded the same treatment; what "same treatment" do you offer, now that you get to make the decision unchecked?

Movie theaters and festivals, for example. Why shouldn't restrictions have been enacted on them?

Who cares about theaters and festivals? They don't have rights. People do. Are we asking the right questions here?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't see any sound moral justifications in there, only flimsy political justifications.

In order for a human being to be denied a right on moral grounds (ie, the contraction of his rights is justified), there must be a real rights collision, not a hypothetical or imagined rights collision.

A real rights collision looks like this: If Unfettered (an identified human being with the unalienable right to live and subsist) goes to work today, Shadow Wolf (another identified human being with the right to live and subsist) will die. That's a real right collision because there are real people who are identified, each of whom have real rights that are identified and will be affected. At this point, though, can we morally inhibit Unfettered from engaging in the activities that constitute his living and subsisting and enjoying liberty and pursuing happiness? No, because we still lack a real cause for the claim. So on what real and actual grounds is it claimed that if Unfettered goes to work today, Shadow Wolf will die? Answer that question substantively, rationally, and within the bounds of reason and common sense, and you've got yourself a moral case for inhibiting Unfettered's right to live and subsist on that day and under those specific circumstances. Without such an answer, anyone who inhibit's his right is an abuser.

Which specific rights were taken away that also take away anyone's "unalienable right to live and subsist?"

You mean, like you're "right" to enter a grocery store without wearing a mask?

 

[Revoltingest]

A deadly pandemic is a real thing. Those people really died. People really got sick. Myself, I was so fatigued for so long that in a weakened state once I was better I tore the cartilage n my shoulder.
Your rights end where your neighbors nose begins.

You're quoting libertarians now?
Woohoo!

 

[Unfettered]

Which specific rights were taken away that also take away anyone's "unalienable right to live and subsist?"

The wording of that question makes it difficult for me to know what you're asking. Could you re-word it?

You mean, like you're "right" to enter a grocery store without wearing a mask?

More detail is needed. In your scenario, am I afforded my natural right to land actually suited to growing food?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That contributes nothing here. It's a cliche. We have to be real. We have to offer substantive ideas and look at them carefully. We're talking about people's rights, and the bar we must clear to curtail those rights and still justly claim to be civilized is high, not cliche.

Yes. Other people. That why restrictions are necessary because no restrictions would be an egregious assault on the rights of others. You have no right to spread disease. Even before covid a very ****ty part if American culture is people showing up to work sick and shari g their germs. You are doing harm to others, that makes it wrong.

Where the rubber meats the road is in this question: Who is responsible for you, personally, getting sick? Did that person infect you while attempting to respect the rights of others, or while in the act of ignoring the rights of others?

We are responsible for eachother. I know this is hard for all the "me-me-me"s who only cared for their own rights during the pandemic, but a very basic tenant of living in a society is we have responsibilities towards one another and must forfiet some rights for a society to happen.

 

[Unfettered]

Yes. Other people. That why restrictions are necessary because no restrictions would be an egregious assault on the rights of others. You have no right to spread disease. Even before covid a very ****ty part if American culture is people showing up to work sick and shari g their germs. You are doing harm to others, that makes it wrong.

We are responsible for eachother. I know this is hard for all the "me-me-me"s who only cared for their own rights during the pandemic, but a very basic tenant of living in a society is we have responsibilities towards one another and must forfiet some rights for a society to happen.

Make it real: You had COVID-19. You picked up the SARS-COV-2 virus from someone. Did that person assault your rights?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. Other people. That why restrictions are necessary because no restrictions would be an egregious assault on the rights of others. You have no right to spread disease. Even before covid a very ****ty part if American culture is people showing up to work sick and shari g their germs. You are doing harm to others, that makes it wrong.

We are responsible for eachother. I know this is hard for all the "me-me-me"s who only cared for their own rights during the pandemic, but a very basic tenant of living in a society is we have responsibilities towards one another and must forfiet some rights for a society to happen.

"Tenet", not "tenant".
I argue that our responsibility is to not harm others.
Because some are willing to, it becomes useful to
limit their behavior. Do this in the most libertarian
way possible, & we'll see less death & infirmity
from epidemics / pandemics.

 

[Unfettered]

I argue that our responsibility is to not harm others.

Exactly. If we intentionally and knowingly harm others we are not, to that extent, "civilized."

What has been advocated here in other posts is—in ironic fashion—backward. The claim is that we're not civilized if we don't "protect" those in danger. And the solution is to harm others by offering protection that we have no right to offer, no control to secure, and no power deliver. And all of it is wrapped up and peddled as "morality," so as to make it easier to accept by those who don't pay close attention (or don't care). Then those who raise the alarm to the harm caused by the solution are accused of not caring about anyone but themselves.

It's a hamsterwheel of confusion and straw-manning that pushes the rational mind to the brink.

Because some are willing to, it becomes useful to
limit their behavior. Do this in the most libertarian
way possible, & we'll see less death & infirmity
from epidemics / pandemics.

This makes an effort to yield to the reality that everyone has rights that must be considered. Much more sensible, and takes us in the right direction.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, that contributes nothing here. The decisions made during the pandemic were political decisions, not biological decisions, and they are still affecting people's lives. Nor does appealing to labels contribute anything.

It was medicine that guided those decisions. The politics was people who wanted to run around all willy nilly, allowing covid to be and do its worst. This is why America had such a very disproportionately high death rate from covid.

What has been advocated here in other posts is—in ironic fashion—backward. The claim is that we're not civilized if we don't "protect" those in danger. And the solution is to harm others by offering protection that we have no right to offer, no control to secure, and no power deliver. And all of it is wrapped in something that is peddled as "morality," so as to make it easier to accept by those who don't pay close attention (or don't care). Then those who raise the alarm to the harm caused by the solution are accused of not caring about anyone but themselves.

You say it can't be offered, but America had about 1/4 of the global covid deaths. That is a failure. New Zealand did provide those solutions and protections and they set the bar for properly responding to a pandemic to get as many people as possible safely through. That required them to also care for one another and wear a mask and refrain from frivolous trips, restaurants, and exposing others.

 

[Unfettered]

It was medicine that guided those decisions. The politics was people who wanted to run around all willy nilly, allowing covid to be and do its worst. This is why America had such a very disproportionately high death rate from covid.

Again, make it real. Was the source of your infection a person who supported "good measures," or one of the persons who advocated for SARS-COV-2 being allowed to spread willy nilly?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, make it real. Was the source of your infection a person who supported "good measures," or one of the persons who advocated for SARS-COV-2 being allowed to spread willy nilly?

The willy nilly was people doing whatever while an extremely contagious virus with then no cure or vaccine spreads through the masses.
If this had been a deadlier type of coronavirus then America would have lost such a massive chunk of the population that it would have been society changing.