abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
OK, I made the other thread and I laid out some arguments in regard to why I believe that lockdowns do not really work. Most people did not agree with me and that's fine. A few people probably have doubts about the viability of the notion of shutting down the economy in order to flatten the curve. Nobody seemed to disagree that the lockdowns are extremely harmful economically and nobody effectively argued that lockdowns were more effective than what Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea are doing, which is AI contact tracing. So I must accept that my idea is generally unpopular and that most people believe that lockdowns work. Some of those who argued pro-lockdowns were obtuse and bullying, with little reason to their arguments.
We're all afraid of this disease. Let's be brave enough to look at the facts without charging in and just insulting or hectoring or trolling. If you disagree, state your case. Whether you think the lockdowns are flattening the curve or not, it is clear that they're not sustainable long term and that there's a better way, at least for most of the municipalities which have not yet become outbreak epicenters. There is a lot that can still be done, and you can debate with me, especially if you disagree. Let's have an honest conversation about how to deal with this and continue to have a United States of America.
I am obeying the lockdowns, begrudgingly. I have laid out my case and though some people had a knee jerk reaction and even called me a Trump supporter, I effectively conveyed that there is substance to the arguments against the lockdowns. It was stated by @Fogdog that contact tracing has been effective in those places I mentioned because travel restrictions and testing were implemented on a mass scale early on and that since that has not occurred in the US or Italy, that more drastic measures became necessary, such as strict lockdowns which cripple society. That's a good point, in addition, places like NYC and Rome really can't have businesses open, because so many workers are extremely sick. This means that opening businesses and schools back up and letting the economy continue and allowing people to work and make a living is just not an option. So it's kind of moot to argue that those places should not have lockdowns. However, people do still get sick at alarming rates there and others do isolate themselves regardless of whether or not they're forced to do so. It's an impasse.
That doesn't effectively prove that the lockdowns are more effective than mass testing and AI contact tracing to flatten the curve. I'm still convinced that lockdowns are far less effective in that regard and that the economic cost is much much higher. Choosing between lives and the economy is a terrible argument, we need both. If the republic falls due to the economic pressure, which it very well may, what do you think will happen to the healthcare system then? The whole point of the lockdowns and the shutting of businesses and the closing of public spaces, was to flatten the curve. I'm sorry to those who are still convinced that they are doing this, but they're not nearly as effective as the mass testing and contact tracing that these examples have proven to be and the cost is incalculably high.
Social distancing and mask wearing still applies with or without the strict lockdowns and forced closing of businesses. You would still have to maintain social distancing and wear a mask, but you'd be able to shop anywhere, go to class and start to get back into something resembling normalcy. You'd still likely have your temperature checked and your hands sprayed with alcohol as you enter buildings and the number of people inside at a given time would be limited, but you would be able to work and you would be able to order a fucking burger or have a one night stand. You'd just be under AI surveillance and if you get sick, you'd basically be forced to choose between testing and house arrest for two weeks. At least the rest of us would be able to continue having a society.
Furthermore, I argue that it is not too late to implement such systems and that it is not particularly costly. The tech is there and the electronic infrastructure is there and the only thing missing is the mass testing. Currently less than 0.02% of the US population are confirmed to have the disease. According to a recent study in Germany, 6% of cases are actually confirmed with the exception of the US (study linked below). It is therefore extremely likely that the number of infected in the country is well below a twentieth of a percent and certainly less than a tenth of a percent. It is feasible to implement such a system in the US very rapidly and begin to open the economy back up.
We're all afraid of this disease. Let's be brave enough to look at the facts without charging in and just insulting or hectoring or trolling. If you disagree, state your case. Whether you think the lockdowns are flattening the curve or not, it is clear that they're not sustainable long term and that there's a better way, at least for most of the municipalities which have not yet become outbreak epicenters. There is a lot that can still be done, and you can debate with me, especially if you disagree. Let's have an honest conversation about how to deal with this and continue to have a United States of America.
I am obeying the lockdowns, begrudgingly. I have laid out my case and though some people had a knee jerk reaction and even called me a Trump supporter, I effectively conveyed that there is substance to the arguments against the lockdowns. It was stated by @Fogdog that contact tracing has been effective in those places I mentioned because travel restrictions and testing were implemented on a mass scale early on and that since that has not occurred in the US or Italy, that more drastic measures became necessary, such as strict lockdowns which cripple society. That's a good point, in addition, places like NYC and Rome really can't have businesses open, because so many workers are extremely sick. This means that opening businesses and schools back up and letting the economy continue and allowing people to work and make a living is just not an option. So it's kind of moot to argue that those places should not have lockdowns. However, people do still get sick at alarming rates there and others do isolate themselves regardless of whether or not they're forced to do so. It's an impasse.
That doesn't effectively prove that the lockdowns are more effective than mass testing and AI contact tracing to flatten the curve. I'm still convinced that lockdowns are far less effective in that regard and that the economic cost is much much higher. Choosing between lives and the economy is a terrible argument, we need both. If the republic falls due to the economic pressure, which it very well may, what do you think will happen to the healthcare system then? The whole point of the lockdowns and the shutting of businesses and the closing of public spaces, was to flatten the curve. I'm sorry to those who are still convinced that they are doing this, but they're not nearly as effective as the mass testing and contact tracing that these examples have proven to be and the cost is incalculably high.
Social distancing and mask wearing still applies with or without the strict lockdowns and forced closing of businesses. You would still have to maintain social distancing and wear a mask, but you'd be able to shop anywhere, go to class and start to get back into something resembling normalcy. You'd still likely have your temperature checked and your hands sprayed with alcohol as you enter buildings and the number of people inside at a given time would be limited, but you would be able to work and you would be able to order a fucking burger or have a one night stand. You'd just be under AI surveillance and if you get sick, you'd basically be forced to choose between testing and house arrest for two weeks. At least the rest of us would be able to continue having a society.
Furthermore, I argue that it is not too late to implement such systems and that it is not particularly costly. The tech is there and the electronic infrastructure is there and the only thing missing is the mass testing. Currently less than 0.02% of the US population are confirmed to have the disease. According to a recent study in Germany, 6% of cases are actually confirmed with the exception of the US (study linked below). It is therefore extremely likely that the number of infected in the country is well below a twentieth of a percent and certainly less than a tenth of a percent. It is feasible to implement such a system in the US very rapidly and begin to open the economy back up.
Last edited:
