Resist The Authoritarian Response To The Coronavirus

[Lechasseur]

I don't usually say things like this, but those of you decrying the "authoritarian" response are nuts.

Give the government control to totally shut down your social life, keep you indoors, etc and good luck ever putting that back into its box.  Our freedoms are a lot more important than a virus with a 2% fataility rate.  Sorry, I said it.  I mean it.

Yep, I agree with you 100%

[T'Chenka]

I don't usually say things like this, but those of you decrying the "authoritarian" response are nuts.

Give the government control to totally shut down your social life, keep you indoors, etc and good luck ever putting that back into its box.  Our freedoms are a lot more important than a virus with a 2% fataility rate.  Sorry, I said it.  I mean it.

Would you support doing this for something as deadly as smallpox (>20% fatality rate, overwhelming majority of population likely to be infected if no action taken)?  For something like the 1300's Black Death (>50% total fatality rate, 30-60% for more common bubonic type, >90% for less common pneumonic type, also likely to spread throughout the population)?  Or not at all?

I would like to see a serious answer to this question from those who think it is their god-given right to infect everyone else.

Because this is a serious question.

If it is actually a matter of principle, then they would hold the same opinion if it were smallpox, the plague, or worse.

And if it is not a matter of principle, then they must recognize that real question is one of degree - and the question we should be debating is actually how severe a disease should be in order for society to respond with a lockdown/significant measures to try to contain/eliminate the disease.

I think that is the real question here, and Skill and Chance's hypothetical cuts to the core of the matter.

Ive already said multiple times, the risk of this virus is nowhere proportionate to the economic destruction we are inflicting upon ourselves.  Its not remotely comparable to smallpox  or the black death.  Its a ridiculous question to even entertain.

And we're supposed to believe you instead of a huge community of scientists because....?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

It takes a whole new level of intellectual dishonesty to quote a sentence verbatim while ignoring the sentence that came immediately after. You must be very proud of yourself. You sure showed me! Any rational person will obviously see through your little parlor trick, but I'm sure it won't stop your coterie of rebel LARPers to applaud you.

That aside, you're probably right that Americans lack the basic self-discipline to follow the common sense measures needed to avoid making the situation a lot worse. Even Europeans, who are generally more down-to-earth, don't seem to be doing a good job of it. And yes, the lack of economic relief coming from the US government will probably mean that many people will be forced to keep going to work (even when a humane society would be helping them to stay home). This, of course, will all make life worse for everyone in the end. But I guess there's no other way when the country is full of people like you.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I would like to see a serious answer to this question from those who think it is their god-given right to infect everyone else.

Because this is a serious question.

If it is actually a matter of principle, then they would hold the same opinion if it were smallpox, the plague, or worse.

And if it is not a matter of principle, then they must recognize that real question is one of degree - and the question we should be debating is actually how severe a disease should be in order for society to respond with a lockdown/significant measures to try to contain/eliminate the disease.

I think that is the real question here, and Skill and Chance's hypothetical cuts to the core of the matter.

Ive already said multiple times, the risk of this virus is nowhere proportionate to the economic destruction we are inflicting upon ourselves.  Its not remotely comparable to smallpox  or the black death.  Its a ridiculous question to even entertain.

That is a reasonable response. So, the natural follow up question is how high would the losses have to go before you would change your opinion and not consider the American casualties to be acceptable losses?

5 million dead? 10 million? 20? Doesn't have to be an exact #, but at what point would we be better off with lockdowns/vigorous containment as opposed to just letting a virus burn through the population?

[Green Line]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

It takes a whole new level of intellectual dishonesty to quote a sentence verbatim while ignoring the sentence that came immediately after. You must be very proud of yourself. You sure showed me! Any rational person will obviously see through your little parlor trick, but I'm sure it won't stop your coterie of rebel LARPers to applaud you.

That aside, you're probably right that Americans lack the basic self-discipline to follow the common sense measures needed to avoid making the situation a lot worse. Even Europeans, who are generally more down-to-earth, don't seem to be doing a good job of it. And yes, the lack of economic relief coming from the US government will probably mean that many people will be forced to keep going to work (even when a humane society would be helping them to stay home). This, of course, will all make life worse for everyone in the end. But I guess there's no other way when the country is full of people like you.

Your next sentence doesn’t even nearly cover it, sorry.  The state can’t cover for that kind of economic fallout.  That’s why I didn’t address it, it was nonsensical.  Try harder to think of a way to save the American worker, instead of just talking down to them.  We need to come together.

[T'Chenka]

I would like to see a serious answer to this question from those who think it is their god-given right to infect everyone else.

Because this is a serious question.

If it is actually a matter of principle, then they would hold the same opinion if it were smallpox, the plague, or worse.

And if it is not a matter of principle, then they must recognize that real question is one of degree - and the question we should be debating is actually how severe a disease should be in order for society to respond with a lockdown/significant measures to try to contain/eliminate the disease.

I think that is the real question here, and Skill and Chance's hypothetical cuts to the core of the matter.

Ive already said multiple times, the risk of this virus is nowhere proportionate to the economic destruction we are inflicting upon ourselves.  Its not remotely comparable to smallpox  or the black death.  Its a ridiculous question to even entertain.

That is a reasonable response. So, the natural follow up question is how high would the losses have to go before you would change your opinion and not consider the American casualties to be acceptable losses?

5 million dead? 10 million? 20? Doesn't have to be an exact #, but at what point would we be better off with lockdowns/vigorous containment as opposed to just letting a virus burn through the population?

If he refuses to answer, his argument holds ZERO water.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

It takes a whole new level of intellectual dishonesty to quote a sentence verbatim while ignoring the sentence that came immediately after. You must be very proud of yourself. You sure showed me! Any rational person will obviously see through your little parlor trick, but I'm sure it won't stop your coterie of rebel LARPers to applaud you.

That aside, you're probably right that Americans lack the basic self-discipline to follow the common sense measures needed to avoid making the situation a lot worse. Even Europeans, who are generally more down-to-earth, don't seem to be doing a good job of it. And yes, the lack of economic relief coming from the US government will probably mean that many people will be forced to keep going to work (even when a humane society would be helping them to stay home). This, of course, will all make life worse for everyone in the end. But I guess there's no other way when the country is full of people like you.

Your next sentence doesn’t even nearly cover it, sorry.  The state can’t cover for that kind of economic fallout.  That’s why I didn’t address it, it was nonsensical.  Try harder to think of a way to save the American worker, instead of just talking down to them.  We need to come together.

The state can absolutely cover 2-3 months of wage loss for workers who need it. It's really not rocket science. Worse come to worse, it blows up the deficit. Big deal. You can always make it up by raising taxes after the recovery, or better yet, just print money, since inflation is going to be anemic anyway.

[Green Line]

I would like to see a serious answer to this question from those who think it is their god-given right to infect everyone else.

Because this is a serious question.

If it is actually a matter of principle, then they would hold the same opinion if it were smallpox, the plague, or worse.

And if it is not a matter of principle, then they must recognize that real question is one of degree - and the question we should be debating is actually how severe a disease should be in order for society to respond with a lockdown/significant measures to try to contain/eliminate the disease.

I think that is the real question here, and Skill and Chance's hypothetical cuts to the core of the matter.

Ive already said multiple times, the risk of this virus is nowhere proportionate to the economic destruction we are inflicting upon ourselves.  Its not remotely comparable to smallpox  or the black death.  Its a ridiculous question to even entertain.

That is a reasonable response. So, the natural follow up question is how high would the losses have to go before you would change your opinion and not consider the American casualties to be acceptable losses?

5 million dead? 10 million? 20? Doesn't have to be an exact #, but at what point would we be better off with lockdowns/vigorous containment as opposed to just letting a virus burn through the population?

If he refuses to answer, his argument holds ZERO water.

Nice try, but I won’t play your “gotcha” game.  There is a clear difference between THE BLACK DEATH which was cited above, and the Coronavirus.  Play amongst yourselves and speculate.  Idgaf.

[Green Line]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

It takes a whole new level of intellectual dishonesty to quote a sentence verbatim while ignoring the sentence that came immediately after. You must be very proud of yourself. You sure showed me! Any rational person will obviously see through your little parlor trick, but I'm sure it won't stop your coterie of rebel LARPers to applaud you.

That aside, you're probably right that Americans lack the basic self-discipline to follow the common sense measures needed to avoid making the situation a lot worse. Even Europeans, who are generally more down-to-earth, don't seem to be doing a good job of it. And yes, the lack of economic relief coming from the US government will probably mean that many people will be forced to keep going to work (even when a humane society would be helping them to stay home). This, of course, will all make life worse for everyone in the end. But I guess there's no other way when the country is full of people like you.

Your next sentence doesn’t even nearly cover it, sorry.  The state can’t cover for that kind of economic fallout.  That’s why I didn’t address it, it was nonsensical.  Try harder to think of a way to save the American worker, instead of just talking down to them.  We need to come together.

The state can absolutely cover 2-3 months of wage loss for workers who need it. It's really not rocket science. Worse come to worse, it blows up the deficit. Big deal. You can always make it up by raising taxes after the recovery, or better yet, just print money, since inflation is going to be anemic anyway.

Most small businesses can’t close down for 2-3 months.  There won’t be jobs to come back to when its over.  I think you just see an opportunity to turn this into your socialist playground.  I don’t blame you.  I would do the same if I could.

But I digress, hopefully we won’t have to take these steps.

[T'Chenka]

I would like to see a serious answer to this question from those who think it is their god-given right to infect everyone else.

Because this is a serious question.

If it is actually a matter of principle, then they would hold the same opinion if it were smallpox, the plague, or worse.

And if it is not a matter of principle, then they must recognize that real question is one of degree - and the question we should be debating is actually how severe a disease should be in order for society to respond with a lockdown/significant measures to try to contain/eliminate the disease.

I think that is the real question here, and Skill and Chance's hypothetical cuts to the core of the matter.

Ive already said multiple times, the risk of this virus is nowhere proportionate to the economic destruction we are inflicting upon ourselves.  Its not remotely comparable to smallpox  or the black death.  Its a ridiculous question to even entertain.

That is a reasonable response. So, the natural follow up question is how high would the losses have to go before you would change your opinion and not consider the American casualties to be acceptable losses?

5 million dead? 10 million? 20? Doesn't have to be an exact #, but at what point would we be better off with lockdowns/vigorous containment as opposed to just letting a virus burn through the population?

If he refuses to answer, his argument holds ZERO water.

Nice try, but I won’t play your “gotcha” game.  There is a clear difference between THE BLACK DEATH which was cited above, and the Coronavirus.  Play amongst yourselves and speculate.  Idgaf.

Congratulations, you played yourself.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

It takes a whole new level of intellectual dishonesty to quote a sentence verbatim while ignoring the sentence that came immediately after. You must be very proud of yourself. You sure showed me! Any rational person will obviously see through your little parlor trick, but I'm sure it won't stop your coterie of rebel LARPers to applaud you.

That aside, you're probably right that Americans lack the basic self-discipline to follow the common sense measures needed to avoid making the situation a lot worse. Even Europeans, who are generally more down-to-earth, don't seem to be doing a good job of it. And yes, the lack of economic relief coming from the US government will probably mean that many people will be forced to keep going to work (even when a humane society would be helping them to stay home). This, of course, will all make life worse for everyone in the end. But I guess there's no other way when the country is full of people like you.

Your next sentence doesn’t even nearly cover it, sorry.  The state can’t cover for that kind of economic fallout.  That’s why I didn’t address it, it was nonsensical.  Try harder to think of a way to save the American worker, instead of just talking down to them.  We need to come together.

Don't be silly, of course the state can cover for that. China is doing so right now.

Perhaps you could make a reasonable argument that we nonetheless shouldn't do that or that it is not a good thing. But that is an entirely different question from whether it is possible. Clearly it is entirely possible. Whether we do it or not is a question of will.

[It’s so Joever]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

And btw we have a bill of rights, including freedom of religion. Good luck trying to stop people from attending services for months on end.  It won’t happen.  I will be back in the Church soon, as will many others.

Even in Wuhan, grocery stores were open, so please stop playing this game.
As for your church, I don’t think god wants you to willingly infect people and violate common sense measures, but you are free to believe otherwise.  However, I will tell you this, you aren’t special, you are a part of a larger problem and the rules apply to you, even if you don’t like it. Your self comfort isn’t more important than thousands of lives. People who willingly resist social distancing ought to be fined and recorded for later (because arrests right now are problematic)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

It takes a whole new level of intellectual dishonesty to quote a sentence verbatim while ignoring the sentence that came immediately after. You must be very proud of yourself. You sure showed me! Any rational person will obviously see through your little parlor trick, but I'm sure it won't stop your coterie of rebel LARPers to applaud you.

That aside, you're probably right that Americans lack the basic self-discipline to follow the common sense measures needed to avoid making the situation a lot worse. Even Europeans, who are generally more down-to-earth, don't seem to be doing a good job of it. And yes, the lack of economic relief coming from the US government will probably mean that many people will be forced to keep going to work (even when a humane society would be helping them to stay home). This, of course, will all make life worse for everyone in the end. But I guess there's no other way when the country is full of people like you.

Your next sentence doesn’t even nearly cover it, sorry.  The state can’t cover for that kind of economic fallout.  That’s why I didn’t address it, it was nonsensical.  Try harder to think of a way to save the American worker, instead of just talking down to them.  We need to come together.

The state can absolutely cover 2-3 months of wage loss for workers who need it. It's really not rocket science. Worse come to worse, it blows up the deficit. Big deal. You can always make it up by raising taxes after the recovery, or better yet, just print money, since inflation is going to be anemic anyway.

Most small businesses can’t close down for 2-3 months.  There won’t be jobs to come back to when its over.  I think you just see an opportunity to turn this into your socialist playground.  I don’t blame you.  I would do the same if I could.

But I digress, hopefully we won’t have to take these steps.

Guess what, genius, those small businesses can be bailed out exactly the same way workers can. I know you're one of those neoliberal fanatics who has a principled stance against using government money to help people, but most real people don't want to let your bullsh*t ideology get in the way of their livelihoods.

[Skill and Chance]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

And btw we have a bill of rights, including freedom of religion. Good luck trying to stop people from attending services for months on end.  It won’t happen.  I will be back in the Church soon, as will many others.

Even in Wuhan, grocery stores were open, so please stop playing this game.
As for your church, I don’t think god wants you to willingly infect people and violate common sense measures, but you are free to believe otherwise.  However, I will tell you this, you aren’t special, you are a part of a larger problem and the rules apply to you, even if you don’t like it. Your self comfort isn’t more important than thousands of lives. People who willingly resist social distancing ought to be fined and recorded for later (because arrests right now are problematic)

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

[T'Chenka]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

And btw we have a bill of rights, including freedom of religion. Good luck trying to stop people from attending services for months on end.  It won’t happen.  I will be back in the Church soon, as will many others.

Even in Wuhan, grocery stores were open, so please stop playing this game.
As for your church, I don’t think god wants you to willingly infect people and violate common sense measures, but you are free to believe otherwise.  However, I will tell you this, you aren’t special, you are a part of a larger problem and the rules apply to you, even if you don’t like it. Your self comfort isn’t more important than thousands of lives. People who willingly resist social distancing ought to be fined and recorded for later (because arrests right now are problematic)

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

If the churches can't be CLOSED, they can certainly be forbidden from hosting gatherings of 10+ people inside of one building during a pandemic.

[dead0man]

Authoritarians love a tragedy.

People who willingly resist social distancing ought to be fined and recorded for later (because arrests right now are problematic)

what does this even mean?  How are you going to tell at a distance that someone is "willing resist(ing) social distancing"?  Some of us have, ya know, important jobs...some of us have to, ya know, go buy food/supplies for people who can't/shouldn't leave their home.  I'm outside my home right now (at work) and have been every day since this thing started (I may not have left the house on Sunday, I don't really remember) and will be out (nearly) every day while it's going on.  If someone who thinks like you was in charge I'd have to spend a week in court after this was over with proving that I had important things to do.  Hopefully they'd believe me, but if people like you are in charge I doubt it.

[Green Line]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

It takes a whole new level of intellectual dishonesty to quote a sentence verbatim while ignoring the sentence that came immediately after. You must be very proud of yourself. You sure showed me! Any rational person will obviously see through your little parlor trick, but I'm sure it won't stop your coterie of rebel LARPers to applaud you.

That aside, you're probably right that Americans lack the basic self-discipline to follow the common sense measures needed to avoid making the situation a lot worse. Even Europeans, who are generally more down-to-earth, don't seem to be doing a good job of it. And yes, the lack of economic relief coming from the US government will probably mean that many people will be forced to keep going to work (even when a humane society would be helping them to stay home). This, of course, will all make life worse for everyone in the end. But I guess there's no other way when the country is full of people like you.

Your next sentence doesn’t even nearly cover it, sorry.  The state can’t cover for that kind of economic fallout.  That’s why I didn’t address it, it was nonsensical.  Try harder to think of a way to save the American worker, instead of just talking down to them.  We need to come together.

The state can absolutely cover 2-3 months of wage loss for workers who need it. It's really not rocket science. Worse come to worse, it blows up the deficit. Big deal. You can always make it up by raising taxes after the recovery, or better yet, just print money, since inflation is going to be anemic anyway.

Most small businesses can’t close down for 2-3 months.  There won’t be jobs to come back to when its over.  I think you just see an opportunity to turn this into your socialist playground.  I don’t blame you.  I would do the same if I could.

But I digress, hopefully we won’t have to take these steps.

Guess what, genius, those small businesses can be bailed out exactly the same way workers can. I know you're one of those neoliberal fanatics who has a principled stance against using government money to help people, but most real people don't want to let your bullsh*t ideology get in the way of their livelihoods.

Whats with the attitude Im getting.

Can we at least have elections before the government takes over the whole economy?  Or does that not fit into the plan to seize everything.

[TJ in Oregon]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

And btw we have a bill of rights, including freedom of religion. Good luck trying to stop people from attending services for months on end.  It won’t happen.  I will be back in the Church soon, as will many others.

Even in Wuhan, grocery stores were open, so please stop playing this game.
As for your church, I don’t think god wants you to willingly infect people and violate common sense measures, but you are free to believe otherwise.  However, I will tell you this, you aren’t special, you are a part of a larger problem and the rules apply to you, even if you don’t like it. Your self comfort isn’t more important than thousands of lives. People who willingly resist social distancing ought to be fined and recorded for later (because arrests right now are problematic)

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

In some cases "voluntarily" after the government tells them that have to (or have to have <10 people which is functionally the same thing). There's absolutely no way that's constitutional. But there won't be a serious challenge, least not from the larger religions. There may be some small evangelical group out there who does disobey, but even there the odds aren't great they are arrested.

[It’s so Joever]

Authoritarians love a tragedy.

People who willingly resist social distancing ought to be fined and recorded for later (because arrests right now are problematic)

what does this even mean?  How are you going to tell at a distance that someone is "willing resist(ing) social distancing"?  Some of us have, ya know, important jobs...some of us have to, ya know, go buy food/supplies for people who can't/shouldn't leave their home.  I'm outside my home right now (at work) and have been every day since this thing started (I may not have left the house on Sunday, I don't really remember) and will be out (nearly) every day while it's going on.  If someone who thinks like you was in charge I'd have to spend a week in court after this was over with proving that I had important things to do.  Hopefully they'd believe me, but if people like you are in charge I doubt it.

...There is a big difference between buying groceries and congregating in groups of 10+ people for prolonged periods of time deliberately. Don’t even try to make these bad faith arguments, when they don’t hold weight. As for work spaces, all non-essential businesses and services must be shutdown immediately. You will receive monetary support during this time.
Not every minor infraction of social distancing will be punished, but larger instances certainly will.

[It’s so Joever]

Authoritarians love a tragedy.

People who willingly resist social distancing ought to be fined and recorded for later (because arrests right now are problematic)

what does this even mean?  How are you going to tell at a distance that someone is "willing resist(ing) social distancing"?  Some of us have, ya know, important jobs...some of us have to, ya know, go buy food/supplies for people who can't/shouldn't leave their home.  I'm outside my home right now (at work) and have been every day since this thing started (I may not have left the house on Sunday, I don't really remember) and will be out (nearly) every day while it's going on.  If someone who thinks like you was in charge I'd have to spend a week in court after this was over with proving that I had important things to do.  Hopefully they'd believe me, but if people like you are in charge I doubt it.

Anyways, since you are telling everyone that authoritarians/socialists/whoever your bogeyman of the day is, are exploiting this tragedy, let me remind you that libertarian minded people are buying huge stocks of hand sanitizer/soap and price gouging to a desperate American public. Don’t try to act virtuous, because this isn’t it.

[TJ in Oregon]

Oh I should say, at risk of being misinterpeted, that we absolutely should have a ban on social gatherings at a minimum. Watching Italy from this side of the pond does not look like a fun place to be in a week. It's not very fun at home either, but we kinda have to do this. Three weeks ago things looked a lot different, but it's almost undeniable now the situation is far more dire than at least I had presumed. The way I see it, the better we are at following the smaller rules like social distancing the less likely we are to face a true lockdown. And I really don't want that.

[Skill and Chance]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

And btw we have a bill of rights, including freedom of religion. Good luck trying to stop people from attending services for months on end.  It won’t happen.  I will be back in the Church soon, as will many others.

Even in Wuhan, grocery stores were open, so please stop playing this game.
As for your church, I don’t think god wants you to willingly infect people and violate common sense measures, but you are free to believe otherwise.  However, I will tell you this, you aren’t special, you are a part of a larger problem and the rules apply to you, even if you don’t like it. Your self comfort isn’t more important than thousands of lives. People who willingly resist social distancing ought to be fined and recorded for later (because arrests right now are problematic)

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

If the churches can't be CLOSED, they can certainly be forbidden from hosting gatherings of 10+ people inside of one building during a pandemic.

Compliance has already been high enough this shouldn't be an issue.  If it becomes an issue, potentially more could be done with fewer constitutional issues after a parishioner is confirmed to have the disease.

[T'Chenka]

Can we at least have elections before the government takes over the whole economy?  Or does that not fit into the plan to seize everything.

You're one hit off the crack pipe from Alex Jones territory here.

[dead0man]

...There is a big difference between buying groceries and congregating in groups of 10+ people for prolonged periods of time deliberately.

indeed

Don’t even try to make these bad faith arguments, when they don’t hold weight.

I'm not making a bad faith argument, I'm saying it would be stupid to "record" people who are out and about this week so as to fine them later.  That would be:
A.impossible to set up
2.impossible to prove in a future court
III.a waste of resources
d.seemingly just done to spite people who might have been doing something you disagree with

Not every minor infraction of social distancing will be punished, but larger instances certainly will.

you meant to say "certainly should in my opinion." there at the end, yes?

Anyways, since you are telling everyone that authoritarians/socialists/whoever your bogeyman of the day is, are exploiting this tragedy, let me remind you that libertarian minded people are buying huge stocks of hand sanitizer/soap and price gouging to a desperate American public. Don’t try to act virtuous, because this isn’t it.

I'll act as virtuous as I want, you don't know me.  "libertarian minded people"?  what, all 4 of us?  And I've certainly not done any of those things, should I be blamed for what some in the group does?  You don't see any obvious issues with that mindset?  Nothing in history has shown you why that's a bad idea?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

It is constitutional to make content-neutral time/place/manner regulations of first amendment activity.

You are right it would not be constitutional to simply ban church services.

However, it would be entirely constitutional to regulate the sizes of meetings, for example to ban meetings of greater than 50 people (or 20 or 5 people, or perhaps even of 2 people), as is currently occurring in many jurisdictions. This would include church services, but would not apply specifically to church services. It also does not in any way prevent churches from holding online meetings, and there is no particular intent to prevent religious practice or to single out/target religion for some sort of suppression.

Mind you, it wouldn't necessarily be constitutional to ban meetings with a certain # of people if there were no legitimate government purpose/interest for doing so. But in this case, there is a legitimate public interest - namely public health - for doing so.

On the other hand, suppose that the government wanted to ban all online meetings (including online church services). In this case, I don't think there would even be a rational basis for doing so on the basis of public health, so this would not be constitutional.