It maybe neccessy but do you think too many of our freedoms have gone?

1. 67

   ChrisBriscoeposted 4 years ago

   
   In this unprecedented time when nations such as the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. are in complete Lockdown, are we in danger of allowing the solution or mitigation of this Covid-19 virus to do more harm than good?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      CYong74posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think it depends on whether social and political cultures of respective countries are able to undo these measures when the crisis is over.

      replyreport
   2. 97

      chef-de-jourposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      This situation is novel, unprecedented, so life and death, I think we're all having to adjust to self-enforcement and official clampdowns, but the point you raise is valid. When regulations, instructions and rules from government are enforced, as they are currently, it doesn't take much for zealots to make them into law, so we must be careful in weeks and months to come that we don't weaken civil rights. At present most folk are too busy safeguarding themselves and their families to realise what consequences might follow.
      This new virus has caught many unprepared - we were warned back in the early 2000s with the SARS virus so governments should have had contingency plans in situ - but hey, the system keep rolling on - the scientists were ignored partly because climate change and warming (plus the Syrian affair) grabbed the news agenda.
      This Covid19 pandemic seems a game changer, it has affected the globe and even though we will eventually find a vaccine that's effective and available to all, there could well be another one in pipeline just waiting for general release.
      Surely now the powerful heads of governments should meet around a table, with top scientists, businesspeople and environmentalists and work out a plan to lessen the risk of this ever happening again. But nature being nature, I don't think there's an exit strategy as such. We have to learn to live with viruses, pay more attention to the WHO, fund it properly, give it teeth, or else pay the price.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         ChrisBriscoeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, I agree with you, except your point about WHO. because, one of the major lessons I have learned from this pandemic is that this organisation WHO needs to become much less poltical. I believe it was better in the past when the Director General of WHO was much better, but now, the leaders of WHO have been shown to be complicit with China by always defending and praising China, and acting as China's "enabler." They have become more political than medical and are beholden to "China's perceived might." For example, please would you listen to the following report from Fox news which shows us that WHO have been complicit with China and that they are part of the problem of this pandemic not the solution; because of what WHO did in helping China, the Corona Virus spread in last January and February.
         
         If I have learned one thing from this pandemic is that the Chinese Communist Government and the World Health Organisation cannot be trusted and -
         are part of the problem not the solution.
         
         The World Health Organization praises China, denies Taiwan's existence" on YouTube
         https://youtu.be/Iu3lm0W6saU

         replyreport
   3. 98

      DrMark1961posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      https://www.rt.com/op-ed/483758-coronav … overnment/

      replyreport
      1. 66

         tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I bet Michele is saying to Barack right now  “Man did you blow it when you dealt with the swine flu. Look at how you could have rolled back people’s rights and freedoms if you just used the swine flu to impose a lock down!”

         replyreport
      2. 87

         GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I would say your linked article is a bit over the edge DrMark. However, maybe I am just naive, (but I don't think so).
         
         I do agree that many measures; limiting gatherings, fining for disobedience, etc. may be extreme, but maybe the extreme must be demanded just to end up with a moderate response. *shrug
         
         GA

         replyreport
   4. 95

      Glenis Rixposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, I think that a positive thing to emerge from this crisis is a reversion to the philosophy that the good of the community transcends individualism. Personal freedom to choose and act is wonderful - to a certain extent - but it has been pushed too far. In the West the attitude of me, me,me is too widespread. On a visit to Singapore, where my son and his family lived for a few years, I was struck my the orderliness and thoughtfulness of the indigenous people. It’s a benevolent dictatorship - which is what, in effect, the restrictions imposed due to the coronavirus have resulted in here in the permissive West.

      replyreport
      1. 98

         DrMark1961posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         What struck me about Singapore is that the people are living in fear under a dictatorship. Nothing benevolant about it. God forbid one express ones freedoms through the act of chewing gum.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Glenis Rixposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            My family were certainly not living in fear. Banning chewing gum is perhaps a little extreme - but you should see the mess that the discarded pieces leave on the oaths in the centre of my home town. I imagine that in a tropical climate it would attract nasty creepy crawlies.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               Glenis Rixposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               paths! Predictive texting

               replyreport
         2. 95

            Glenis Rixposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member- … n-politics

            replyreport
   5. 80

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      In my view, it well appears the lockdown was necessary to curb the spread of the virus.  However, some seem to support extending the lockdown for a very long period. I feel that solution would severely collapse not only our economy here in the USA but the world's economy. The cure would be worse than the solution. The virus is here to stay for some time. it's necessary to open up the country and keep up mitigations while living our lives. I am not willing to comply with the shutdown to much longer.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         ChrisBriscoeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, some people are saying shut it down for six months. This is when we need people who are doctors in both epidemics and economics, but we also need wise men or a wise man like Samuel or Moses from the Bible who had an one ear inclined to God's voice.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I see your point. But I think this time God may have to leave it up to the economist.  It seems many today lack the ability to not look beyond the death toll this virus and realize where this could end up in a horrendous depression.  The kind where people literally lose everything and we have people starving to death. Odd to witness such a lack of common sense.  It is shocking to me, it seems our society has been very successfully dumbed down.
            
            It may not be a virus that takes us down. It may be our lack of being able to accept reality.

            replyreport
2. 85

   bhattucposted 4 years ago

   Right now isolation and social distancing is the only mantra that can help in flattening this threat and then hoping for its natural tapering off and termination. To achieve that we might have to go for longer lockdowns. As there is no other choice or option, the associated downsides are to be tolerated by the mankind.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      ChrisBriscoeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I believe you are right, but we still need to have some protection in place in our justice system to ensure fairness and justice in cases where members of the police force misinterpret the current emergency laws or are too over-zealous in their implementation of the law, as in the recent two weeks of Lockdown there was even one case of a lady being arrested for not giving a good reason to the police for why she was outside, and the police fined her £260, of which, although they admitted their police officers were right to question her, they misinterpreted the law, and so now the CPS has thrown out the case.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         Glenis Rixposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Indeed.

         replyreport
3. 95

   CYong74posted 4 years ago

   Here's one of many write-ups on the subject. For the record, I agree that there is a risk of COVID measures ultimately creating worse harm.
   
   https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/worl … power.html

   replyreport
   1. 98

      DrMark1961posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      We do not have much of a police presence here so the lockdown is not enforced outside of the cities. What I am more concerned about is all of the people that survive day to day. Even when this thing is over, the economy is not going to bounce right back and the poorest will be hit the hardest.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I doubt the poorest will be hit the hardest (in the US).  They will still receive their food stamps, they will not be evicted and will not lose their medicaid.
         
         The working class, the middle class, is the one (as always) that will bear the brunt.  Without a job they'll lose their house, their car and any toys (boats, RV's, etc).  A great many jobs, particularly small business, will not come back at all

         replyreport
4. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

   Our civil rights disappeared a long time ago. Fortunately, the majority of government employees act in good faith; so usually it is not a problem.

   replyreport
5. 80

   Doneta Wrateposted 4 years ago

   If the lockdown goes on for too long, the economy could suffer long term damage.  During the great depression the suicide rate went up 6% according to several websites.  I understand trump wants to open up 19 states where the population density is low and covid19 is low, but he is being fought on it.  He is trying to pull a balance between covid 19 harm and great depression suicide harm.  There are 4 states who never have done a shut down: i believe that includes idaho, wyoming, one of the carolinas and one of the dakotas.  they have shut down the schools and encourage social distancing, but people are still going to work, church, stores are open, etc.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nope.  Idaho is shut down and has been for a while.  Only "essential" businesses operating, stay-at-home if at all possible.
      
      I have been surprised at what an "essential" business is, though - tobacco shops, vape stores, Starbucks, etc.  Even the state liquor stores are open under the theory that the state gets the profits and is in dire need of cash and that alcoholics will go into withdrawal and require valuable hospital space without the liquor store.

      replyreport
      1. 98

         DrMark1961posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         "Essential Starbucks". That sounds like something you would order from the barista.

         replyreport
6. 94

   AliciaCposted 4 years ago

   I think your point is worth considering. If a huge number of people are affected by the virus, however, major problems of a different nature may develop in society, at least in some places. Perhaps there’s no danger of this happening. Perhaps enough people are resistant to the virus to prevent the problems. Maybe one or more of the treatments that scientists and doctors are investigating will prove to be effective and will become widely available in the near future. Maybe an effective vaccine will be created before serious societal problems develop. The problem is there’s a lot of uncertainty about the future and we need to deal with the virus now. I think that social distancing is important at the moment, not only for an individual but perhaps for our society as a whole.

   replyreport
7. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

   Every freedom has a corresponding duty. When people don’t voluntarily do their duty government needs to create temporary enforcement of what should be voluntary behavior. I gave no problem with that.

   replyreport
   1. 98

      DrMark1961posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think the problem that everyone is worried about is the fact that when the crisis is over the governments will not want to give up their new powers. Remember the aftermath of 9/11?
      The power of government should be limited. Laws that crush freedoms are wrong. I have a problem with them.

      replyreport
   2. 95

      Glenis Rixposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely

      replyreport
8. 67

   ChrisBriscoeposted 4 years ago

   That's why we have to ensure that these laws which have been brought in for Government's Social Distancing policies are then cancelled (what's the proper term for cancelling a law) once we are over this crisis. It will be interesting if some politicians try to keep some of these laws in place because they prefer to let the police have more powers to control the masses.
   
   I hope that all Governments of the world would instigate a SOP or Strategy of Plan so that they would have contingency plans in place in their laws and institutions, and hospitals, of how to deal with these pandemicswhen they come along again. Just like after the Tsunami disaster, some Governments placed Tsunami  early warning devices in - for example, Indonesia.
   
   I hope that, after thus crisis or during (by Video-Link), major Government heads of all Governments with their doctors and professors can get together and come up with a really uniform contingency plan. It seems most nations were ill-prepared except a few - like Taiwan and South Korea.

   replyreport
   1. 98

      DrMark1961posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think the proper term for when a government cancels a law is NGH. (Never Going to Happen)

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

           All too true, unfortunately.
         
         Notice, though, that if this one (social distancing) isn't cancelled the population is going to fall drastically, leaving no one to govern!

         replyreport
9. 80

   Doneta Wrateposted 4 years ago

   According to michigan.gov, the number of deaths per day is down from 80 to 60 for the last two days.  Maybe we have peaked here!

   replyreport
   1. 67

      ChrisBriscoeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds promising.

      replyreport