Resist The Authoritarian Response To The Coronavirus

[T'Chenka]

We listen to scientists. PERIOD.

If scientists are urging temporary authoritarian measures, we TEMPORARILY adopt them.

Why are some people hellbent on getting everybody killed over "Muh Freedom"? This isn't everyday politics and rights, we are in a life and death emergency here. The same rules don't apply and as someone else said, your rights do not extend into the lungs of others.

[T'Chenka]

We listen to scientists. PERIOD.

If scientists are urging temporary authoritarian measures, we TEMPORARILY adopt them.

Why are some people hellbent on getting everybody killed over "Muh Freedom"? This isn't everyday politics and rights, we are in a life and death emergency here. The same rules don't apply and as someone else said, your rights do not extend into the lungs of others.

Not sure if this is satire...

Yes, scientists are ALWAYS right.  We should listen to them in all circumstances.  Its not like they've ever endorsed horrible things in the past. 🙄🙄🙄

The implication is "we listen to (our community) of scientists". If a few scientists working for Trump ir FOX say one thing and 90% of our scientists say they're wrong, we listen to the 90%. It's a lot easier to hear what MANY scientists are saying these days with social media.

[T'Chenka]

This thread is one nutbar away from "THE GOVERNMENT MADE THE CORONAVIRUS TO GET US TO HAND OVER CONTROL!!!"

[T'Chenka]

Of course the best solution IMO is to just treat it the same way as the flu but of course in a media dominated age that wouldn't happen.

If under best you mean the best way to increase the death toll, then you're right.

Natural selection.

This post is disgusting. Shame on you.

[T'Chenka]

i've been saying this from the beginning, big gov is trying to control us.

Nashville tried to shut down all the bars yesterday, and I'm glad one bar owner stood up for freedom and refused to close.

Anti-Quarantiners like yourself can start your own country (Florida?) and the USA will ban all entry from Anti-Quarantinelanders. Good luck with your anti-science, bro.

[T'Chenka]

Of course, the elephant in the room of this discussion is that the government should be pumping massive amounts of cash into the economy (ideally directly into the pockets of consumers) to sustain the economic damage that the cessation of economic activity will cause, and especially to support the millions of people who aren't able to go to work anymore. Of course it won't do that, because it's against the neoliberal dogma.

Economic advisor: "Mr. President, Leader McConnell, I PROMISE you that the recommended guidelines for economic stability under market-crashing health emergencies is to implement socialism. You need to give poor people free money NOW!"

Poor b__tard will probably end in Guantanamo for saying that

[T'Chenka]

Of course, the elephant in the room of this discussion is that the government should be pumping massive amounts of cash into the economy (ideally directly into the pockets of consumers) to sustain the economic damage that the cessation of economic activity will cause, and especially to support the millions of people who aren't able to go to work anymore. Of course it won't do that, because it's against the neoliberal dogma.

Economic advisor: "Mr. President, Leader McConnell, I PROMISE you that the recommended guidelines for economic stability under market-crashing health emergencies is to implement socialism. You need to give poor people free money NOW!"

Poor b__tard will probably end in Guantanamo for saying that

This isn't even socialism, it's run-of-the-mill Keynesianism.

Do you think Trump will understand the difference?

[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 ...

Again, what exactly does that mean?
What freedoms/rights that are temporarily proposed or being taken away from us at this time, do you fear that they will not "put back into its box."
Be specific.
This is really all nutty to me. I just cant believe I'm reading some of this, from some of you.

I think the idea is that the police and military follow instructions to keep communities in lockdown until the government decides that "the area is coronavirus-free", which would actually mean that the community has agreed to further government control in some way to "protect" people... surveillance? Surveillance is only a good excuse against terrprists, not a virus. Maybe it's the vaccine? Everybody in area must receive the vaccine to end quarantine, but the vaccine has tracker GPS nanobots in it so the government can track and control you.


That's the best I can come up with without smoking crack.

[T'Chenka]

... It's amazing to me that so many people who are clear eyed about Donald Trump's authoritarian nature are suddenly clamoring for him to take the reigns and lock us all down.  He won't necessarily give up whatever power you give him, people.  What have we learned in the last three years?

Are you listening to yourself?
It's the doctors, scientists and health specialists that are proposing policies of "locking us all down."
And remember, it's just not donald trump that is taking extreme measures to control the spread of this pandemic. It's governors of states and mayors of cities (of both parties). It's also governments and heads-of-state of most of the other world nations. This isnt some world-wide conspiracy of the nation's leaders to grab somekind of power from the people (and not give it back).

I mean, what do you mean when you say "(trump) won't necessarily give up whatever power you give him." Define exactly what "power" he wont return to us. The power not to go to bars and restaurants any more after this is all over? Cant go to a baseball game, or Broadway musical any more?
Tell me EXACTLY what you fear here; be specific.
Because all this "authoritarian" talk is extreme nonsense.

I'm sorry that you don't think the ability to leave your house and partake in those activities you listed matters.  Many other people in this country would disagree.  You can't give a time period for the this is "all over", of course.  6 months from now?  12 months from now?  When tens of thousands of companies have liquidated because no economic activity is occuring?  The concern of doctors and scientists right now is singularly focused on saving the elderly, admirable.  We elect public officials to balance many competing interests and act in the best interests of everyone.

What he's asking you is this: WHY would the government want to control you in this way? Governments only want to control people if there's a BENEFIT for them in doing so. Kerping you loked in your house crashes the economy and doesn't help them acheive any hypothetical sinister goal. There's no benefit.

[T'Chenka]

... It's amazing to me that so many people who are clear eyed about Donald Trump's authoritarian nature are suddenly clamoring for him to take the reigns and lock us all down.  He won't necessarily give up whatever power you give him, people.  What have we learned in the last three years?

Are you listening to yourself?
It's the doctors, scientists and health specialists that are proposing policies of "locking us all down."
And remember, it's just not donald trump that is taking extreme measures to control the spread of this pandemic. It's governors of states and mayors of cities (of both parties). It's also governments and heads-of-state of most of the other world nations. This isnt some world-wide conspiracy of the nation's leaders to grab somekind of power from the people (and not give it back).

I mean, what do you mean when you say "(trump) won't necessarily give up whatever power you give him." Define exactly what "power" he wont return to us. The power not to go to bars and restaurants any more after this is all over? Cant go to a baseball game, or Broadway musical any more?
Tell me EXACTLY what you fear here; be specific.
Because all this "authoritarian" talk is extreme nonsense.

I'm sorry that you don't think the ability to leave your house and partake in those activities you listed matters.  Many other people in this country would disagree.  You can't give a time period for the this is "all over", of course.  6 months from now?  12 months from now?  When tens of thousands of companies have liquidated because no economic activity is occuring?  The concern of doctors and scientists right now is singularly focused on saving the elderly, admirable.  We elect public officials to balance many competing interests and act in the best interests of everyone.

What he's asking you is this: WHY would the government want to control you in this way? Governments only want to control people if there's a BENEFIT for them in doing so. Kerping you loked in your house crashes the economy and doesn't help them acheive any hypothetical sinister goal. There's no benefit.

There are multiple things going on here.  We just had a primary election illegally cancelled tonight because of virus concerns.  Whatever the motives were, bad actors (Trump or other) can jump on the mass hysteria and use these kinds of precendents for their own gain.  You'd better hope to God there's not some kind of natural disaster/pandemic in November.  Trump may try to postpone or cancel the election.  And what will you say, thats fine?

Second, the "doctors, scientists and health specialists" he referenced calling for total lockdowns of the country are not concerned about our civil liberties.  They are also not concerned about the economic fallout.  They are singularly focused stopping the virus.  I'll ask it again.  What's an acceptable amount of time to shelter in place.  What if they say we need to do it for 6 months?  12 months? 18 months? We have posters on here and people in the media implying just that, and how dare anyone question it.  At some point, you don't just go, "BUT THE DOCTORS SAID WE HAD TO DO IT".  This is why our public officials need to balance multiple interests.  They don't just blindly follow one piece of advice.

Pelosi and the Supreme Court will not allow Trump to cancel the election. Delay the election slightly? If the circumstances actually call for that and Pelosi and Supreme Court agree, then sure why not.

We will lockdown for 18 months if necessary, and as soon as we realize that tjat is the reality, we'll have people coming up with new strategies to help the economy and social lives improve. Skype may become WAY more popular. Some sportd MAY start up again like MMA with empty crowds but broadcast to TV watchers. Online casinos will get more popular. Some new animated movies might get green-lit where voice actors and animators can self-isolate while they make the movie, and they can go straight to VOD or Netflix. We'll find a way.

[T'Chenka]

... It's amazing to me that so many people who are clear eyed about Donald Trump's authoritarian nature are suddenly clamoring for him to take the reigns and lock us all down.  He won't necessarily give up whatever power you give him, people.  What have we learned in the last three years?

Are you listening to yourself?
It's the doctors, scientists and health specialists that are proposing policies of "locking us all down."
And remember, it's just not donald trump that is taking extreme measures to control the spread of this pandemic. It's governors of states and mayors of cities (of both parties). It's also governments and heads-of-state of most of the other world nations. This isnt some world-wide conspiracy of the nation's leaders to grab somekind of power from the people (and not give it back).

I mean, what do you mean when you say "(trump) won't necessarily give up whatever power you give him." Define exactly what "power" he wont return to us. The power not to go to bars and restaurants any more after this is all over? Cant go to a baseball game, or Broadway musical any more?
Tell me EXACTLY what you fear here; be specific.
Because all this "authoritarian" talk is extreme nonsense.

I'm sorry that you don't think the ability to leave your house and partake in those activities you listed matters.  Many other people in this country would disagree.  You can't give a time period for the this is "all over", of course.  6 months from now?  12 months from now?  When tens of thousands of companies have liquidated because no economic activity is occuring?  The concern of doctors and scientists right now is singularly focused on saving the elderly, admirable.  We elect public officials to balance many competing interests and act in the best interests of everyone.

What he's asking you is this: WHY would the government want to control you in this way? Governments only want to control people if there's a BENEFIT for them in doing so. Kerping you loked in your house crashes the economy and doesn't help them acheive any hypothetical sinister goal. There's no benefit.

There are multiple things going on here.  We just had a primary election illegally cancelled tonight because of virus concerns.  Whatever the motives were, bad actors (Trump or other) can jump on the mass hysteria and use these kinds of precendents for their own gain.  You'd better hope to God there's not some kind of natural disaster/pandemic in November.  Trump may try to postpone or cancel the election.  And what will you say, thats fine?

Second, the "doctors, scientists and health specialists" he referenced calling for total lockdowns of the country are not concerned about our civil liberties.  They are also not concerned about the economic fallout.  They are singularly focused stopping the virus.  I'll ask it again.  What's an acceptable amount of time to shelter in place.  What if they say we need to do it for 6 months?  12 months? 18 months? We have posters on here and people in the media implying just that, and how dare anyone question it.  At some point, you don't just go, "BUT THE DOCTORS SAID WE HAD TO DO IT".  This is why our public officials need to balance multiple interests.  They don't just blindly follow one piece of advice.

Pelosi and the Supreme Court will not allow Trump to cancel the election. Delay the election slightly? If the circumstances actually call for that and Pelosi and Supreme Court agree, then sure why not.

We will lockdown for 18 months if necessary, and as soon as we realize that tjat is the reality, we'll have people coming up with new strategies to help the economy and social lives improve. Skype may become WAY more popular. Some sportd MAY start up again like MMA with empty crowds but broadcast to TV watchers. Online casinos will get more popular. Some new animated movies might get green-lit where voice actors and animators can self-isolate while they make the movie, and they can go straight to VOD or Netflix. We'll find a way.

No we will not be locking down for 18 months and anyone that thinks the vast majority of Americans can handle that is insane.

We'll just have to see how Americans feel when the hospitals and funeral homes totally exceed capacity and the corpses start rotting in piles in your local communities.

[T'Chenka]

Why would we be locked down for 18 months?

https://mobile.twitter.com/kakape/status/1239709269370511366

[T'Chenka]

The current measures are not "just" to save the elderly (who deserve saving regardless of your opinion) or "just" the immunocompromised. It's to save people of all age groups and health levels. Without locking things down, hospitals will be overwhelmed and doctors will have to decide who counts as important enough to save. Women having babies may have to stay at home. Young, healthy people can and do die from this, and we need to keep the flow to the healthcare system as even and steady as possible so we don't cycle into deaths that could easily be prevented.

Yep.

Just to throw out some examples, young people who get an appendicitis attack, alcohol poisoning, overdose on drugs or get into car accidents will all die if the hospitals are too busy dealing with coronavirus to treat them and save them.

[T'Chenka]

Lot of people in this thread refusing to engage with the argument and shouting down dissent, even calling those of us who rightly worry about the massive opportunity the coronavirus pandemic creates for more authoritarian measures around the world “not caring if people die.” Amazing.

Do you disagree with the authoritarian measures that the UK took to survive World War 2 and night bombings of London?

In very special emergency circumstances, it is normal to temporarily suspend certain rights. This is not the first time this has happened snd it won't be the last. If Trump tries AND succeeds (both unlikely) to manipulate this to become dictator, the people will rise up, hopefully with the help of the military and close allies like UK Germany France Canada Australia etc.  You can cross that bridge if you ever get to it, which is a big maybe honestly. First you need to focus on turning an emergency into a non-emsegency so many thousands do not die.

[T'Chenka]

Assuming the government wants us locked up for over a year like the study from Imperial College recommended, all I can do is quote Patrick Henry:
"Give me liberty or give me death!"

A life without freedom and in total isolation is no life at all.

Quarantine-violating traitors will be shot on sight.

[T'Chenka]

You're really a bunch of brainwashed cucks aren't you?

Do you really accept being locked up at home for 18 months?

My God, this is how totaltarianism starts

PTemporary partial totalitarianism is NORMAL is a NATIONAL EMERGENCY situation.

[T'Chenka]

You're really a bunch of brainwashed cucks aren't you?

Do you really accept being locked up at home for 18 months?

My God, this is how totaltarianism starts

PTemporary partial totalitarianism is NORMAL is a NATIONAL EMERGENCY situation.

We're going to lose two years of our lives, we'll all be mentally ill at the end of this and their won't be any jobs at the end of this! We'll end up in homeless shelters at the end! Is that worth it?

We won't all be mentally ill and despite a high unemployment rate there will be many jobs. Governments have already commited im some countries to delaying and cancelling evictions and mortgage defaults. You are fake news.

[T'Chenka]

You're really a bunch of brainwashed cucks aren't you?

Do you really accept being locked up at home for 18 months?

My God, this is how totaltarianism starts

PTemporary partial totalitarianism is NORMAL is a NATIONAL EMERGENCY situation.

“Temporary partial totalitarianism”. 😂😂😂😂😂

Keep telling yourself that, you poor naive child.

It's literally happened hundreds of times, for example World War 2 (UK, Allied France) and 9/11 (just at the NYC local level).

[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....?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

do you know how we can tell that you've run out of arguments?

I have more arguments than I know what to do with. He hasn't provided more than 1 or 2 arguments himself.

[T'Chenka]

you just switch to insults randomly then?

When I'm exasperated by an illogal poster that refuses to have a constructive dialogue or argument, yeah, sometimes. As long as the insult is constructive criticism.

you just switch to insults randomly then?

He just thinks he’s being cute, Dead0.  I’ve seen his kind before.  Let the kid have his fun.

I'm probably older than you.