Coronavirus

What Each Side of the COVID-19 Debate Should Understand About the Other

The war between Openers and Closers shouldn't be seen as a fight between idiot death-worshippers and unnecessarily frightened tyrants.

|

Beyond its devastating effect on the health of hundreds of thousands and the livelihood of millions, the COVID-19 crisis is a harshly vivid example of Americans' inability to understand, fruitfully communicate with, or show a hint of respect for those seen to be on other side of an ideological line.

Americans are divided about the best way to proceed from here, three months since the first case was diagnosed in the U.S. The division is more vivid and harsh on social networks than in the polls, where a vast majority of Americans still think strong lockdowns are the best idea moving forward. Such Americans think the economy needs to stay shut down by law until a vaccine or some effective treatment is developed that ensures no more, or a very tiny number of, people will be seriously harmed or killed by COVID-19.

On the other hand, some Americans think, on balance, the country's overall quality of life demands we start letting people and businesses make their own decisions about whether it is safe to go out in public or conduct business openly, especially given access to simple prophylactic measures such as gloves and masks.

To sum up each side in the language of their angriest opponents: The "Closers" want to demolish nearly all Americans' ability to live, and destroy nearly all the wealth our society has built up over decades, by halting the wheels of most commerce for the forseeable future. And the "Openers" are so dedicated to keeping GDP growing and so ignorant of science they want to see hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Americans die of a hideous disease because they don't understand how contagion works.

Both Closers and Openers, though, have a combination of reasons, theories, guesses, and value judgments of a sort many sane people have always made, that make their respective positions make sense to them. Neither side should be blithely written off as either idiotic or sinister or not thinking, in their own way, of human well-being.

The Openers think they see many costs the Closers are not adequately considering, and wonder if the long-term benefits of closing are smaller than the Closers believe.

Openers are worried about over 15 million Americans out of work, and look at industries including hospitality, food service, entertainment not beamed in via smart TVs, sports, construction, oil, education, law, and even, counterintuitively, medical care (not to mention all non-food retail and any financial or other entities who depend on rents and mortgages continuing to be paid in the months to come) all either destroyed or seriously weakened and unable to move forward at anything near their old strength.

They worry that the web of commerce is so complicated and hard to build or to gently snip off portions of that as-yet-unrealized problems will arise with an economy that acts as if making, transporting, and selling food will keep working fine even if nothing else is.

Openers see the government's short-term solution of loans and giveaways both personal and corporate in the trillions and growing as seriously dangerous, with a real possibility of upending our fiscal and monetary systems under debt and/or money supply explosions that could become truly unsustainable and take decades to recover from. They see states and localities facing already near-impossible pension and other obligations and shrinking tax bases pushed closer, faster, to an abyss of complete inability to function, with dire effects on citizens.

Openers think it is worth seriously wondering about many as-yet-unknown facts, such as actual current infection rates, asymptomatic numbers vs. ill numbers, and death rates and age distributions of same. They understand that the Openers vs. Closers debate involves cost/benefit decisions, and they want to understand the benefits as well as possible. Openers do believe that one cannot build public policy as if "saving one life" (or, more accurately, delaying one death) is the sole goal and think it important to note that in no other situation and with no other illness have we acted as if that was a reasonable goal.

Openers do take very seriously the idea of "flattening the curve"—perhaps, an Opener might think, even more seriously than the Closers do, because Openers can't help but think that this virus will, over whatever length of time, infect everyone everywhere until herd immunity is reached or by whatever method R0 becomes less than one.

That is, Openers think it reasonable to consider that we are not facing a choice to "save lives" (or delay deaths) in the sense of preventing infections from ever occurring, which is more or less impossible now. The only really important consideration now is excess deaths or serious illness complications caused by inadequate medical facilities because at some given day in some specific hospital COVID cases are overwhelmingly large.

Openers thus wonder why more public policy decisions aren't being made based on a rigorous calculation of that number, now and in a reasonably foreseeable future based on best understanding of our hospital capacity, how quickly we could increase that capacity if that became public policy priority one, and the prevalence, percentage symptomatic, and percentage brought to brink of death by the disease. Openers tend to believe a "testing" solution or a "vaccine" solution are both outside the realm of plausibility now and for any foreseeable future.

The Closers, meanwhile, are seen by hostile Openers as driven by some sinister desire for a scenario in which the only "reasonable" endgame for living anything like a free life is either or both enforced vaccination and constant registered surveillance, or who for partisan political reasons want to make 2020 so miserable in America that Trump will lose the election.

However, the Closers have many reasons that make sense to them to keep things closed that don't involve a mad desire to tyrannize the country or harm Trump. Closers see and acknowledge the economic damage we are suffering, but they see most of that damage already inherent in the unchecked spread of a disease that kills or seriously harms people to a greater extent than any we've dealt with in a century. They thus don't see the economic problems as solvable just by "opening up America."

Closers see anyone who, aware that COVID-19 exists and can spread asymptomatically, then does anything that could in any way risk someone else catching it as morally akin to murderers. The Closers are very concerned with the fact that people are dying from this disease, in the tens of thousands—that COVID-19 is indeed after just three months by best available data likely killing nearly double as many Americans as were killed by the flu this flu season. Closers thus consider some Openers' niggling obsessions about marginal accuracy in that fatality count as irrelevant to any policy decision we are now facing. Even if those numbers are not 100 percent accurate, they are large enough to make worrying over their precise size peculiarly beside the point.

Closers also recognize that the death count is not the best or most accurate way to assess the threat COVID-19 presents and thus what sacrifices are reasonable or prudent to try to keep it from spreading faster. The disease is known or suspected to be neurotoxic and hepatoxic, not merely a respiratory illness, and might cause serious and possibly long term damage to the heart, blood, liver, and nervous systems of those who contract, it even if they "recover."

Closers are also sure that we can't know how much damage COVID-19 will eventually cause in our nation just based on the experience of the past 6 weeks, when we have been doing our best to keep people from getting close enough to each other in large enough numbers to truly and quickly unleash COVID-19. Thus to the Closers, any calculations based on "existing data" that are supposed to settle the question of whether we've done enough, or even too much, and can now "open up" are beside the point, in a genuinely dangerous way. If it's not an intolerable nightmare yet, they would say, that's because we are staying shut down.

The damage done by the disease and/or the policy reaction to the disease is baked into our nation, and will almost certainly echo strongly through at least the rest of this decade. Our nation might be slightly better off, though, if more of us did not compound that civic damage through a ferocious and unmanageable cultural and political squabble based on refusing to consider the reasons the other side thinks what they do with anything approaching intellectual charity and empathy.

We could, though might not ever, know the answer to every currently unanswered question about the disease's spread, extent, and damage. We might figure out accurately the long term damage to life and prosperity the economic shutdown is causing. Even if or when we do, though, human beings of goodwill and intelligence might come to a different value judgment about what policy is best overall. Because we all have to make those tricky, very hard-to-discuss-dispassionately decisions (of a sort we have always made every day on the margins without explicit debate) about when we think it best to stop shaping policy toward the sole goal of extending every possible life. The answer either side might come to need not be condemned as based in idiotic recklessness or tyrannical fantasies.

Advertisement

NEXT: If COVID-19 Has a Low Infection Fatality Rate, How Many Will Die?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The war between Openers and Closers shouldn’t be seen as between idiot death-worshippers and unnecessarily frightened tyrants.

    “KAREN’S BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! BOOMERS’ SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!”

    1. Support the chaos candidate in 2020 – Vote Corona-chan!

      1. Facebook is paying $530 Per day. Be a part of Facebook and start getting Extra Dollars every week from your home. ..I just got paid $8590 in my previous month……….,Visit Site

    2. Right it’s normal reasonable people vs unnecessarily frightened tyrants

      1. Rose, Make 6150 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website…. Read More

      2. The feminized social mob is driving this. Consider Dr. Oz forced to apologize for saying that it MIGHT be a good idea to open schools..Later he said, “Sorry, I misspoke, which confused people and made them angry..” I think the “lockdown” mob is 90%, but losing ground every day.

    3. I am sure the comments here will prove how wrong Brian is in this, and will demonstrate that calm, reasoned debate between the two sides is not only possible, but welcome. Why, I can almost feel the empathy emanating.

      1. Solid and necessary post, what with the bitching you always do about other posters.

        1. what with the bitching you always do about other posters.

          “Fuck off jeff/abc/sparky/sarcasmic/crusty/tony/dol/ken.”

          1. Oh look you busted out the account you only use for crying just like I said you do

            1. That shut you right up.

              1. What’s left to say? You did the only thing you ever do, which is exactly what I was making fun of you for. Please don’t let it eat away at you for an entire month like it did that one time with Ken.

                1. Oh look pointing out that I shut you the fuck up made you crawl back in here and rebelliously cry more.

                  “What’s left to say?”

                  At least you’re realizing you got shut the fuck up.

                2. “don’t let it eat away at you”

                  Lol the way you cling to something I don’t remeber like its your life preserver makes it look like it eats you up way more lololol

                  Cry more about it ahahahahahah

                  1. Lmfao! From an unbiased perspective, you’re the one that sounds like a crying cuck on the Internet. Hey, no judgment here. Cry it up little bitch boy!

      2. Funny how i’ve only seen one side accusing the other of not having any empathy.

      3. Brian is wrong because he is trying to draw a comparison when there is none.

    4. ayyyyyyyyyyyy a fellow Khornate. Kill Kill Kill. Blood runs just as well on the ground as in their veins! Equality in death, brother!

      1. Wait, isn’t this more of a Nurgle plague?

    5. That would be kind of awesome. Here and I was wondering if the title was a reference to A Night in Lonesome October.

      1. It’s good to know I’m not the only one whose mind immediately went there.

    6. What a terrible article that misses the point. You try to draw a comparison as if they both have equal credibility when they don’t. You do this by intentionally ignoring facts. Sloppy journalism. First of all for both sides to have a comparable argument they have to be supported by comparable facts which they are not.

      What do we know for a fact. To start with we have never pushed social distancing and shutting down the environment at any point in the history of the country. That’s including every single previous outbreak or pandemic some of which are ignored by the press but killed 3 times as many people in this country. We were talking about this from the day the first case was reported.

      We Know for a fact that the 3 largest states with the most population took polar opposite approaches to social distancing and shutting down the states with comparable number of cases. In addition if you look at any graph showing the rise in cases there is not one example where there is a dip or indent as a result of implementing these measures. That would be there if were effective. Finally there are states and nations that didn’t really do any of this with few to no cases. So we have enormous evidence and prior history that social distancing has not been pushed before nor has it been effective. That’s an empirical fact.

      On the other hand we have another set of facts that are indisputable. The media has been complicit with liberals in doing anything they can to get rid of Trump. The Russia collusion which was a fake. The impeachment, another fake, Now we have a way to destroy the economy. One of Trumps greatest achievements. If that doesn’t work they are already pushing for mail in voting which would allow democrats to nullify voter id requirements in a majority of states and engage in widescale voter fraud like they did in the last election. Unfortunately when over 2000 people vote in the County of Los Angeles than actually live in the county we can no longer pretend that voter fraud doesn’t exist or pretend it’s done on both sides equally. This way they can spread the votes out across the country and not make that mistake again. A mistake the media quickly buried to cover up.

      That leaves the protesters. Let’s see we already know for a fact that some of the protesters carrying nazi signs were Bernie Sanders supporters. We also saw lots of those signs used before in rallys as set ups by paid Sanders supporters to make conservatives look bad. You left that out of your story. You also left out that the “healthcare workers” and “nurses” that were standing in traffic in Colorado protesting the protesters were not nurses or healthcare workers but paid activists. I work in nursing. I can guarantee those coordinated efforts to stand in traffic in the same position with improperly worn n-95 masks was nothing but a paid stunt and I guarantee that not one of them works in healthcare. They would be fired from their jobs immediately for engaging in a political stunt like that.

      I suggest you engage in some real journalism if you want to be taken seriously. This article is garbage and trying to act like they both have valid points is intellectually dishonest. When you are paying someone to stand in the street pretending to be a nurse to push a political narrative that is going to cost many people their jobs and possibly their lives then you have zero credibility. ZERO. So both sides are not credible. There are probably a small portion of people out there that don’t understand what is going on that are simply responding to being misled by the media and fake news coming out daily. The coordinated effort is to get rid of Trump. Doesn’t matter what mean they need to use. And that’s what is going on. Banning seeds to grow food? Banning being out in a boat on a lake fishing? Outrageous. We already know for a fact viruses are 5X more likely to spread when people are in closed contained area. Forcing people into small areas to contain the virus is the antithesis of common sense and intelligence. Increasing proper distancing would help but forcing people to be bottled up inside homes has accelerated the spread of the virus. That’s common sense. Something lacking throughout that appeasement article to try to make the left look less nefarious and the right look like they are over-reacting. Sorry this narrative is no less dishonest than saying that the medication to treat malaria isn’t FDA approved, has a lot of side effects, isn’t available, and won’t be able to be available for years. Exactly what CNN put into print within 4 hours of Trump talking about it. Every single comment was a knowing and outright lie. In addition to the peer reviewed professional journal going back to 2009 that said this would be the first drug to work with were there ever a corona virus pandemic. Where’s the reporting on why that study has been outright ignored. Oh that’s right, it doesn’t fit the narrative just like the pandemic we knew was coming for 3 months that killed 3 times more people. That one is always left out of every discussion. Wonder why. Fauci knew about that study but downplayed the drug because he’s only interested in vaccines at the direction of his handler Bill Gates. You know how he pushed for vaccines for HIV for over a decade while we spent little time on therapeutics. So 40 years later we found that we will never find a vaccine but we did find therapeutics that are effective. I wonder if someone other than Fauci had been steering the ship how much sooner we might have found treatments for AIDS. I wonder how many millions died for no reason while Fauci was chasing his personal love for vaccines because that was the solution. Oh yes I remember those times and I think some actual investigative journalism is in order here to see if we have a pattern. Because I think we do.

      1. Doug, I completely agree with your statement.

        I will say though, that because my Democrat friends, who also suffer from TDS, are so hard-headed, this article was useful to share on my facebook page. I figured they might let a tiny bit of common sense hit them if they actually read it.

      2. Sorry, Doug, but you are completely incorrect right off the bat with your first point. You must have pulled it right out of your ass and didn’t bother to do any research to confirm anything. “Social distancing” and shutdowns have been enacted in this nation’s history before. You must not be familiar with the H1N1 outbreak of 1918 (Spanish Flu).

    1. Does it have to be a yellow star too?

      1. Pink triangles also available

        1. Can I use my pussy hat?

    2. It is not quite as bad as was initially reported. The county health department did fuck up the announcement of the policy. What actually happened is that they are building a gas pipeline in Valley County. Most of the workers are from out of county/state. The contractors were being harassed by people in the public who thought they were breaking the stay at home. So they (the contractors) requested some way for the workers could be identified by the local public. However, the health departments original letter was badly worded and the policy went to far. They have since issued new guidelines and clarification. It is entirely voluntary and the health department is not going to track those issued. Additionally, they have drawn back on threats to use sheriff’s to enforce the order. This is my neighboring county BTW.

      1. A good lesson in calming down and not overreacting to every sensationalistic news story.

        1. Fuck off jeff

        2. Actually they only pulled back because people were up in arms. The original order was bad, even if it was requested by the contractors. Public backlash made them pull back.

        3. The original order said exactly what the people who objected said it did, and they reacted exactly the way they should have.

    3. don’t we at least get a unique ID? I mean I am a snowflake. Fuck the county doing that. I don’t see that going over well in Montana at all.

      1. It didn’t, so they backed off a lot.

        1. They also tried the it was fake news and a misunderstanding, conveniently after they erased the original letter and issued a “clarification”.

          1. Yeah, that’s pretty standard with government zealots. When their over-reaction [aka clampdown] draws public ire, they don’t reverse the order and admit they were wrong. They blame everyone else by claiming their goals were just misunderstood. In other words, everyone’s fault but their own. This is how one pushes an agenda. Go as far as you think you can plus two more, and then backup slightly if someone complains. Guaranteed had there been no pushback, they wouldn’t have suddenly realized they were over the top.

      2. Here you go: 910b12a3-20d5-4dd6-85ce-900987504dab

  2. “The war between Openers and Closers shouldn’t be seen as a fight between idiot death-worshippers and unnecessarily frightened tyrants.”

    I agree.

    It should be seen as a fight between authoritarians and libertarians–and nobody should be confused about which of those is on which side.

    1. Or maybe I’m wrong! Somebody go ahead and persuade me . . .

      Make the libertarian case for using the government to force people to stay in their homes against their will.

      Make the libertarian case for using the government to make it against the law for people to open their businesses or go to work–ahead of a recession.

      I dare you.

      1. Well, Ken, since you asked:

        https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/health-care

        Health care represents a special area of public policy for libertarians, although not for the reasons typically offered in support of government intervention. In limited circumstances, a substantial number of libertarians support state-sponsored coercion to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. In the absence of violence, theft, tortious injury, fraud, or breach of contract, however, libertarians reject the use of coercion in health and medicine as immoral and counterproductive.

        People can do violence to each other by transmitting contagious diseases. Therefore, most libertarians sanction limited government efforts to identify and contain infectious diseases and punish those who infect others intentionally or negligently. They do so cautiously, however. A 2004 survey published in the journal Health Affairs hints at one way such powers could be abused. Amid widespread concern about bioterrorism, roughly equal shares of white and black Americans expressed support for quarantines to contain a serious contagious disease. When subsequently asked whether they would support a compulsory quarantine, where the authorities would have the power to arrest violators, 25% of whites changed their minds, whereas 51% of blacks did, indicating an awareness that these policies would not necessarily be fairly implemented. Just as libertarians advocate limits on government’s ability to pursue criminals generally, they closely circumscribe the use of force to protect public health. For example, an outbreak must pose a serious health threat, there must be no feasible alternative to coercion, and the state must use the least coercive measures available. Libertarians reject government intervention to remedy private health problems, such as obesity, diabetes, or addiction.

        I think there is *a* libertarian case to be made for *some* government coercion in the name of stopping a pandemic.

        1. “Therefore, most libertarians sanction limited government efforts to identify and contain infectious diseases and punish those who infect others intentionally or negligently.”

          Citation needed.

          1. Fuck off Tulpa.

            1. You first morty

              I love that you hate that I caught you again

              1. I’m Morty. I’m not this chemjeff guy.

                1. Fuck off jeff

                  1. No, he really is Morty, and not me.
                    Why don’t you fuck off Tulpa.

                    1. Fuck off morty.

                  2. why don’t you shut the fuck up and fuck off you nasty pig.

                2. it’s over either way.

                3. Congrats, go get your Rick so we can talk to someone who matters then.

          2. Have jeffrey do the same about negative externalities against illegal immigrants.

            1. Ha!

        2. Also fuck off morty

        3. Even if this is true, the key word is “limited” which is not what is going on currently.

          1. I agree, we’ve gone beyond “limited”. But the point is that there is a libertarian argument in favor of some amount of government coercion in the case of a pandemic.

            1. What kind of bitch libertarian listens to other libertarians when they tell him “government force” is the right play?

              Libertarianism isn’t concensus you dumbfuck.

            2. Which you have yet to rationally make.

              1. It’s funny that when he posted a claim about “most libertarians” I asked for a cite and he lost his shit

        4. LOL. Statist Jeffrey finally admits he isn’t a libertarian.

        5. “”Therefore, most libertarians sanction limited government efforts to identify and contain infectious diseases and punish those who infect others intentionally or negligently.””

          I’m sure a radical individualist knows that forcing all stores closed except for the ones with government permission is NOT limited government in play.

          1. You’re right. I think current events are beyond “limited government action”.

            But that is not the same as saying that there ought to be no government action.

            1. Statist arguments dont stop being statist just because a guy who claims to be a libertarian offers them.

        6. “In limited circumstances, a substantial number of libertarians support state-sponsored coercion to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.”

          There is a humongous difference between quarantining Typhoid Mary because she’s been tested and repeatedly warned not to take work as a cook in people’s kitchens–but keeps ignoring it and taking work in kitchens, and spreading the disease, on the one hand . . .

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

          . . . and forcing everyone in the state of California to stay home from work.

          You see the difference between quarantining people who’ve been infected and quarantining 40 million people in the state of California regardless of whether they’ve been infected, don’t you?

          I maintain that there is no legitimate libertarian argument for quarantining 40 million individuals regardless of whether they’ve been infected–even if there is one for quarantining Typhoid Mary.

          1. It’s just stupidity as well, but falls right in line with subjecting everyone everywhere to the same standards, because sameness.

            I heard someone argue for closure of every community… because NYC. Nah dude, few places in this country have a population density of 26K per square mile, bursting to 50K at peak times. Few places have 85% of their citizens depending on daily mass transit systems. Few places have remotely the same number of residential elevators. So why shut down the barber in Iron County Michigan when there are zero cases there just because Wayne County is off the charts? The the biggest problem with centralized government is that the only way it can function is its create sameness everywhere.

          2. “You see the difference between quarantining people who’ve been infected and quarantining 40 million people in the state of California regardless of whether they’ve been infected, don’t you?”

            What do you do when people carrying the disease, who under normal circumstances would take personal responsibility and self-quarantine, simply don’t know they’re spreading it? Don’t know they’re potentially putting people at risk, and don’t know they’re potentially threatening lives?

            I also personally believe that certain aspects of the Governmental response, particularly in the area of restraining movement, have well overstepped their bounds. However, I also struggle to coherently argue how a Government best addresses this issue without segregating large sections of the population until their citizens are better able to protect themselves personally.

            If we had simply let the virus naturally work its way through our population, the culling would have been substantially larger, that’s a fact. It would have also been much harder on our healthcare networks because we’re a country that values life, prolonging it where we can.

            1. Moreover, If our ability to move freely and operate businesses shouldn’t be infringed upon, even during a pandemic, I struggle to see how we should also allow individuals spreading a disease to threaten someone’s ability to participate in those exact freedoms. Knowingly or otherwise.

              1. You’re free to cower in your house. And then fuck off. Slaver.

            2. No, it’s not a fact, it’s speculation.
              Viruses exist. It is not the government’s place to protect you from nature.
              Grow up

            3. The problems with pointing out “If we had simply let the virus naturally work its way through our population, the culling would have been substantially larger, that’s a fact” are two-fold:

              First, this culling is likely to happen, no matter what we do. The disease is eventually going to spread across the entire nation.

              Second, the entire purpose of social distancing wasn’t to save lives, it was to “flatten the curve” to prevent the hospitals from getting overwhelmed by lots of cases. Great! We’ve done that! Isn’t it now a good time to get back to work, even if we still try to keep our distance? But now we’re being told “We need a vaccine first!” or “we need more testing!” or some other new goalpost.

        7. Couldn’t you say the same thing about manufacturing cars that go more than 40MPH and burn hydrocarbons?

        8. Even libertarians are fools.

          This has no passed the sniff test and now we see why. Spread far and wide as soon as possible to stop them and their plans.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WGbYHJcMbz8

        9. “People can do violence to each other by transmitting contagious diseases. Therefore, most libertarians sanction limited government efforts to identify and contain infectious diseases and punish those who infect others intentionally or negligently.”
          I have no problem with punishing someone who say, injects someone else with HIV. But I’m gonna need a definition of “negligence” here. Is running down the beach negligent if a passerby gets too close? Is holding a garage sale outside in the sunshine an act of violence? This is what the closers are advocating. Can’t make a libertarian case for the current regime in my view.

          1. They keep claiming it is going to head rural areas harder. Any day now. They promise.

        10. sorry sunshine. Losing argument. If you want to use that argument you will have to show how we shut down for previous pandemics which you can’t. You have to show evidence of the risk of the pandemic which you can’t since this was completely and intentionally overreacted to and you and you have to provide more than one source that supports your opinion. Sorry. You’re also a foul mouthed piece of shit so you actually have zero credibility you nasty bitch.

      2. Also see this:

        https://reason.com/2014/11/10/what-is-the-libertarian-response-to-ebol/

        Ebola is not Coronavirus of course but the article discusses the broader principle of the idea of what a proper libertarian response ought to be to a pandemic.

        1. And of course you think the answer is “government force” while pretending that you’re a libertarian, morty.

          1. Evidently a bunch of “real libertarians” as cited in the article also believe that some degree of government force is justified in the event of a pandemic.

            Let’s hear your libertarian solution for what to do in case of a pandemic, O True Libertarian.

            1. Sneezing violates the Non-Aggression Principle and I am packing.

              1. “Evidently a bunch of “real libertarians” as cited in the article ”

                The bitch statist authoritarin is trying to authorities on libertarianism as a serious argument.

            2. What kind of bitch libertarian listens to other libertarians when they tell him “government force” is the right play?

              Libertarianism isn’t concensus you dumbfuck.

              1. Still waiting for the True Libertarian plan on what the government should do in case of a pandemic.

                1. “Ladies and gentlemen, please wash your hands. If you are feeling ill, consider staying home. This virus can make people very sick.”

                  Crazy, isn’t it? Sounds almost rational. Sounds almost like the exact same shit we do every year, anyway.

                  1. This type of advice presumes that the pandemic is relatively mild.

                    Would your reasoning change if the pandemic was of, say, Ebola?

                    1. Would your reasoning change if you didn’t have the authorities dick in your face.

                    2. We already knew it was relatively mild when governors started cracking down.

                      And, we already did the Ebola thing in 2014. No lockdowns necessary. Since Ebola spreads by contact with bodily fluids, my advice to avoiding Ebola would be:

                      “Wash your hands, if you are feeling ill, stay home. Contact your doctor when needed. Do not drink other people’s blood or swallow semen from strangers.”

                    3. Let me explain something to you Jeffipoo. You simply want to argue with people. You have no clue what you are talking about. I am a licensed healthcare worker and you haven’t a clue. When you have some kind of formal training in medicine then feel free to get back here and push your opinions as an expert. You are not an expert. You are a petty lonely person that just wants to pick fights with people and contradict and argue on the internet. emotionally immature is my guess and likely a loser.

                      You are the epitome of the internet troll. Why don’t you find something meaningful to do you idiot. We had a pandemic in the 50’s that killed 3 times as many people. We had 3 months notice it was coming. We didn’t shut down the country or implement any of these ridiculous measures. You also forgot to mention troll that since we’ve implemented social distancing there has been zero impact on the rise of cases, States that implemented it right away have the same amount of cases of similarly populated states that didn’t implement it at all or very late. Including Florida which likely has the largest percentage of the biggest comorbidity. If you had a brain you would put those things together along with the fact that stopping people from buying seeds to grow food, car seats or stopping people from fishing in a rowboat isn’t going to stop one person from getting the disease. NOT ONE> In fact we do know that viruses are 5X more likely to spread when people are in contained areas so we are actually increasing the likelihood of it spreading. How about implementing common sense measures idiot. That would be a start. So go peddle your bullshit elsewhere. I also strongly suggest that you seek some help. There is clearly something wrong with you.

                    4. That’s exactly what we did for ebola and every other pandemic. These measures have never been used before or are you ignorant of history and facts. Once again, 35 years in healthcare here. Your credentials on viruses is what exactly that makes you such an expert.

                2. The government should fuck off and die. Does that work for you, you coward?

                  1. That’s anarchism, not libertarianism.

                    1. Civilization never existed before government.

                    2. Are you an anarchist, Tulpa? Because you’re starting to sound like an anarchist.

                      Actually, anarchism is probably too complicated of a philosophy for you.

                    3. I win again

                    4. It’s not anarchism. Bureaucrats can literally go away and die in a pandemic and leave us alone to die in our own way. It’s not like the control they wield over a virus is more than illusion.

                    5. Bureaucrats can literally go away and die in a pandemic and leave us alone to die in our own way.

                      So, anarchism then.

                    6. Shorter jeff “if you don’t slurp TOP MEN its anarchy”

                    7. “So, anarchism then.”

                      Dishonest pieces of shit hope to define the terms in any discussion, and as a result dishonest pieces of shit get the proper response:
                      Fuck off and die, you dishonest piece of shit.

            3. No, they didn’t. Read the entire article. 2 postulated that maybe force was necessary and it was a weak maybe.

              1. All of them made the case for some type of government coercion.

                Libertarianism is not anarchism.

                1. Its not kowtowing to authorities on libertarianism either you fucking bitch

                  1. So libertarianism is “whatever I fucking say it is”? Oh terrific!

                    Well, I say libertarianism is open borders. And if you disagree with me, well, I refuse to accept your authority on the matter of what constitutes libertarianism. So there.

                    That was easy!

                    1. It’s definitely not what “some people who claim to be authorities on libertarianism” say you fucking bitch.

                      You CANNOT stop being a statist authoritarian bitch.

                    2. So people who self-identify as libertarians shouldn’t be trusted to adequately describe what libertarianism is. Got it.

                      So how are we to arrive at what libertarianism really is? What’s your method?

                    3. Ah you’re doing that thing where you know you’re wrong because you slurped the authorities who aren’t actually authorities and now you have to lie about what was said.

                      I win again.

                    4. the authorities who aren’t actually authorities

                      They’re not? So who are the authorities on libertarian thought?

                    5. There aren’t any dipshit.

                    6. So there are no authorities whatsoever on libertarian thought. Not Hayek, not Rothbard, not Ayn Rand, not Milton Friedman, not Ron Paul, none at all.

                      So libertarianism is whatever anyone claims it is? I say it is open borders. Who is to say I am wrong? I am my own authority, right?

                    7. No. There are simply people who offer reliable and sound ideas more regularly than others.

                      You NEED authority in your life and your post literally proves it.

                    8. There are lots of people who “offer reliable and sound ideas more regularly than others”. How does one assess if a “reliable and sound idea” should belong in the canon of thought known as libertarianism?

                    9. “So libertarianism is whatever anyone claims it is?”

                      It’s like you don’t realize that one sentence proves everything I’ve been saying about you

                    10. Fine, Tulpa – if some day you ever want to learn more about nuclear physics, then I suggest that you consult the advice of a poet. After all, we can’t count on those self-professed authorities, who have studied a subject in depth, to actually know anything about the subject they’ve studied. Screw them and their worthless credentials. Nuclear physics is whatever I say it is. Maybe you can write a nice poem about nuclear physics or something.

                    11. Shorter Jeff “I need libertarianism defined for me by top men”

                    12. Shorter Tulpa “I’m here to try to entrap chemjeff in some gotcha point about authority figures instead of having a discussion about what constitutes libertarian thought”

                    13. Shorter jeff “TOP MEN!”

                    14. “…How does one assess if a “reliable and sound idea” should belong in the canon of thought known as libertarianism?..”

                      Perhaps some of us don’t need a ‘canon of thought’ to guide us. Perhaps we look at situations, collect what data seems appropriate, and then select THE MOST FREE OF THE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES!
                      And if lefty scumbags claim we are therefore not libertarians, we get to laugh at them.
                      Ha, and ha, lefty scumbag!

                    15. “Fine, Tulpa – if some day you ever want to learn more about nuclear physics, then I suggest that you consult the advice of a poet.”

                      Shove them goal posts, lefty scumbag.

                  2. He’s a troll, nothing more. He has not idea what he’s talking about he’s simply pushing your buttons.

                2. I’m going to suggest that destroying the livelihood of someone who doesn’t even have a communicable disease is an act of violence. I’m not sure any libertarian theorists envisioned that government would destroy the economy to contain a virus because the idea is ludicrous. And yet it is happening as we speak.

            4. Apply this same logic to abortions.

            5. Not lock entire states down and force people to lose their living.

              Not exactly difficult.

            6. What if it’s a scamdemic plannedemic?

              https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WGbYHJcMbz8

        2. Did you even read the article Jeffrey?

          Most were against the advancement against civil liberties. Ironically Ronnie was one of the only “libertarians” for government coercion there.

          From your link:

          “Public health policy should not be exempt from the “non-aggression principle.” Force must be prohibited from interpersonal relationships, except when used in self-defense or retaliation.”

          “Don’t Sacrifice Civil Liberties”

          Try reading past headlines baby jeffrey.

          1. You are the one who didn’t read the article. They all endorsed some form of government coercion even if they did so passively.

            Here is the full quotation that you dishonestly chopped up:

            Public health policy should not be exempt from the “non-aggression principle.” Force must be prohibited from interpersonal relationships, except when used in self-defense or retaliation.

            In the case of a highly contagious lethal disease, I believe that screening potential carriers, and containing them via quarantine, represents an act of self-defense.

            One of the few legitimate functions of the government is to protect people from physical assault. The transmission of a disease with significant lethal potential fits that description.

            Therefore, it is appropriate to screen people reasonably considered potential carriers. It is completely proper to confine people found to be a threat to the lives of others until that threat no longer exists.

            Who is doing this screening? Who is doing this confining? It’s the government.

            Stop lying Jesse.

            1. a disease with significant lethal potential

              Who decides?

              1. The authorities of course.

                1. The same ones who gain power by telling us what we may do!

              2. Lying Jeffy.

            2. You’re literally claiming the arguments have validity because they are being offered ny people you think are authorities you clown

              1. Well, Tulpa, I do start with the premise that there exists a reasonably well-defined body of thought that can be labeled “libertarian”, and that some people have a better grasp of this body of thought than others. We might call this class of people “experts” on the subject.

                Or, maybe we can just say that libertarianism is whatever anyone claims it is. I say it is open borders. Progressives say libertarianism is “killing grandma with capitalism”. Who is to say who’s right?

                1. “do start with the premise that there exists a reasonably well-defined body of thought that can be labeled “libertarian”, and that some people have a better grasp of this body of thought than others.”

                  So you admit I was correct when I said
                  you’re literally claiming the arguments have validity because they are being offered by people you think are authorities you AUTHORITARIAN clown.

                  1. TOP LIBERTARIAN MEN!

              2. Ken asked for a libertarian case for quarantines, and jeff delivered. You move the goalpost so much, I doubt you even know where it is.

                1. I’m not ken, so what KEN SAID means dick. Convos evolve jeff. It’s like you know you’re caught and have to distract like you always do.

                  Stick to your main sock please

                  1. The problem, I think, is that you refuse to acknowledge that ANY argument with which you disagree is, for that reason alone, not a libertarian argument. Only YOU get to decide what is a valid libertarian argument and what is not. Nobody else’s contrary opinion has any worth or value.

                    Even libertarians can, sometimes, disagree with each other in good faith. Your refusal to acknowledge this reality, in my opinion, proves just how wrong Brian is in opining that the two-sides might begin to respect each other.

                    1. (Ugh. More evidence that one needs to proofread before clicking the ‘submit’ button, and not after. But I think you follow what I’m saying.)

                    2. No the problrm is that you’re a sockpuppet who wasted time posting shit i’ll never read bignose.

                2. No, he didn’t. He gave an opinion if someone who claims to be libertarian. However, it was rejected as being libertarian by other libertarians. So in essence he gave an appeal to authority, which turned into a True Scotsman fallacy. That isn’t giving a case.

                  1. So what dose that mean? That if somebody who considers themself to be a libertarian has an opinion which another libertarian disagrees with, then the opinion is not really a libertarian opinion? Who is it, exactly, that has veto power over what opinions can legitimately be considered “libertarian” opinions?

                    1. Fuck off Morty

                    2. Who is this “morty” you keep whining about, you witless cockwomble?

                    3. Actually it is pretty obvious you’re the shit eater.

                      Do fuck off SQRSLY.

                    4. “Who is this “morty”

                      Ahahahahaha i knew it was you ahahahhahah i got ya hhhhhhh

                    5. “So what dose that mean?”

                      I’d say it means you can’t read.

                    6. No that means a self described libertarian offered an opinion. That in and of itself is not proof of anything.

                    7. It should also be noted that the authors aren’t even consistent ad they have also wrote in opposition to state mandated childhood vaccines.

                    8. “TOP LIBERTARIANS!!!”

                    9. yes that’s what that means. It’s not a disagreement of another libertarian, it’s a disagreement over the entire premise of what constitutes that political belief which isn’t what it used to be since it was Hijacked by Sanders people who also don’t understand that Sanders is the polar opposite of what the true movement was about. Most of the people here are behaving exactly like the fake “libertarians” that drove me from the party. The foul language, personal attacks and name calling. Those are liberal techniques. True Libertarians respect the views and beliefs of others. That’s the construct of the party. So most of these people on here haven’t a clue of what the party represents. Only what the party has become since people like this hijacked it and brought their incivility and discourse. That’s why the Libertarians for the most part went from the party with the answers to the party that’s simply a joke and will never win an election.

                  2. It is also entirely anecdotal and not a case for a libertarian approach.

            3. “The transmission of a disease with significant lethal potential fits that description.”

              So we’re gonna shut down the world and lock people in their houses every flu season? Tens of thousands of people die every year from the flu, surely that meets the requirement. In recent weeks we’ve seen lethality numbers drop from 100x worse (~10% vs 0.1%) than the flu down to maybe 4x worse (0.4% vs 0.1%), and more recent studies says maybe a lot lower than 4x, perhaps eventually on-par with the flu or only slightly worse.

              If every person who ever had the flu was going to be considered guilty of assault, we’re going to be here awhile.

              1. “So we’re gonna shut down the world and lock people in their houses every flu season? Tens of thousands of people die every year from the flu, surely that meets the requirement. In recent weeks we’ve seen lethality numbers drop from 100x worse (~10% vs 0.1%) than the flu down to maybe 4x worse (0.4% vs 0.1%), and more recent studies says maybe a lot lower than 4x, perhaps eventually on-par with the flu or only slightly worse.”

                It’s also an arbitrary value, meaning anything the government doesn’t like, the government can shut down because of ‘health’.
                Briefly, it means the constitution is shit.

            4. you stop lying. They are referencing quarantining people who are infected. Nothing more. I am forced to be home right now. I am not sick. Prove that I pose a risk to anyone by leaving my house and you will have a point. Since you can’t you have no point. And yes, you did twist the article to your purpose because as I said earlier, you are a dishonest person.

      3. They are claiming government isn’t forcing anybody, but merely strongly suggesting. Chipper, sarcasmic, et al have all made that statement.

        I was amused that the people in California started digging the skate park from under the sand the government infilled it with.

        1. The government shouldn’t be forcing, but suggesting, except in the most serious situations, e.g. senior centers, hospitals, etc, where preventing entry can be justified.

      4. Well, are you an anarcho-libertarian? Do you believe that there is sometimes a role for government?

        If so, one of the reasonable roles for government would be fighting pandemics and imposing rules to guard public health. I won’t defend that Federal and state governments didn’t go too far for this particular pandemic, but one could hypothesize a pandemic where it would be appropriate.

        1. Fuxk off jeff

        2. Even if you accept that logic, libertarians would argue government role should be as limited as possible, e.g. what the Dakotas and Wyoming are doing and Sweden, not what New York and Michigan (and to many other states to mention unfortunately) are doing.

          1. Exactly. The line is very clearly between asking and telling. Government can ask all they like, but making it illegal to go to work crosses the line.

          2. Exactly. A measured response, with few commands and many suggestions.

          3. Yes, of course. In as limited a way as possible.

            1. Fuck off jeff

              1. I’m going to start flagging every one of your comments. I’m sick of your nasty mouth you childish little pig.

          4. +1000

        3. “ I won’t defend that Federal and state governments didn’t go too far for this particular pandemic[.]”

          So then stop doing it.

          1. Actually, if you read his comments carefully, you will see that he did not. Ever. Not even once.

            This is evidence that Brian’s hope that “both sides” might come together in mutual respect is naive at best.

            1. Fuck off jeff

            2. Thank you.

              1. Fuck off DesertDavey

                1. gonna keep reporting with the hope they revoke your account so keep it up.

      5. Here’s another argument:

        https://www.hoover.org/research/playing-politics-coronavirus

        All this raises a question: What is the role of government in crises such as these?

        In ordinary times, the classical liberal approach favors strong property rights and limited government. But it is less widely known that this same theory, like virtually every other general political approach, advocates strong government controls in any emergency situation that poses an immediate peril to life and health. As a classical liberal, I often begin my analysis with the Roman maxim “Salus populi suprema lex esto”—the health (or well-being) of the population is the highest good. That principle is widely understood to invoke a second maxim, which is that ordinary property rights are suspended in times of necessity, but only so long as the necessity lasts.

        The notion of necessity is narrowly defined to cover only those cases where there is an imminent peril to life or property caused by natural forces such as storms, fires, floods, famine, and disease. These necessities come in two types—private and public. The former involves cases where, for example, someone stranded at sea is entitled to seek shelter on the property of others to save himself, even if he must compensate the property for any property damage he causes. But for these purposes, the key class of cases are public necessities affecting thousands or even millions. Since the earliest times, the state has had plenary power to do what must be done to protect its population from these perils.

        This brute truth means that compensation for individual losses is generally denied under a doctrine of absolute privilege. The state, in other words, has the power to expropriate power from anyone and everyone without paying any compensation whatsoever. But as with private cases of necessity, this extraordinary level of government power is lost once the emergency is past. Unfortunately, these salutary principles have come under attack recently. Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is perhaps best known for his quote “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” One must, he went on, seize “an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.” A classical liberal rejects this temptation to rethink basic policies in times of duress.

        1. And again you rush to people you think are the authorities.

          1. “Look at this fuckin nerd! Reading and quoting and shit. What a soyboy cuck. Just make up your all your opinions and defend them to death!”

            1. He is just his usual trolling self. He’s playing his usual semantic games.

              1. Are you not holding up viewpoints based on the fact that you think the people who made them are authorities?

                I mean, fuck you could JUDGE THE IDEAS ON THEIR MERITS, but no way, you just out your socks and start slurping based on how much you want to rub the guys credentials on your junk.

                1. “JUDGE THE IDEAS ON THEIR MERITS”

                  Based on what standard?

                  1. The “TOP MEN” standard apparently

                  2. Height. Manlets belong in special camps tbh

              2. They’re not semantic games, you’re *literally* appealing to “authority”

              3. A troll calling someone else a troll. Priceless.

            2. Please stick to your main sock jeff

              1. You are certainly welcome to disagree with the opinions that Chemjeff is quoting for you. Why is that not enough for you? They are libertarian arguments for occasions governmental actions in certain situations. Nothing new.

                After all, libertarianism is NOT anarchism!

                1. I said please jeff.

                  1. I am neither “jeff” nor “morty”, you pikey slag.

                    1. Ahahaha of course you are morty ahahahahha now fuck off

                    2. I mean, boom first fucking try i got you lolololol

                    3. He’s not Morty.

                    4. Fuck off DesertDavey

        2. “…As a classical liberal, I often begin my analysis with the Roman maxim “Salus populi suprema lex esto”—the health (or well-being) of the population is the highest good. That principle is widely understood to invoke a second maxim, which is that ordinary property rights are suspended in times of necessity, but only so long as the necessity lasts…”

          Whoever this is may try to wrap a fig leaf of ‘classical liberalism’ around the naked utilitarianism of that ‘argument’, but it takes a dishonest piece of shit like you to fall for it.

          1. I have no doubt you have a well-defined and carefully considered philosophy with strong and powerful logical arguments that rebut the presumptions of the article that I just cited, and your response is alluding to these arguments. Under no circumstances should your curt and profane response be regarded as little more than the reactionary petulant whining of a grumpy old man. Oh no no no.

            1. “TOP LIBERTARIANS!!!”

            2. “I have no doubt you have a well-defined and carefully considered philosophy with strong and powerful logical arguments that rebut the presumptions of the article that I just cited, and your response is alluding to these arguments.”
              Yes, I do, and addressing them to lefty fucking liars like you is not worth the time it would take. You are here to pitch your lefty ‘solutions’ to any and all problems, so the most fair response to your continued bullshit is:
              Fuck off and die, slaver.

              “Under no circumstances should your curt and profane response be regarded as little more than the reactionary petulant whining of a grumpy old man.”
              Yeah, scramble to find some irrelevancy when you’re called on your bullshit; PROVE how stooooooopid lefties can be!
              Fuck off and die, slaver.

          2. “the health (or well-being) of the population is the highest good.”
            Um no. That is straightforward collectivism that, as we have seen, can be used to defend any form of tyranny. The liberty of the individual to ensure their own well being without violence or coercion is the highest good. As far as health is concerned shit happens. I thought that was an accepted libertarian tenet.

            1. ““the health (or well-being) of the population is the highest good.”
              Um no. That is straightforward collectivism that, as we have seen, can be used to defend any form of tyranny…”

              Exactly, and the lefty Jeff claims to define the person who wrote that as a paragon of libertarianism.

            2. So do the health of those who have been denied “elective” treatments including cancer surgery. Do the health of people with mental illness. Do the healthcare of people who have lost their livelihoods. Do the health of those who are being negatively impacted in other words.

      6. This malady isn’t serious enough for any card carrying libertarian to consider forced quarantine as justifiable. If it was like ebola or something a case could be made. This is basically a super flu that kills the old and immune compromised at a relatively high rate. Why doesn’t the government limit their influence to those individuals. If they want to step up and get some government help that’s great but the other 98% of us should be able to live like normal people and be considerate of those who have health challenges.

        1. No no you don’t understand he’s saying that hypothetcially, some asshole he wants to fuck thinks that maybe there is possibly a case for quarantine, he waan’t talking about THIS CASE no sir, he was stupidly pontificating

        2. “This malady isn’t serious enough for any card carrying libertarian to consider forced quarantine as justifiable.”

          Quarantining individuals who have tested positive is one thing.

          Quarantining a hundred million Americans in various states who have never been tested is another things altogether.

    2. I think most people view libertarians as the 600 lbs losers who support pedophilia, open borders, and legalized methamphetamine. Maybe liberty shouldn’t be entrusted to a democratic government.

      1. Libertarians are people who think individuals should be free to make choices for themselves, and those who think individuals should be free to choose whether to isolate themselves rather than have the choices of politicians and bureaucrats inflicted on them by government are taking the libertarian position whether they realize it or not.

        1. Have you endorsed NAMbLA yet?

          1. Nice try. Child molestation is not a victimless crime.

            1. Do children understand consent when they agree to take hormone blocking drugs? Try speaking out against the mutilation of the human body that is “gender confirmation surgery” and keeping your job.

              1. Circumcision!!

                1. Oy vey! Another Anti-Semite!

              2. That’s not exactly a rare view in these parts. Parents are engaging in open abuse of kids who they “permit” to “transition”

                1. In 20 years a whole lot of these damaged and disfigured people are going to be very pissed off and all of the Top Men will say What were the Top Men of yesteryear thinking?

                  1. Hasn’t stopped “Urban Planners” yet.

                2. They also don’t seem to understand the difference between being opposed to an idea and not using force to impose your ideals and using force to enforce your ideals.

      2. You’re a fucking sock spouting lift-wing bullshit. Fuck off and die.

    3. I disagree. It should be seen as a fight between large unaffiliated groups of rational and otherwise normal people and a small group of fanatically motivated megalomaniacs and their morally vacuous sycophants who think people doing things of their own accord is a problem.

      1. I like that definition better.

      2. You seem to be relying on some conscious or theoretical definition of libertarian.

        People take libertarian positions all the time–regardless of whether they realize it. When a progressive takes the position that adults shouldn’t be arrested or jailed by the government for possessing cannabis, they’re taking the libertarian position on that issue regardless of whether they know anything about libertarianism.

        It’s the same thing with people who think they should be free to open their business or go to work regardless of what the governor of California says. I remember Doherty once writing something to the effect that the purpose of libertarians has always been to make more libertarians, and this is a great opportunity for that . . .

        The fact is that there are millions of budding libertarian individuals out there who don’t even know they’re libertarians. They just know that they should be free to open their business or go to work without the government threatening to arrest them for it. On this issue, those people are as libertarian as anybody needs to be.

        1. Many are issue specific libertarians.

          You are free to get an abortion, but not to buy and carry a gun.
          You are free to get a gun, but not to get an abortion.

          Who’s the libertarian?

          1. “People take libertarian positions all the time . . . ”

            I don’t care about who is and who isn’t in the club anywhere near as much as I care whether people are taking libertarian positions and how many of them are taking libertarian positions. More people taking more libertarian positions is better–even if they never call themselves by the label “libertarian”.

            Who’s the libertarian is a red herring.

    4. What’s funny is that if there were a Democratic President in the White House, the closers and the openers would be exactly reversed.

      1. Yeah, probably true.
        Relevant:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0NhA4oBGuc

        1. God just fuck already

        2. I do agree, Chemjeff, that the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the fake-news network known as “Fox” is indefensible. But I’m not sure that I agree with Chipper’s original comment. “The Government” might be imposing these orders, but Trump is the government in a real sense … and it is Trump supporters who are leading the protests against stay-home orders issued by governors of BOTH parties.

          Nor is this the usual libertarian “federalism” issue! Normally, libertarians side with the smaller sovereign (the state) over the feds … but in this case, they are whining about their local officials, and running to Republican DC for help! Ironic, don’t you think?

          1. Fuck off morty

            1. He’s not Morty.

              1. Fuck off DesertDavey

          2. but in this case, they are whining about their local officials, and running to Republican DC for help! Ironic, don’t you think?
            Citation needed. I’m not aware of any libertarians running to Republican DC for help.

          3. Hey, DumbshitDavey, you would get much worse on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc, etc, etc.
            Only those would be presenting their commentary as news, while all of the clips from FoxNews were from self-identified opinion broadcasts.
            FoxNews occupies a special place in the minds of the left, as the only counter to the overwhelming leftist/communist bias of the far more prevalent “Mainstream Media”.

      2. “What’s funny is that if there were a Democratic President in the White House, the closers and the openers would be exactly reversed.”

        You, being a lying piece of lefty shit, are not so amusing.

      3. Such a shallow, reflexive, and stupid statement.
        But feel free to show your math

      4. Didn’t occur during the H1N1 outbreak….

      5. Do you have evidence of this besides the voices in your head? I mean for a self described libertarian you sure seem lately to be all in favor of bowing to the authorities and forcing everyone else to also.

        1. It’s the “both sides” gospel of the one true libertarians that ignores any nuance or depth of thought.
          It is superficial virtue signaling.
          And, as usual, is used to deflect from the very real (and explicitly pronounced) tendency of leftism to tyranny.

      6. What’s funny is that if there were a Democratic President in the White House, the closers and the openers would be exactly reversed.

        Bullshit. There were plenty of viral pandemics under your most venerated personal godhead Block Insane Yomomma. Not one single person I know of anywhere of any political persuasion advocated putting their jurisdiction under martial law as a response.

        Nice try though, asswipe.

  3. We were told when the lockdowns started that it was just to flatten the curve. It’s not about stopping people from getting sick, it’s about making sure the healthcare system doesn’t get overwhelmed.

    Once it became clear that COVID wasn’t going to overwhelm any systems outside of the worst cities, the goalposts were moved to “lockdown until vaccine happens, NO ONE ELSE CAN EVER GET SICK”.

    The longer this goes the more clear it becomes that the lockdown itself was the goal. Once one reason for it becomes irrelevant we’ll just find another, and another, and another until everyone gets it through their head that they were never free to do any of those things in the first place.

    1. If we don’t bleed the economy until November, people might not vote for Joe Biden. I hope touchy Uncle Joe and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are safe during these terrible times.

      1. Speaking of which, you gotta figure that Democrats would be wanting to put RBG in a sterile bubble at this point, just to be sure she doesn’t contract this or any other disease.

        1. Hell, a strong breeze would end her.

        2. She mostly cancer cells at this point but she’s still kicking. I’m sure the Devil’s contract with her was thoroughly reviewed by RBG before signing.

          1. She visits that portrait in the attic every day.

      2. Interesting point!

        Should Biden end up victimized, who would the Dems come up with? And, how?

        Any historical precedents?

    2. “The longer this goes the more clear it becomes that the lockdown itself was the goal.”

      I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I do not believe that COVID-19 was any kind of conspiracy, but if you wanted to change society so that fewer of us were prosperous because of trade and capitalism and more of us were dependent on wealth redistribution and government for our day to day needs, then something like lock-downs justified by an epidemic might be the best way to accomplish that outcome.

      1. The whole thing may have started innocently enough, but does not preclude the possibility that it’s potential for reorganizing society along totalitarian lines was not realized, and exploited, midway through.

        1. In the beginning, I think the Democrats and the media primarily saw the virus as a way to maybe make Trump’s reelection more vulnerable.

          Since then, yeah, I think they’re starting to see COVID-19 as an opportunity to make the country more authoritarian and socialist.

          I suspect what we’re likely to see is an even more populist reaction. 2016 may not be the year the populist wave crested. That may just be the year the dam burst.

          1. Interesting perspective, and I tend to agree.

          2. “Since then, yeah, I think they’re starting to see COVID-19 as an opportunity to make the country more authoritarian and socialist.”

            Like Trump socializing the oil, airline, cruise ship industries?

            1. Would it be great if the Democrats had opposed that?

              1. It really would be. Maybe we should all support a 3rd party.

                1. That would be nice but not practical unless you can convince a whole lot more people. And I hate to see the 3rd party you support.

                  1. Lol

                  2. I vote libertarian, as I’ve said many times. You guys know this isn’t the trump fan club, right?

                    1. Right but you alao lie.

                    2. You were really moved by the lib candidate offering up authority to bake that cake huh.

                    3. Since I didn’t vote for Trump, that seems a nonsequitor. But if you vote libertarian, you rarely seem to actually support libertarian ideals whenever you post on here. You seem to always support the statist positions.

                    4. I support libertarian ideals entirely. You ignoramuses mistake my understanding of science as endorsement of “leftist” positions.

                    5. No, we see the leftist perspective you constantly speak from as evidence of leftism.
                      “…mistake my understanding of science…” – right there, you did it again. As always

                    6. Your understanding of science is lacking. You are like a lot of coastal elitist, who have a degree and believe they understand science. However, your understanding is superficial and tends to trend towards pop-science. I run into your kind quite often. They read a few memes and follow IFL on Facebook and then try to debate subjects they really don’t understand. For instance where you compare a daily death total to yearly death rates. Your interpretation of the data set was so far off point that it is simply laughable.

                2. “It really would be. Maybe we should all support a 3rd party.”

                  Need help with those goal posts? There’s a couple of more lefty assholes around.

            2. Hey dummy… it was the democrats who attached governance conditions to the money, not the gop.

            3. he didn’t do any of those things. But thanks for the misinformation.

        2. Midway through? How about early March (March 12th)? E.g., mayor of Champagne, IL who rolled out her emergency powers list…you gotta figure she had this typed up ready and waiting for her chance to implement:

          After the declaration of an emergency, the Mayor may in the interest of public safety and welfare make any or all of the following orders and provide the following direction:

          (1) Issue such other orders as are imminently necessary for the protection of life and property.

          (2) Order a general curfew applicable to such geographical areas of the City or to the City as a whole, as the Mayor deems advisable, and applicable during such hours of the day or night as the Mayor deems necessary in the interest of public safety and welfare.

          (3) Order the closing of all retail liquor stores, including taverns and private clubs or portions thereof wherein the consumption of intoxicating liquor and beer is permitted;

          (4) Order the discontinuance of the sale of alcoholic liquor by any wholesaler or retailer;

          (5) Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing, or giving away gasoline or other liquid flammable or combustible products in any container other than a gasoline tank properly affixed to a motor vehicle;

          (6) Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing, dispensing or giving away of explosives or explosive agents, firearms or ammunition of any character whatsoever;

          (7) Order the control, restriction and regulation within the City by rationing, issuing quotas, fixing or freezing prices, allocating the use, sale or distribution of food, fuel, clothing and other commodities, materials, goods or services or the necessities of life;

          (8) (a) Order City employees or agents, on behalf of the City, to take possession of any real or personal property of any person, or to acquire full title or such lesser interest as may be necessary to deal with a disaster or emergency, and to take possession of and for a limited time, occupy and use any real estate to accomplish alleviation of the disaster, or the effects thereof;

          (b) In the event any real or personal property is utilized by the City, the City shall be liable to the owner thereof for the reasonable value of the use or for just compensation as the case may be.

          (9) Order restrictions on ingress or egress to parts of the City to limit the occupancy of any premises;

          (10) To make provision for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing;

          (11) Temporarily suspend, limit, cancel, convene, reschedule, postpone, continue, or relocate all meetings of the City Council, and any City committee, commission, board, authority, or other City body as deemed appropriate by the Mayor.

          (12) Require closing of business establishments.

          (13) Prohibit the sale or distribution within the City of any products which could be employed in a manner which would constitute a danger to public safety.

          (14) Temporarily close any and all streets, alleys, sidewalks, bike paths, public parks or public ways.

          (15) Temporarily suspend or modify, for not more than sixty (60) days, any regulation or ordinance of the City, including, but not limited to, those regarding health, safety, and zoning. This period may be extended upon approval of the City Council.

          (16) Suspend or limit the use of the water resources or other infrastructure.

          (17) Control, restrict, allocate, or regulate the use, sale, production, or distribution of food, water, fuel, clothing, and/or other commodities, materials, goods, services and resources.

          (18) Suspend or limit burning of any items or property with the City limits and up to two (2) miles outside the corporate limits.

          (19) Direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened areas within the City if the mayor deems this action is necessary for the preservation of life, property, or other disaster or emergency mitigation, response or recovery and to prescribe routes, modes of transportation and destination in connection with an evacuation.

          (21) Approve application for local, state, or federal assistance.

          (22) Establish and control routes of transportation, ingress or egress.

          (23) Control ingress and egress from any designated disaster or emergency area or home, building or structures located therein.

          (24) Approve the transfer the direction, personnel, or functions of City departments and agencies for the purpose of performing or facilitating emergency or disaster services.

          (25) Accept services, gifts, grants, loans, equipment, supplies, and/or materials whether from private, nonprofit, or governmental sources.

          (26) Require the continuation, termination, disconnection, or suspension of natural gas, electrical power, water, sewer, communication or other public utilities or infrastructure.

          (27) Close or cancel the use of any municipally owned or operated building or other public facility.

          (28) Declare, issue, enforce, modify and terminate orders for quarantine and isolation of persons or animals posing a threat to the public, not conflicting with the directions of the Health Officer of the community.

          (29) Exercise such powers and functions in light of the exigencies of emergency or disaster including the waiving of compliance with any time consuming procedures and formalities, including notices, as may be prescribed by law.

          (30) Issue any and all such other orders or undertake such other functions and activities as the Mayor reasonably believes is required to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons or property within the City or otherwise preserve the public peace or abate, clean up, or mitigate the effects of any emergency or disaster.

        3. “The whole thing may have started innocently enough, but does not preclude the possibility that it’s potential for reorganizing society along totalitarian lines was not realized, and exploited, midway through.”

          The grease-ball Newsom has his blue-ribbon committee together to pan the new ‘fair and green’ CA economy.

          1. I know.

            I’m interested to see where he and his ilk see the CA governmental and quasi governmental bodies fitting into this “new” economy.

            But, as a former employee of a CA governmental entity (three actually), I know his blue ribbon panel will end up putting out yet another “study” that will be heavily analyzed and debated by the press, the pundits, academia and surprisingly, governmental types. Then it will be forgotten and the governmental types will add it to their office bookshelves full of other studies that have come and gone with no action having ever taken place. The office bookshelves, including my own, were full of such “studies”. It’s the governmental way. If the public knew how much we spent on such studies and, how many private firms (partners?) were raking in huge sums producing them at the agencies behest, it might start a revolution.

            My experiences in such endeavors heavily influence my hesitations about the regular support of Reason and Reason’s founders, for PPP. It all sounds so good. But in reality, the second “P” is full of firms that tend to specialize in providing governmental services as their most profitable lines of work. And, much of it is “make work” as in creating studies such as this that end up gathering dust on bookshelves in governmental offices.

            It’s really just a failure of government to do the job that we expect of them. Which can be good or bad, depending on how one feels about the proposals within such studies.

      2. I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist myself, and at first I didn’t see any reasons to believe this was different. I don’t think this was the goal from the get go, but I do think a lot of statists aren’t going to let a good crisis go to waste. They’ve seen how easily they can reshape society and they are going to take full advantage.

        The statists are making it a point to prove that we were never free the way we thought we were. We weren’t free to operate businesses. We weren’t free to go to church. We weren’t free to get drunk with our friends at a bar. We were able to do those things because our government ALLOWED us to do those things, and it had to be pointed out that their allowance could change at any time for any reason.

        At this point, with the data we have, there’s no reason for 99% of the country (by land mass) to be under any kind of lockdown at all unless we’re going to do this same shit every flu season. If this is where the bar is set, then we really legitimately never return to what life was pre-COVID and I don’t think the bar getting set where it has is an accident.

        1. If that’s the case, then it’s a good thing if the pro/anti lockdown debate become a partisan dividing line–because that would suggest that we can address policy through elections.

          Populism, in all its forms from left to right, is always a reaction to elitism. The most extreme forms of authoritarianism come into play at times, like during the Weimar Republic, when people become convinced that elections are no longer an effective way to defeat elitism.

          Maybe I’m just looking for a silver lining here, but if the anti-lockdown argument becomes embraced by President Trump and the Republicans, with Biden, Cuomo, Newsom, and Whitmer seen as the Democrat support for the lockdowns, then maybe things won’t get so bad.

          We are talking Great Depression levels of unemployment however. It hasn’t really sunk in with most people yet how bad things are likely to get, but as more and more people become unemployed for longer and longer periods of time, their fear of the virus will disappear like the fear of opening our mail did in the wake of the anthrax attack after 9/11–and their hate at being economically destroyed will become the dominant force in politics.

          1. Are you talking about anti lockdown trump or pro lockdown trump? They both exist nearly simultaneously.

            1. Care to link to President Trump’s pro-lockdown comments?

              I’d love to see them.

                1. Those are suggestions and not an order. Additionally, these are suggestions as to how to end the lockdown. And they are voluntary and focus on at risk people protecting themselves. Huge fucking difference.

                  1. He knows there’s a difference. But he’s a dishonest piece of shit, so he pretends he doesn’t.

                    And if you somehow make him admit there’s a difference today, he’ll pretend he didn’t in a day or two.

                    1. “…But he’s a dishonest piece of shit, so he pretends he doesn’t…”

                      Correct, and when he’s called on that bullshit, we’ll get noise about a ‘3rd party’.
                      That lying POS is not worth reading.

                  2. You need to check again. Some of those “suggestions” are only applicable to local authorities. For example :”Schools should remain closed.” in phase 1. So which Trump do you support?

                    1. So you admit they were just suggestions.

                      What the fuck are you still crying about Jeff.

                    2. That lying POS is not worth reading.

                    3. The key word is should not must. Do you understand the difference?

                    4. Who is closing the schools? THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. SO HE IS ENDORSING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHUTTING DOWN SCHOOLS. ONE MIGHT ALSO CALL THIS A LOCKDOWN.

                      Can you read it now?

                    5. Endorsing is not ordering. No matter how much you type in capitals. And it is just a suggestion. He is leaving to each state and or jurisdiction to make their own decisions. See how that works.

                  3. And R Mac, you are welcome to prove me wrong, any time. Go ahead and cite something that proves me wrong. So far, no dice. Just a bunch of bitching and name calling. Sad.

                    1. Why bother when your own cites prove you wrong.

                    2. You want him to prove a negative? That trump never commandeered society and ordered lockdowns?

                    3. Your very citation proves you wrong. As is quite often the case.

                    4. If I already didn’t know what a dishonest piece of shit you were, I’d feel bad that you’re not smart enough to realize it’s your claim that Trump ordered any of these lockdowns without any actual, you know, executive orders for lockdowns, and that therefore you need to cite it.

                    5. Oh? “Schools must remain closed.” is not an endorsement of locking down schools? Tell me who that bullet point was aimed at, if not local lawmakers.

                    6. Above you cited “schools should remain closed” and here you’ve changed it to “schools must remain closed”…
                      Why the substitution, espresso?

                    7. It doesn’t say must it says should. Keep grasping. Sooner or later you will grab a straw.

                    8. And the strongest argument against your opinion is these are guidelines for ending the lockdown, not continue it. Guidelines for the states to end their self imposed lockdown, that Trump never ordered.

                    9. Dipshit doesn’t know how laws work. Oh wait, yes he does. He’s pretending he doesn’t because he’s a dishonest piece of shit.

                  4. “Those are suggestions and not an order. Additionally, these are suggestions as to how to end the lockdown. And they are voluntary and focus on at risk people protecting themselves. Huge fucking difference.”

                    And, meanwhile, President Trump is tweeting things like “Liberate Michigan” in support the protesters.

                    Are there ANY Democrats who have said anything anywhere in support of the protesters? I’ve seen Joe Biden smear them as a bunch of white supremacists, and that’s about as kind as I’ve seen them treated by any Democrat.

                    1. “Are there ANY Democrats who have said anything anywhere in support of the protesters?”

                      The got Newsom’s attention; he seems to be bouncing between calling them ‘dangerous’ and trying to accommodate them, as his finger is in the air hoping to find which way the wind is blowing.
                      In the service; such assholes were call ‘weathervanes’.

                    2. Inslee actually has stated that Trump is going to cause violence by voicing support for the protestors.

          2. Unfortunately the partisan divide is over something based in Science. The lockdown happened because of Fauci’s rec, not Trump. Trump would never have locked the Country down like this, nor was he going to. You have paid protesters in Colorado dressing like nurses protesting the protesters. Same people who blocked the roads in California after the elections. We have never done anything this reactive in response to a pandemic in the history of this nation, including the asian flu in the 50’s that killed 3 times more people to date than Corona virus. We never even discussed closing the country when SARS hit, Ebola, MERS, or any other pandemic even before we knew they would be limited in their reach. The shutdown was to destroy the economy. It was pushed by Fauchi and his handler Bill Gates to attempt to hold the country hostage until Gates could develop his vaccine that he wants to force the world to take. Public service announcements in LA still say “…do your part until a vaccine can be developed”. Fauci was playing politics with his pet project and since the democrats were doing everything they could to undermine trump he had no choice to but follow fauci’s advice. Perhaps if Fauci had focused on treatments instead of directing all the resources into vaccines for 20 years we might have had a couple of million less people dead from the AIDS pandemic. You see just because Fauci has been there forever doesn’t mean he’s competent. We are seeing the same thing play out here. He isn’t interested in treatments only his vaccine. Democrats used him to push to close the country. The fake Russia collusion didn’t work. You know the fake investigation spearheaded by democrats who said they saw the evidence. Those liars are still in office. Then you had to sham impeachment. The minute Fauci said we need to close the country that was it. Trumps greatest achievement. If they could tank the economy, even at the loss of life it would be worth it if it got rid of Trump. Remember these investigations into the Russia collusion may actually end up with people in jail and democrats are desperate. They have even started their backup when this fails. Mail in elections. Why do you think they had their representatives (the press) ask Fauci, in April if it would be safe to vote in Nov. Nobody can answer that which would be the right answer. Instead Fauci went right along and made a point of saying that he couldn’t guarantee that it would be safe. In the last election over 2000 people voted for Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles county than actually live in the county. That’s a fact. They can’t steal the election unless they can negate voter ID requirements in many states and spread the voter fraud around so it isn’t as obvious. That’s exactly what’s up next. This crisis like most is one the democrats don’t want to waste. They used it to see how far they could restrict our rights and liberties. Have no fear they will engage in this again. Social distancing measures that we have implemented have shown zero impact on reducing the number of infections and in fact likely increased them since viruses are 5 times fore likely to spread when people are contained in closed spaces. Can’t fish, Can’t garden? Yeah, those are really high risk. Can’t sit in a church parking lot with your windows rolled up. Let’s stop pretending this is about a virus or the health of america. This about the upcoming election and nothing more at this point.

        2. Agree but…………having faced the lines and empty shelves at COSTCO, Safeway and other “essential businesses” with thousands (literally) of other CA citizens, I can say that I have some faith in the growing resentment of the general population towards government economic planning.

          I can’t count how many times I’ve heard people in line get disgusted and question out loud if they are living a bad dream. Or maybe, in a third world country. Usually with disgust and anger.

          I’ve said for years that CA has become a Banana Republic. And, this citizen outrage at the results of an overreaching government saving us from ourselves, is actually the first glimmer of hope I’ve seen in a long time that people are waking up from their slumber as the controllers make further inroads in their Utopian goals of dominance.

      3. I said essentially that after 9/11. If you wanted to condition the populace to mass surveillance and an ever expanding police state you couldn’t pick a better strategy. Was it a conspiracy? Or just a good deal.

        1. I’m just wondering what the overlap between the folks who screamed “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” at every suggestion that 9/11 shouldn’t cause us to overreact (as we did) and the most vocal “openers”. My observation is that to a great extent, it’s the same crowd, but some detailed research might be interesting. Just a thought for ye olde writers.

        2. Yes. Every time I’ve faced the TSA and watched people herding into lines like sheep to slaughter, I’ve wondered why they didn’t see that.

          I was really longing for my older, veteran friends to step in and lead the charge against the police state. But alas, many had passed on and those that remained were just too old and tired to bother.

          It was/is a loss for all of us.

          1. I guess at the time I figured to just let the noisy ones make their noise, the general American population would quickly decide they had enough BS and put an end to it.

            Boy, was I wrong. And 20 years later, if you don’t smile at the TSA goons while they’re kicking you in the nuts, they get pissy.

            I want my country back.

    3. I still have a difficult time explaining to people in throes of this apocalypse that the death rates are not increasing exponentially. This, apparently, is a controversial statement. For fuck’s sake I’ve spoken to nurses (of all people) who run around all day sloganeering (“FLATTEN THE CURVE”) and yet believe, simultaneously, that death rates will still increase exponentially.

      People have lost their minds. They calculus is decidedly irrational and, once adopted by someone, impossible to break. We are in a battle with idiots, commandeered by tyrants. If it wasn’t for the idiots, the tyrants would not be a problem.

      1. At this point, no one wants to admit they were wrong. No one wants to admit they destroyed their lives and their communities over a nothingburger. People will now stretch and contort themselves into the weirdest positions in order to justify the damage that has been done by the reaction to COVID, because to do otherwise would be to admit that they behaved like a panic-stricken 5-year-old.

        1. Fools! This was win/win from the beginning.

          If we had experienced the curve that was predicted and feared, they would be able to say that they had done all they could. In our best interests of course. And call for reverence for those who died in the line of duty.

          And, if the “curve” never materializes as it appears is happening now, they get to tell us how great they were, despite the economic fallout that is begging to happen now, because they “saved” us from that awful death that otherwise would have happened.

          Pols are seldom served up a situation where they can seize power and claim a win no matter the outcome such as this virus.

      2. We are in a battle with idiots, commandeered by tyrants. If it wasn’t for the idiots, the tyrants would not be a problem.

        The article gets it wrong for exactly this reason. Yes, there are a shitload of people who believe the lockdown is necessary to keep Archie the Anarchist from killing their Grandmama with his super-powered Corona-breathTM. The problem is, those people are wrong about who is spreading the virus, how it is spread and fail to understand the consequences for the elderly if it does not spread among the young and resilient to establish herd immunity. Most importantly, they have bought the narrative that lives can be saved when the area under the ‘curve’ is and will always remain exactly the same regardless of ‘flatness’. It was never supposed to be about saving lives by limiting transmission, it was only ever supposed to be about saving lives by not overwhelming the healthcare system.

        The narrative was shifted after the lockdown was issued. That is ethically and morally wrong.

        1. The worst part is the useful idiots (and even commenters here and on Volokh) continue to say ‘look at the science’ when the science is clearly showing the lockdown was already unnecessary and would certainly be unnecessary going forward.

        2. Yes, the initial data showed exponential growth, but about 10 days ago the rate slowed significantly. We appear to be at the apex (nationally) although local areas could be earlier in the process. Flattening the curve is supposed to save some lives – those who would not have been treated properly, but are now able to access care – so it should have slightly fewer deaths overall. But, as you say, the virus lasts longer in the population, and the total dead is similar.

          1. All these panic merchants were screaming “exponential growth”, but nobody ever bothered to define the relevant periods. Doubling every day? Every three days? Every week? Every month? They just conveniently picked two points on the curve where a doubling occurred and said “SEE??? EXPONENTIAL”!

            Except, that is not how exponential growth works.

            Even in NYC the spread of the infection is charted on a nice, round curve. It was always projected to be a curve, which is why we were trying to “flatten” it. That is always the trick with pandemic panic merchants. In the case of viruses, even particularly fatal ones, the death rate never really increases exponentially. It increases rapidly, but not exponentially. So, they always fuck with the period to make their argument that in the absence of government intervention, everybody will die.

            The rates in NYC never even came close to doubling on a regular basis and topped out at 538 a day around April 7th, followed by a steady, predictable decline. Everyone keeps assuming that people are equally susceptible, and they are not, which why the death rate cannot be exponential.

            Fuzzy math, coupled with shoddy science, with a dash of panic, equals a completely unrealistic and inaccurate picture of how viruses spread and kill.

      3. US Covid 19 deaths on 3/14/2020: 18
        US Covid 19 deaths on 4/14/2020: 2407.

        I must be bad at math. I thought 2407 was much much more than 18.

        1. You understand that total deaths are never going down, right? What we want look at is the death/hospitalization rate of change; the first and second order conditions.

          1. That’s daily deaths not total.

            1. So what is the point? If the same number of at risk people die, what does it matter if it happens over a long period of time or a short? Actually, logically, it would make more sense to shorten the period as this would do the least amount of damage to the survivors in the long run.

              1. Yes, unless by lengthening the process some can be saved who would otherwise die.

                1. Which is highly unlikely. And we are seeing stories of people who have had “elective treatments” cancelled to flatten the curve dying so even if you save a few, the added cost in life from people not infected but with otherwise treatable conditions would probably make that a wash.

                  1. No. My daughter, 38, 3 kids, picture of health, was diagnosed with breast cancer in December, and is now undergoing chemo. She is much more likely to survive due to the lockdown, and absent the virus would not otherwise have been in much danger.

                    A woman near me has chronic asthma, kept under control with meds. If she catches the virus it’s very likely she will die. Otherwise not.

                    There are tens of thousands in similar positions. Maybe more. Flattening the curve by physical distancing and quarantine save many of them.

                    1. In some places, that “chemo” was considered elective and not allowed.
                      Your daughter is also subjecting herself to more risk of catching the virus, by frequent visits to medical facilities, where corona-positive people tend to go.
                      WASH

                    2. And the millions of people who lost their life’s work?
                      A small price to pay i guess

                    3. 6itia not just chemo, it is surgeries, needed blood transfusions etc. Cancer treatments go beyond chemo and XRT.

              2. “So what is the point?”

                DOL is scared shitless he might ctach a cold, so the rest of us ought to be locked up.

                1. That’s it. I’m a big coward. Not that I’m correcting the rank and voluntary ignorance you all so proudly display. No one even asked me what I think of lock downs. I’m just showing you guys that you are factually wrong on certain things, like the daily death toll and the growth trend.

                  1. You haven’t done that either. We have pointed out the flimsy logic of your arguments but you don’t realize how lacking in actual facts your argument is.

                  2. “That’s it. I’m a big coward”

                    Yes but your arguments are also retarded and based on lies.

                    And no one has to ask. It would be like asking you if you’re jeff, you’ll lie. Because you lie. Constantly.

                  3. We know what your argument is going to be: “You guys are being MEAN!”

                    Well, where the fuck is your argument?

                    1. My argument is a simple factual statement. Covid is currently the leading cause of death in the US.

                    2. Statements aren’t arguments.

                      You can be nice to retards. Lesson learned.

                    3. No, what you offer as facts is a misunderstanding of how data works. A single day doesn’t a trend make. You are trying to take a single data point and present it in a vacuum.

              3. The point is the death rate is increasing as the pandemic spreads. If we compare current daily deaths, covid is more than any other cause. That’s it. It’s hilarious how hard you guys are trying to deny a very simple and frankly inarguable point of reality.

                1. Compare current daily deaths to **what**? Not only are you making up numbers, you are comparing them to shit you’re selectively pulling out of your ass.

                  And you’re full of shit when you say the death rate is increasing. It is not. It is following a predictable curve, and in many hard hit areas we are now seeing declines.

                  You are so full of shit.

                  1. And you clearly do not understand the difference between total deaths, and death rates. Moron.

                    Jesus fucking Christ.

                2. “The point is the death rate is increasing as the pandemic spreads.”

                  No, the rate is decreasing.
                  The total is increasing, as totals are wont to do

                  1. But he understands science, he stated so above. I hope he isn’t an engineer if he doesn’t understand the difference between rate and total number.

                    1. “Science” is code for “gospel/faith” when used by leftists

          2. //You understand that total deaths are never going down, right?//

            He does not. He probably thinks that this proves the death rate is “EXPONENTIAL!” which of course means everyone will die unless we ship off to the gulags, yesterday.

        2. yes Jeff you are bad at math, when the pool is 330mega then 2400 isnt much more than18

          1. Yet it’s the leading cause of death. So it seems pretty significant, and definitely increasing, contrary to Geraje’s assertion.

            1. No it isn’t. Heart disease and cancer still beat it by magnitudes.

              1. “Um, but, you can’t give heart disease to your neighbor … so, gulags for everyone, you selfish prick.”

              2. Check my link. Covid now kills more than cancer or heart disease, by cause of death per day in the US. This is not a debatable point.

                1. What link?

                2. Also there is evidence that the reason heart disease and cancer deaths are lower is because people are dying at home. The UK NHS even admitted that. And we see evidence for it in the US. Additionally, many of those with COVID 19 have heart disease so teasing out rather it was heart disease or COVID is a fools errand.

                  1. SARS-COV-2 without heart disease? No fatal. With? Fatal. Why are we blaming the coronavirus? Why aren’t we blaming the heart disease? Why aren’t we blaming the cancer?

                    1. Because… reasons.

                3. Hey retarded fuck, you’re comparing a daily maximum to a yearly average. Do you understand you retarded fuck?

                  1. Nope.

                  2. Which was a point I also was going to make.

                  3. So? Is there a heart attack season? Is there a cancer season? Is there any reason to assume that average rates differ wildly from current daily rates? No. Just another bullshit semantic “point” so you can avoid inconvenient facts.

                    Denying science makes you guys seem retarded. Just accept the science and reject the policy that you don’t like. Don’t try to re shape reality because it makes arguing your point harder.

                    1. This is the most unscientific take you can achieve. There is absolutely nothing scientific about your post. It is pure sensationalism. Daily rates and average rates will vary significantly, especially if it seasonal. Do you understand statistics at all?

                    2. Just so you understand a daily rate (which is not really even a thing) would be a single data point, whereas average death would be the number of deaths over the long term and show a trend. Overall heart attacks and cancer will still kill more. Especially if this is seasonal (which isn’t exactly clear). As for semantic arguments, these are actually very important in science. Comparing total deaths on a single day is not science it is fear mongering and cherry picking. And as has been pointed out the rate of deaths is actually trending down. But keep trying to claim you are the one who understands science. I am sure it plays well on IFL.

            2. “Yet it’s the leading cause of death”

              So what? It’s also a desert topping, but it still isn’t much more than 18 on a scale of hundreds of millions you fucking idiot.

              1. It’s not a leading cause of death. It would be like saying airplanes crashing into buildings was the leading cause of death on 9/12/2001 and then change our lives based on that.

                1. Well there’s also that.

        3. “US Covid 19 deaths on 3/14/2020: 18
          US Covid 19 deaths on 4/14/2020: 2407.
          I must be bad at math. I thought 2407 was much much more than 18.”

          I’m sure you suck at math, but more importantly, you’re just not real bright and should stick with trying to run your won life, not mine”
          “…In total, the CDC estimates that up to 42.9 million people got sick during the 2018-2019 flu season, 647,000 people were hospitalized and 61,200 died. That’s fairly on par with a typical season, and well below the CDC’s 2017-2018 estimates of 48.8 million illnesses, 959,000 hospitalizations and 79,400 deaths…”
          https://time.com/5610878/2018-2019-flu-season/

          Fuck off and die, slaver.

      4. One thing they don’t usually reflect on is that flattening the curve doesn’t significantly change the area under the curve. If there are 200k at-risk people who would almost certainly die if exposed at any time to COVID-19, then there’s still 200k likely to die, they’ll just be spread out over more time. Some number may be saved because of the flatter curve allowing for better utilization of hospital beds and ventilators. But unless some miracle treatment comes about very soon or a vaccine is created followed vast immunization program, those most-at-risk people will eventually be exposed and will die anyway.

        1. Yes, but we will get to talk about it longer.

          1. And they get to keep us imprisoned longer.

        2. “Eliminate the curve”

          New slogan.

          Impossible? Sure. But at least it keeps everyone imprisoned.

      5. I am a nurse. Nurses are not really that smart as a group. Sorry but it’s the truth. They may be good at what they do but their insight into politics and data is sorely lacking. The nurses unions are 100% liberal as most people would assume but so are all of the “professional organizations”. They are all far left pushing for socialized medicine. As far as working with PPE. Well once again nurses work under terrible conditions as a rule because they allow it. They don’t stand up for themselves, they expect unions to fight their battles, and they back down on nearly every issue. That’s why nurses work without breaks, why they work without proper rest and nutrition. Not because they have to but because they choose to. Sorry but if nurses stood up for patient safety, as I did and lost my job, instead of looking the other way they wouldn’t find themselves in these situations. Need more proof. Nurses complain that they have too many patient’s and it’s unsafe for the patient. The union goes on strike. They get a 1.00 an hour raise and 2 additional vacation days. The patient ratios are no longer unsafe and they come off the strike. Happens over and over again.

        Sad to say this nurse couldn’t agree more. Additionally when nurses do come forward and complain about unsafe conditions they will lose their job and the other nurses will turn a blind eye because they don’t want to get involved. So yes you are 100% correct about nurses. Sorry if that’s not a popular perspective but it’s the truth.

    4. Spot on FMDH, this is pretty much what I was going to post, but you said it better than I would have. We had a bait-and-switch pulled on us, plain and simple.

    5. Here in Iowa every time I bother to check the Governors daily update there are a whole lot of closers begging for a house arrest order under the mistaken belief that the goal is to eradicate this and that every day delay that the governor doesn’t do it is another day of people getting this who otherwise would never have gotten it.

      They just can’t accept that the eradication window closed well before the virus even left China if it even could have been eradicated at all. Its here to stay and if China couldn’t police state its way to eradication then there’s no hope at all of it working here.

      The week the closers have become increasingly shrill as the State has started mass testing of people working at meat processing plants. Since they are testing most/all employees not necessarily those who feel ill, in excess of 25% of the employees are testing positive.

      And thus the closers feel even more justified to claim that we need house arrest now. Never mind that food processing is ‘essential’ and so would not have been affected.

  4. Honestly they should have just told people who want to hide in their little bubble houses to go ahead. And the rest of the world to keep going. It is unconscionable that anyone should lose a job and be forced to hide out from a fucking virus.

    It doesn’t seem to be exactly trending left or right on this. Basically though it’s statists who bow to government authority that brought this on, and far too many citizens are statists.

    1. It is a tough choice. I am more and more convinced that the cost of opening everything up wont’ be that bad or maybe not much at all. But what do I know? I may be completely wrong and opening up could be a disaster. But staying closed is creating a disaster as well. Ultimately, a choice has to be made and some people are going to be worse off for that choice and others better off.

      The problem with the people who are demanding everything stay closed is not that they are necessarily wrong. No one knows for sure. The problem is that they don’t think there are any other competing issues at play. Basically, they think it is everyone else’s duty to lose their jobs and suffer so that they can feel safe. Well fuck them. Maybe it is their job to suck it up and take the risk and maybe die so that other people can go back to work and not end up in poverty. That thought never occurs to them. It never occurs to them that they personally could be expected to suffer for the common good. Nope, it is always someone else whose duty it is to do that.

      1. //That thought never occurs to them//

        Because they, and they alone, are special. Everybody else is hypothetical, even the dead they claim to mourn for. At the end of the day it is all about them, and their preferences, and their fears.

        1. “Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.”

      2. I’ll wager that most of the “closers” haven’t had their income streams stopped by the closure.

    2. “Honestly they should have just told people who want to hide in their little bubble houses to go ahead. And the rest of the world to keep going.”

      Vegas emptied out before anybody put a lock-down in order. Hotel occupancy dwindled to single digits. People didn’t need the government to tell them that flying on an airplane, going through an airport, sitting in a casino, or getting on a cruise ship was a bad idea in the midst of a pandemic, and they don’t need the government to tell them when it’s okay to go back to work either.

      Nobody is proposing a law legally compelling the elderly, cancer patients, people with compromised immune system, et. al. to attend rock concerts in sports stadiums. More than 20% of the workforce has filed for unemployment in a number of states now, and it’s getting worse all the time–and when the reality sets in, we’ll be lucky if the ultimate reaction against those like Cuomo and Newsom is democratic and peaceful.

      1. Well said.

  5. I think the people wanting to open the economy up understand the other side quite well. They just disagree with them. The problem is the people who want to keep things closed have no understanding of the other side.

    The protest are people expecting the government to take their interests into account when making policy. The fact that celebrities and the media and the establishment in general are calling them Nazis and at best “misguided” is just another example of the moral and intellectual sickness that is rampant among our elites. Our elites refuse to admit that there are difficult choices and moral dilemmas. Instead, they dream up a rationalization for whatever is in their interests and dismiss all competing interests as not just wrong or lesser interests but morally illegitimate. I want cheap goods from China and my stock portfolio of developing markets to grow. If some American loses their job because of it, they are just a welfare queen who deserved what happened to them. I want cheap labor to take care of my kids and mow my lawn. Anyone who suffers as a result of that is just a racist and their complaints morally illegitimate. The same thing is happening here. The establishment is risk adverse and isn’t suffering, the people who are are just stupid or immoral such that their losing their jobs doesn’t matter. It is not that my interests are more important than theirs, it is that their interests are morally illegitimate such that they don’t even merit consideration.

    For our current elite classes, it is the American public’s duty to suffer for the elite’s “principles” and in reality benefit. Anyone who objects to that is just a Nazi, racist, or a lazy welfare queen. The objections to the protests are just another variation of Kevin D. Williamson’s contention that people’s communities deserve to die if their existence gets in the way of Williamson feeding his fat face or obtaining cheap consumer goods. These protesters deserve to be out of work and what is happening to them. How dare they object to it. This is what the elite actually think.

    1. One argument that strikes me as a little weird is the one that goes something like, “people wouldn’t be shopping anyway because it’s a pandemic.” If that’s so, why can’t we let the market organically decide what to close? Why is the shutdown even necessary?

      1. Good point.

      2. Markets work when the cost/benefit is borne by those who make the decisions, either be the buyer or the seller. In this case the cost is borne by those who get infected, and those who pay for those who get infected. Those people are not the same ones as who will decide whether to open a business or not. The free market would say “screw it, not my cost”, open up, and damn the public health consequences. That is why the market solution is a bad one.

        1. Bzzzzzt! Wrong!

          Try again, asshole.

        2. I was specifically responding to those who say that opening up is meaningless since people wouldn’t go out anyway. In that case, staying closed is meaningless too.

        3. How are “those who get infected” not identical to “those who decide whether to go to work or not” (plus “those who decide to go shopping”)? Ignoring insurance, the cost of getting infected by participating in the market is borne entirely by those who participate in the market.

          Your caricature for the free market is, well, silly.

          1. People who participate in the market and get infected can, and will go on to infect others who do not participate. Spreading by asymptomatic people is a major concept that oddly seems lost of many.

            1. This is so fucking dumb. Are you another Jeff sock?

            2. People are capable of understanding that:

              (1) If they resume normal daily activities, they may be infected;

              (2) They may be asymptomatic while infected;

              (3) They may infect others;

              (4) They may get ill;

              (5) They may die.

              If the choices are laid out for people, they can decide if they want to resume their normal lives, or stay locked in their homes.

              This argument is always made in a bizarre, dichotomous form.

              “Well, you don’t know who you are infecting!”

              Ok, well the person potentially “being infected” also understands the risk, and if they decide to go to work or the mall, they are making a choice.

              You just can’t admit you don’t want people to make that choice. You can admit that you think you know better.

              1. *can’t admit” that you think you know better.

            3. You’re free to lock yourself in your house and have no contact with another human being, asymptomatic or otherwise, for the rest of your life if you can afford to. What does that have to do with the market?

              1. But what about “other” people? I know that I’m free to choose, what about the others?

                And this kind of thinking is always the root of the problem.

                Other people are idiots. I’m smart. Therefore, I make the decisions.

            4. Once upon a time, there was a Pertussis outbreak and new mommies forced grandparents to stay away until they got a DTaP booster.

              I can’t see why the non participants wouldn’t exercise the same discretion concerning participating loved ones… which is the only way a non participant would be in contact with participants.

        4. Oh, so close! The market solution is the best solution because it leaves it up to the individual to weigh the costs and the benefits of staying inside or venturing out into public. If businesses try to open up and their employees tell them to fuck off, they’re not coming into work until they feel safe, that business ain’t going to open back up. If they do open back up, nobody’s going to force customers to patronize the business, and, again, no customers, no business opening. You have to trust that people are smart enough to know what’s in their best interest to do.

          And there’s your two sides in this debate – those who trust that they know better than a bunch of government shitweasels how best to decide what’s in their own best interests and those who trust a wise and benevolent government of experts to know better than they themselves do what’s for their own good.

          For example – Nancy Pelosi sheltering in place with her ice cream she ordered online so she could stay safe from the hoi polluted with no thought at all that the people who made that ice cream and delivered that ice cream and no doubt stuck it in the freezer for her sure as hell weren’t self-quarantining because they can’t afford the luxury of lolling about the mansion nibbling on 12-dollar a pint ice cream out of an 11,000 dollar freezer. They’ve got to go to work to keep their 800 dollar refrigerators stocked with 5 dollar a pound bologna so their kids can eat. It’s easy enough for Nancy Pelosi to trust the government’s going to take care of her – it’s done a fan-fucking-tastic job of seeing she wants for nothing for the last 30 years, hasn’t it?

          1. If a business opens, and the employees refuse to work, they become ineligible for unemployment insurance. But also in a more general sense, many don’t have the economic option not to work.

            1. So you close everything and force them not to work.

              Genius!

            2. And maybe there might be a reasonable argument worth having where government expands unemployment benefits to people who lose their jobs because they are practicing quarantine.

              It’s a helluva lot better than what’s going on now.

            3. So your solution for those who can’t economically afford not to work, is to make sure they can’t work?

              1. Good demonstration of the socialist aim:
                “If some can’t work, we’ll force all not to work”
                “If some are poor, we’ll make everyone poor”
                “If some are homeless, everyone should be homeless”
                “If some are sick, everyone should be made sick”
                And so on

        5. “Markets work when the cost/benefit is borne by those who make the decisions, either be the buyer or the seller. In this case the cost is borne by those who get infected, and those who pay for those who get infected….”

          That is a truly amazing attempt at straw-grasping and a bit of legerdemain which would make a women’s cosmetic pitchman proud!

    2. Oops, that wasn’t supposed to be a reply to you. I do agree with your comment though. The only thing is I’d say most elites are more or less selfish to the point of solipsism. They just don’t understand the existence of others.

      1. Like I say above, it never occurs to them that it could be their duty to suffer for a greater good. Nope, it is always someone else who is supposed to suffer for a greater good that benefits the elite. Not understanding that others even exist is a good way to describe how they think.

        1. Like the Malthusians who believe that the earth’s population should be reduced to 500k people, they assume that obviously they’ll be among the 500k.

      2. As long as Nancy can get her ice cream, all is well.

    3. When the left says anyone who voted for Trump is voting against their own best interest they are essentially saying you are to stupid to know whats good for you. And they believe that completely. it is no longer they have their opinion and we have ours, no it is now they are to stupid and we need to tell you what to do even if it hurts you

      1. It is called having a “false consciousness”.

    4. Why do you think that you fully understand the point of view of the “Closers”, but that the Closers don’t fully understand your point of view?

      Perhaps their circumstances are the same as yours, they understand your point of view but just disagree with it.

      1. Because the closers are the ones calling anyone who questions them conspiracy theorists, Nazi’s and worse. And none of them ever acknowledge the fact that the cost of doing this might outweigh whatever benefits.

        1. Many of them are conspiracy theorists though. Many of the commenters here are conspiracy theorists as well. Look no further than our very own LC1789 and Geraje.

          Doesn’t it give you guys a little pause when the “5g and corona is a big conspiracy to get the government to put microchips in a forced vaccine” crowd share the same policy positions and voting habits as you?

          1. No more than it should give you pause that the “cell phone towers killed honeybees” and “anti-vaxxers” crowd share the same policy positions and voting habits as you. There are lunatic fringes in both parties. Characterizing the entire body based on the lunatic fringe is a logical fallacy whichever way your doing it.

          2. Considering that there are only two major parties, voters can either associate with Alex Jones types or AOC types.

            Which is worse?

            When all the options are bad, vote for liberty. It’s the American way.

            1. The one with a history of policies that end up with people lined up against a wall.

              JFC…

          3. Nobody here as ever said anything about 5g or microchips in forced vaccines.
            Great imaginary examples though

          4. Now you’re pulling a sarcasmic and straight lying about people.

          5. “Many of them are conspiracy theorists though. Many of the commenters here are conspiracy theorists as well. Look no further than our very own LC1789 and Geraje…”

            Ya know, it’s possible that one or the other might be a ‘conspiracy theorist’, but it’s yet to be shown. You claiming so absent evidence have once again proves
            You.
            Are.
            Full.
            Of.
            Shit.

            1. Geraje claimed that they are faking the death numbers in NYC because he stood around in front of a hospital and it didn’t even seem busy.

              1. No, he claimed they are inaccurately recording the cause of death when it is unconfirmed if the deceased even had the covid, let alone what was the actual cause of death

                1. Stop or he’ll accuse you of arguing semantics. He is the only one here who understands science.

              2. You do realize that there is evidence that there are inaccuracies in the number? In fact you can go to the CDC site and they even admit the numbers are estimated. Pointing this out isn’t the same as saying they are taking. It is quite possible that they are overcounting (I’ve also seen many on the left and those who opposed lifting the restrictions argue they are undercounting).

              3. You’re a special breed of fucking stupid, aren’t you?

        2. Because the closers are the ones calling anyone who questions them conspiracy theorists, Nazi’s and worse.

          Have you read some of the comments around here about what the Openers think about the Closers?

          1. That is because the openers aren’t trying to enforce their will but believe in allowing people to make their own decisions. The closers however, are using the force of the state to make everyone comply with their viewpoint.

          2. It’s freedom vs tyranny.

          3. Quote some then bitch.

          4. We call you an ignorant scared baby. But we arent forcing you to go out into the public. You on the other hand want to restrict me from going to the public. Your side alone is attempting to force a behavior change.

      2. Why do you think that you fully understand the point of view of the “Closers”, but that the Closers don’t fully understand your point of view?

        Because the ‘Closers’ are afraid and we are not. Panic drives out logic and reason.

        1. E.g. gun control. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that many of the closers are also the same people who think my owning a gun is dangerous to them.

          1. Don’t forget global warming that will end the earth in 11.5 years.

            1. And if not by then, well, ten year later than that.
              I knew a woman raised in a ‘world’s ending by XX/XX!’ household. I asked her what they do when it doesn’t end?
              She said ‘They pick another date’.

              1. Just like the 7th Day Adventists

                1. I dated a Jehovah Witness once and I asked her if only 50,000 people are going to Heaven why are you trying to recruit more people to your religion, doesn’t that decease your chances of getting into Heaven?

                  1. The increased competition is going to make those 50k even more heaven-y-er

  6. Cool, now do immigration.

    1. +1000.

      Funny how Reason suddenly becomes so understanding to the side choosing security over economic freedom when the side doing it are their peers. I have said for a long time that one of the biggest drivers behind the reason staff’s position on things is class allegiance. This article is a good example of that.

      1. The class divide is real.

      2. one of the biggest drivers behind the reason staff’s position on things is class allegiance

        + 1000

        also see: Kavanaugh hearings

      3. They are staunch members of the subsidizes class, and they do their bidding

        1. *subsidized

    2. El Chapo knows more about the free market than you! He’s providing protection with his private security services and access to wonderful hallucinogens, stimulants, and narcotics.

      1. Did you take a marijuana or something?

        1. It was a blue pill but my dick isn’t hard, yet….

  7. Both Closers and Openers, though, have a combination of reasons, theories, guesses, and value judgments of a sort many sane people have always made, that make their respective positions make sense to them.

    And only one of those two is in favor of using the government to force everyone to follow their reasons, theories, guesses and value judgments. Fuck the Oxford comma.

    Now please go help your Uncle Jack off the horse.

    1. Not force just “strong suggestions at gunpoint” like it was explained to us.

  8. I guess we’ll see how dedicated everybody is to this “close down all the things” mentality shortly, when Ramadan starts and the faithful are forbidden to gather in the mosques. Or not. Saudi Arabia has cancelled the Hajj, are the same people who tried to cancel Easter services for the kaffir here going to try that shit with the adherents of the RoP?

  9. I know this is anecdotal and I’d like to see some polls on it to see how large a subset might exist, but I’ve met quite a few “closers” who don’t even bother to get their flu shots and some of them have even stated that if there’s a COVID vaccination, they won’t get that either. What in the hell are these people wanting then, for the shutdown to accomplish, and what’s the point of “science” if they’re not going to use it?

    1. Virtue signaling.

      They want to virtue signal.

      1. That, and the thrill of vicarious power

    2. Anyone, who denies that the majority of the shut-it-down crowd and the panic-inducers in the media wanted anything but the removal of Trump, is either lying or deluded.
      The shutdown was to weaken the economy, that everyone said was Trump’s biggest reason for getting re-elected.

  10. There are two types of people in this world. The type who wants to be left alone and the type who won’t leave people alone.

  11. I’m an “opener” and I’m an RN. The narrative is wrong. We have the elderly with one foot in the grave dying over this. The rest is hogwash. I’m tired of hearing dogma parading as “science” and ANYBODY telling me that this anything but virus as usual with a faster spread rate. And I certainly won’t listen to it from political pundits, political health organizations funded by multinational corporations and fake media. The curve has been flat: the ICU beds are empty. This is a nursing home issue. Lock those down. F the the rest of your stupid arguments.

    1. [slow clap]

      Direct from the front lines. This virus has been weaponized by the Closers.

      1. It’s been weaponized by the anti-Trumpers.

    2. It is interesting that your views seem to contradict most of the medical profession. Why do you think you are right and they are wrong. Is just multinational company and fake media or do you have data,

      1. All the data supports April’s position, in addition to her first hand experience and far greater knowledge than you have

        1. “All the data support April’s position”

          What data is that? Same question I had for April. If you disagree with the medical professional, tell me why?

          1. Support your claim or STFU, closer.

            1. I am not making a claim. I am asking someone to provide data for their position. I know the rates of infection and death, I know that actions taken to date have slowed the infection rate, and I know that the Trump Administration have put a plan forward to get the economy open. If an alternate plan is proposed, what is it and what data supports it. Simple question, just looking for an answer.

              1. Actually it is pure conjecture that the lockdowns have had any positive impact. Rates of infection and deaths are actually lower in a number of states that didn’t mandate lockdowns. So if they are the control, then it would appear that there is no statistical difference between lockdown and non lockdown. Hell, Sweden and other countries have similar rates to countries with strict protocols. Again this would argue that there is no difference.

      2. No it doesn’t. There are a number of epidemiologist who agree with him. And the number is growing.

  12. The only reason we are seeing a flatting of the curve and less deaths then originally modeled is that we took the drastic precautions that we did. The models were not wrong, they were just based on the saturation and data as it was then. Opening up the economy will lead to many more deaths and an overwhelmed health care system. No part of the county will be spared. There is no magic that will protect certain areas over others. Rural areas will be hit less, but those also have the worst hospitals. It is a common expression that you do not put your umbrella away in the rain just because you are not getting wet.

    1. The only reason we are seeing a flatting of the curve and less deaths then originally modeled is that we took the drastic precautions that we did.

      You are ignorant and should not be using words that you do not understand.

      The curve refers to infections over time. The number of deaths does not change when the curve is flattened, they simply happen over a longer period of time. ‘Precautions’ change nothing except in the case that the healthcare system is overwhelmed and people who could survive given treatment fail to get treatment.

      The models were wrong, wrong wrong. Why would they be revised if they were right?

      Everything else you said is also wrong, but you bore me with your complete ignorance. Are you related to Kirkland, perchance?

      1. Your exception swallows your point. If we had unchecked infections then it would overwhelm the hospitals, just like in Italy.

        The models were based on the current situation, taking into account the social distancing that was in place at the time and projecting what would happen if nothing was changed. But we put in more restrictions and thus the models need to be updated to take that into account. Also we have better data on infection probabilities, asymptomatic rates, and others, which would lead to better simulations. But had we done nothing different, the projections would have been fine. If you do an automobile accident simulation for 75 mph, and then drive at 55 mph and get into a crash and it was not as bad as predicted, it does not mean the simulation was wrong.

        1. The models were based on the current situation

          You are lying fucking revisionist. Holy shit, you are such a liar. The French got one thing right during the Great Fear. They cut off the heads of assholes like you.

        2. I don’t think you get it
          A majority of us are gonna get this over the next several years and there is nothing that can be done to prevent that.

          All we can do is keep the rate of new infections slow enough to not overwhelm hospitals so that non virus patients don’t die and/or so that virus patients that need help to recover but can don’t die for lack of available care.

          In most places we’ve been too effective at this.

          Open the economy doesn’t mean everybody go to work and start licking the doorknobs and spitting on each others food. It means go back to work smartly.

        3. This is why we can’t have nice things. Too many dummies.

        4. “…If you do an automobile accident simulation for 75 mph, and then drive at 55 mph and get into a crash and it was not as bad as predicted, it does not mean the simulation was wrong.”

          Stupid or dishonest?
          If you lock people up because you think they they might go 75 and have an accident, you’d be closer to what’s happening.
          And equally WRONG.

        5. “Your exception swallows your point. If we had unchecked infections then it would overwhelm the hospitals, just like in Italy.”

          Italy was not overwhelmed by COVID. It was under-staffed by socialism. Go look at how Italy did in previous years- just last year they were overwhelmed by a bad Flu season. Simply put, they were going to be overwhelmed no matter what.

          “The models were based on the current situation, taking into account the social distancing that was in place at the time and projecting what would happen if nothing was changed”

          This is complete and utter crap. You can see MULTIPLE examples of how wrong this is. The covidactnow site was using these models to get states to shut down. Based on that, they modeled how many deaths and hospitalizations there would be under scenarios of social distancing and lockdown. And you could compare those rates to real life, and see that they were off on hospitalizations by factors of 5 – 10. That doesn’t stop people like you from insisting everything was correct of course.

    2. And yet, we have lots of data emerging from jurisdictions which did not implement drastic precautions and even more data from jurisdictions which implemented varying levels of precautions. Contrary to the models’ predictions, the statistical rates of death are not well correlated to the degree of lockdown implemented. The trend of Sweden’s death-rate over time is nearly identical to the trend of the US death-rate despite radically different policies and restrictions.

      If the restrictions were effective, we should expect to see a dose-response pattern in the data. No such pattern has yet shown up at any level of the analysis.

        1. Do Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota which implemented very few restrictions.

        2. Also, this is rate of mortality, which has questionable at best implications for total mortality. See the above about flattening the curve. Sweden may be experiencing a sharp spike in the rate but there is no evidence that this will result in more deaths over the long term. In fact epidemiology forecasts that the faster rate of deaths generally limit fatalities. The more deadly, and the faster people succumb, the less chance that the pathogen can transfer to others.

        3. Yoyr article does not in fact show that Sweden has been a disaster.

          1. “I’m a scientist, I only trust data and the data says we are heading for catastrophe,” Dr Naucler said. “We are now part of an experiment without informed consent.”

            Sweden appears to be getting hit hard.

            1. Not really. Even their numbers are modest.

              Your quote doesnt go any further twoars proving your socks point at all.

              Meanwhile they definitely did not light their freedoms on fire for a minor benefit.

              The opposite of a disaster.

                1. Looks modest to me.

                  So again. Modest. As fuck.

                  There’s a reason you keep insisting, using subjective language, and not posting numbers. Because the numbers would prove me right.

                  1. 1400 deaths in a population of 10 million.

                    Please keep stupidly trying to convince people to shit their pants over that modest number.

                    1. 0.014%. Someone is acting stupid here.

                    2. Yes, that’s a very modest number.

                      So, I really don’t know why you are acting stupid about it, but I take your word for it.

                    3. The only thing that makes sense is that you’re too oblivious to see that you’re not replying to Molly, because I”M NOT MOLLY, and that I’m making the point that 1400 IS A MODEST NUMBER despite me repeating it constantly.

                      Seriously, try reading WHO and what you’re replying to. You’re very confused.

                2. Holy shit. This is called cherry picking. You compare Sweden solely to 2 other countries and ignore every country. You dont list put foreign migration patterns between the countries.

                  NYC has half of the fucking deaths. So now claim NYC officials are Hitler compared to Wyoming.

                  1. “So now claim NYC officials are Hitler compared to Wyoming.”

                    I mean…

                3. “Again, not modest.”

                  A bit over 1/100th of 1% is modest in the extreme. Cowardly pieces of shit might find it otherwise, right?

        4. “Sweden has been a disaster, and what they should be a model of what not to do.”

          You are absolutely incorrect.

          Sweden has a death rate right now of about 170 per million. Roughly double their 2018 flu season. That is NOT a disaster.

          Italy is worse. UK is worse. The US is only slightly behind at 134 deaths per million.

          And calling any of these “disasters” is the type of hyperbole that should be reserved for deep south preachers screaming about hellfire and brimstone. Even in SPAIN, for every 500 dead, there are 999,500 people alive. That is not a DISASTER.

          1. It’s a disaster to cowardly pieces of shit who can use it as an excuse to tell the rest of us what to do.

          2. “reserved for deep south preachers screaming about hellfire and brimstone”

            Don’t hate on the south, they were doing it in New England long before anybody else

            1. People seem to forget the Puritans settled New England and exactly how strict they were. Still are in some ways.

              1. You seem to forget who the fuck you’re replying.

    3. The models may be wrong because the number of asymptomatic who never show meaningful symptoms is far more than previously believed. It now looks like the Infection Fatality Rate is no higher than 0.5%, and could be even half that. Sure, that is much higher than seasonal flu (which is 0.02%), but is a lot more tolerable than the numbers indicated by case fatality rates. If the IFR is 0.5%, then the death toll should be about 1.5M max.

      1. That seasonal death rate is based on estimates of how many contract the disease.
        By actual confirmed cases of seasonal flu versus deaths from it, you’re looking at 10%.
        That’s how they calculate the death rate figure from the Kung Flu.

    4. “The only reason we are seeing a flatting of the curve and less deaths then originally modeled is that we took the drastic precautions that we did.”

      Yeah, and did I tell you about the rock I have which keeps the tigers away?

    5. The models presumed social distancing from the get go you ignorant fuck.

  13. lost me at the CNN poll bit. trusting CNN to poll anything Trump is more than a bit naive. and let’s be honest. real social distancing isn’t happening unless you are the boy in the bubble. there is too much money in the water to believe any of these political sharks as well! so yeah let’s get on with it and get back to what we always do. our best.

    1. CNN samples represent a random population from Berkeley, San Francisco, Boston, and for a mid-west perspective, Madison, WI>

  14. I believe in sanctity of life and we must strive to protect all life, even at the cost of individual rights. Oh what? These people are not fetuses? Never mind then, personal freedom trumps life. Personal freedom wins, economics wins, if people get sick and die then they died for freedom.

    1. a fallacy should be named after you for this.

      1. No need. It is called the “False analogy” fallacy. But everyone else was making dumb ass political comments and I wanted to join in too.

        1. Yeah, but you have combined the false analogy with gaslighting. There is a special place in Hell for your type.

          1. No, gaslighting is when you convince someone that the facts that they see are wrong, and possibly leading them to believe that they are not sane (think “There are four lights”}. I did a classic false analogy.

            1. You also lied about Sweden being a disaster.

              1. Read the article, they not doing well at all.

                1. I did. They’re doing fine. What now bitch?

                  1. 1400 deaths in a population of 10 million.

                    Please keep stupidly trying to convince people to shit their pants over that modest number.

                    1. Just a bit above 1/100th of 1%.
                      Scares shit out of cowardly pieces of shit.

                    2. Did you do the calculation? Because Sevo is right. It is 0.014% of the population.

                    3. Calcs weren’t necessary, just move the decimal point and it immediately becomes obvious.
                      (old fart slipstick users got used to hustling that decimal point back and forth)

                    4. No, calculations aren’t necessary for most people but for someone claiming 1400 deaths in a population over 10,000,000, it is obvious basic math is a weakness.

                    5. What the fuck are you talking about? Did you think you were replying to Molly?

                      You don’t appear to have noticed who you replied to or that your reply wasn’t necessary.

                    6. Yes, I knew exactly to whom I was replying; I was agreeing with you and trying to put it into more commonly understood numbers.
                      What the fuck are YOU talking about?

                    7. C’mon guys – save that energy for the closers

                    8. Heavy duty will come for everyone. I found interesting information about Covid-19 here https://cotozachoroba.pl/

                    9. No Sevo, not you, the other guy. You comment was perfectly clear, and thank you.

                      Did you do the calculation? Because Sevo is right. It is 0.014% of the population.

                      No, calculations aren’t necessary for most people but for someone claiming 1400 deaths in a population over 10,000,000, it is obvious basic math is a weakness.

                      Those two comments from the other guy don’t make any sense, even if he was replying to Molly, but especially since he was replying to me.

                    10. Pointing out 0.014 % is not that big a problem makes perfect sense, especially to Molly who is saying Sweden is being hard hit.

                    11. Pointing out 0.014 % is not that big a problem makes perfect sense

                      Which is why I DID IT.

                      That doesn’t explain why YOU REPLIED TO ME WITH IT.

                      especially to Molly who is saying Sweden is being hard hit.

                      Except YOU DIDN’T REPLY TO MOLLY DUMBASS.

                    12. Since you decided to double down on retard I’m gonna make fun of you

                      “No, calculations aren’t necessary for most people but for someone claiming 1400 deaths in a population over 10,000,000, it is obvious basic math is a weakness.”

                      That smug condescension is rich especially since you’re too fucking stupid to bother reading who you’re replying to so you get the right person.

                      “Did you do the calculation? Because Sevo is right. It is 0.014% of the population.”

                      And THAT smug condescension is rich especially since you’re too fucking stupid to bother reading who you’re replying to so you get the right peraon AND NO ONE SAID SEVO WAS WRONG.

                      You fucking moron.

                    13. Oh gee, someone lecturing a person who made a simple mistake (I admit I misunderstood your point and I was replying that my statement is valid to Molly’s original post not yours not doubling down pointing out that you were wrong to say it doesn’t even make sense in reply to Molly) about smugness. Can you understand irony. Also, for someone getting all butthurt over someone misconstruing their comment, you do an awful good job of that yourself in your list whiny post.

                  2. once again going through every single comment on this thread and reporting every single one where you are attacking people with foul language. Will be doing so every single day on every single article where you comment until your account is revoked. Watch how persistent I am.

                    1. “…once again going through every single comment on this thread and reporting every single one where you are attacking people with foul language…”

                      Fucking ignoramuses should at least suggest to whom they are replying.
                      If it’s to me, ha and ha. Flag away asshole.

    2. MollyGodiva
      April.21.2020 at 5:18 pm
      “I believe in sanctity of life and we must strive to protect all life, even at the cost of individual rights…”

      Fuck off, slaver.

    3. Part of the sanctity of life is honoring personal liberty and not enforcing your will on others.

      1. Part of commenting and not looking like a fucking retard is replying to the right person.

        1. Part of being human is forgiving people for making mistakes.

    4. If you believe in the sanctity of life, you must be against abortion.
      Each “fetus” aborted is a life, separate in DNA, blood type and many other characteristics, from that of the mother.
      He, or she, is not the mother’s body, but a separate life.

  15. >> Such Americans think the economy needs to stay shut down by law until a vaccine or some effective treatment is developed that ensures no more, or a very tiny number of, people will be seriously harmed or killed by COVID-19.

    I have a friend who literally believes that. He has gone outside ONCE in the past month, and thinks it’s foodhardy that I actually leave to go grocery shopping or to take a walk around the block. This person has no job. This person has no savings. He is deathly afraid that he will die of COVID-19. He heard it is more dangerous to older folk, and he is 55 so he thinks he will die if he catches it.

    I don’t understand how these people think.

    1. Your friend needs a dog.

    2. Do they live in NYC and socialist/secularist? Maybe works for a non-profit? Woke..drinks soy?

  16. Thank you. This is helpful. Sharing widely.

  17. I am not going to be scared to death of a virus that has at most a 0.5% infection fatality rate. I’m just not. Open things up. To cut down infection, require masks. But open things up.

  18. Theres so much wrong here but its not worth commenting. But seriously, “ignorant of science”. Go fuck yourself.

  19. This is NOT a political argument. It is a statistical argument. Here are the major causes of death for NYC:
    Hypertension: 2,614 deaths (54.9 percent of total)
    Diabetes: 1,755 deaths (36.9 percent)
    Hyperlipidemia: 872 deaths (18.3 percent)
    Coronary artery disease: 590 deaths (12.4 percent)
    Renal disease: 528 deaths (11.1 percent)
    Dementia: 421 deaths (8.8 percent)
    COPD: 410 deaths (8.6 percent)
    Cancer: 401 deaths (8.4 percent)
    Congestive heart failure: 337 deaths (7.1 percent)
    Atrial fibrillation: 336 deaths (7.1 percent)
    If you are in the top 4 risk patterns and are between 60-90 years old, you have to wear masks wherever you go and use gloves. Try to get tested for the antibodies when you can. 90% of deaths are between 60-90 years. If you are in that risk group you might still consider staying home until it gets hot in the Summer.

    If you have hypertension, GET IT treated. Your life may depend on it.

    EVERYONE ELSE CAN GO BACK TO WORK. FORGET MASKS AND GLOVES. THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY.

    Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
    Retired surgeon

    We don’t have to

    1. All those add to 8,300 deaths. Covid in NWC is already over 10,000. And we know that those in low risk groups can easily spread it to those in high risk groups.

      1. No one cares bitch grow a spine.

      2. How can they easily transfer it if the high risk group takes precautions? Which is what we are suggesting. The at risk group take precautions to make themselves safer and everyone else just use basic hygiene and common sense. This isn’t some magical virus. It is droplet spread. Basic precautions is all that are needed for most people. And the at risk people can either self isolate or use more advanced precautions if and when they go out in public.

      3. “Covid in NWC is already over 10,000. And we know that those in low risk groups can easily spread it to those in high risk groups.”

        Good.
        Lock up NYC forever.
        Now take your thugs and fuck off.

      4. The death rate for people over 70 every year is 13%. Covids death rate for people over 70 is 13%. The april death numbers for the group are actually lower than last year’s numbers for april, so far. There is no statistical total death increase due to covid. Covid is not killing people who were going to live forever. It is killing people who were at high risk to die anyways.

      5. Sorry my dear but you don’t have a leg to stand on. For starters 40% of the cases in New York are “assumed” covid. We actually don’t know. It’s also significant that the yearly flu is also down 4000% to the same time last year so it’s likely a good portion of those assumed to have covid had nothing more than the flu. So the numbers coming out of New York are not accurate regardless. We also don’t know that those in low risk groups can spread to high risk groups. We don’t know that at all and neither do you. That’s speculation at best. As of right now we know very little except this. Every single prediction made my the “experts” has been off. Not a little but so far off that there is no credibility behind the science. We know that the CDC instructed physicians to attribute as many deaths to covid as possible even if they had no proof covid was the source. We know that Fauci got up on the podium and lied to the American people and said the CDC never gave those guidelines in spite of two physicians coming forward about it as well as my being present in the webinar and seeing the actual directive with my own eyes. After Fauci denied it was happening Birx (who clearly wasn’t comfortable lying) got up and then tried to rationalize why the CDC gave that directive immediately after Fauci denied that it occurred. Then the CDC had another webinar and back peddled on that to cover for Fauci lying. These things happened.

        The other factors that involve New York is that it has nearly double the population of Los Angeles and double the amount of people that take public transportation. So there are many factors that are unique to New York that don’t occur anywhere else so let’s stop referencing that mess there.

  20. The “open” protests are Astro turf
    The .001% owners of America are happy to trade deaths for new yachts
    Evidence
    Stats
    Logic

    1. Yes, because all small business owners, out of work middle class etc can afford to buy a yacht. Can you be any more of an out of touch elitist caricature?

    2. And for the most part the ones I see making commercials supporting the lockdown, pushing the lockdown on social media (and using their social media companies to push the lockdowns) are the 0.001% who can afford to buy yachts. It is the middle class that are being hurt that are the ones doing the protests.

      1. “It’s astroturfing for people to organize protests on Facebook, but it’s completely legitimate when celebrities are paid to do lockdown promos as if they represent the will of the people”

    3. a typical liberal. incapable of critical thinking. Let’s start with the correlating suicide rates with unemployment. The rise in unemployment and correlating suicide rate alone could match or exceed the coronavirus deaths. The number of people who lose their health insurance, start drinking or using drugs also have to factored in. The evidence and stats show that shutting down the country had nearly no effect on slowing the spread of the virus if any. Social distancing differences between states shows zero impact on the rise in viruses. Sorry about those facts. That’s also not including the fact that we’ve never shut down the country before for any pandemic including the one in the 50’s that we had 3 months warning of it coming and eventually killed 3 times more people than coronavirus at this time. So your lack of being able to see the big picture means that you really should shut up and stick to pop up books which are likely more suited to your intellectual limitations. More people will likely die from the economic collapse than the coronavirus you idiot.

  21. I’m worried about being asymptomatic and passing the disease on to someone who is more susceptible so I definitely haven’t left my house in a month. I also can WFH and have enough money to get my groceries delivered.

    The true libertarian solution here would be to sue someone else for getting them sick and prove it beyond some applicable standard in court. I kind of wish that would be the case so people would be smarter about their own movement by choice rather than by government mandate.

    1. You are free to continue to do so. Most people cannot do those things, and should not be forced to try to do those things.

    2. “…I definitely haven’t left my house in a month…”
      Goodie for you.

      “The true libertarian solution here would be to sue someone else for getting them sick…”
      So you’re going to spend your life trying to see from whom YOU CAUGHT something?
      Goodie for you.

    3. “The true libertarian solution here would be to sue someone else for getting them sick and prove it beyond some applicable standard in court.”

      No, the true libertarian solution is to understand that no one should be burdened with the responsibility to protect you from Nature. If I am your neighbor, I am not responsible for walling off my property to protect you from the wolves that might cross that property. If I do anything to prevent that natural occurrence, it is a boon to you, not a requirement.

      Certainly, a person who is knowingly infected is responsible for containing the disease and not acting irresponsibly. But they are not responsible for staying home in the off chance that they are asymptomatic and shedding the virus without their knowledge.

    4. If you think you can prove someone infected you with SARS-COV-2, you’re retarded. You can’t prove it, and you sure as hell will never be able to prove it in court.

      Did you even think about that for more than a split fucking second?

      1. “Man jailed for life after deliberately infecting men with HIV” I guess he was able to prove this is the person that gave him HIV. Likewise there are too many cases where the same could be proven with the corona virus. I was going to explain some of the scenarios where it would actually be very easy to prove but instead I will take the high road and leave you with this. If you want to publicly correct someone about being wrong, calling them retarded,etc, You should make sure that you aren’t making a complete fool of yourself as you did here. You might want to ponder that before you make yourself look like a fucking moron again to anyone with an iq over 40. Got it you smug condescending child.

        1. ““Man jailed for life after deliberately infecting men with HIV” I guess he was able to prove this is the person that gave him HIV…”

          Yes, you pathetic piece of ignorant shit, HIV is JUST LIKE the flu.

  22. Why is no one talking about the legal issue that the Constitution does not permit abrogating the Bill of Rights for a pandemic?

    1. The most egregious thing is the closure of churches/synagogues/mosque’s etc by mandate like in Kentucky or Missouri. If people can social distance at liquor stores and weed shops which are still open then they can do it at their houses of worship. Government picking winners and losers.

    2. “Because people are dying, and it’s a pandemic. Duh! The Constitution has various, implicit exceptions, but the most obvious is that the Constitution doesn’t mean dick if I’m sufficiently scared of something.

      And, if we’re all dead, what good is the Constitution?”

      – Every Leftist Retard, with unflinching conviction

      1. another moronic comment. from the moron.

  23. There are sides?

    1. There should not be “sides” to this, reasonable disagreements yes, but not sides. It is insane that there are. But Trump has been politicizing this from the beginning.

      1. You hate that your side lost this is all.

      2. Trump Donkeys have been politicizing this from the beginning.

        FiFY

        1. The Ds are terrified that this both ‘goes away’ as an issue, and that Trump somehow ends up jump-starting the economic disaster caused by the shut-down prior to the second Tuesday in November.

      3. “There should not be “sides” to this, reasonable disagreements yes, but not sides.”

        Yes, no one should be using a gun to force any one to do anything.
        Now, take your thugs with you and fuck off.

      4. Are you serious? its obvious the goalposts are being pushed out to defeat Trump..and the bolshevik media is working with the dems..

      5. Yes, Molly, whether we turn our country into a fascist dicatorship over the flu or not is indeed a political question, and one where your side doesn’t just get to steamroll the country with your preferences.

      6. no sweetheart it’s not Trump that has politicized this. It’s cocksuckers like yourself.

  24. First what is the area under the curve? Flatten and wide versus thin and higher amplitude? See the point. The area is most likely the same?

    How many people have been tested? What is the hospitalization rate? I keep looking for how many people are in the hospital for this. 800K have it in the US according to CDC..were they all tested? Is this based on a sample? Basic data is not being shared and that is very worrying. Politicians are rock stars in the media and are spending like drunk sailors and are basking in their power and adulation..they don’t want this to end….

    1. I’ve been assured by reason commentators that testing is not required.

      1. No, you’ve been told that testing, while providing data, is of limited value. Multiple times. By me. Keep disingenuously starting what we’ve said about testing.

  25. I have a question. Who’s acting more like a whiny bitch? People like me that have their affairs in order and are perfectly content to jerk off and occasionally fuck the wife at home or the people screaming and spitting “GIVE ME LIBERTY!!” at a public park amongst the homeless in the middle of a pandemic?

    1. American Socialist
      April.21.2020 at 8:57 pm
      “I have a question. Who’s acting more like a whiny bitch?…”

      I have an answer in the form of another question, shitbag:
      Who’s using a gun to force others to do something?
      And nobody gives a shit about a deadbeat who ‘has his affairs in order’; that jut means you’ve figured out how to screw someone else wh was stupid enough to trust a lefty shitbag.

    2. Were the guys throwing tea in the harbor “whiny bitches”?

    3. The title of “biggest whiny bitch” goes to endurance.

      Hence, your long history as a whiny bitch puts you over the top.

    4. People like you.

    5. Now do the small business owners and the 15+ million who have lost their jobs. Gee, it doesn’t come of so whiny when you have to actually face the victims of your stupidity.

      1. “But my cousin’s best friend literally died from the virus, and that means your rights don’t exist and your life is not a consideration….”

    6. I have a question. Who’s acting more like a whiny bitch? People like me that have their affairs in order

      And by that you mean that you live off the government’s teat; of course, you don’t have anything to worry about. All you ever think about is sex, drugs, and food: you pretty much told us that.

      People who work in real jobs, have real business, or have real lives rightfully resent being told to stay home.

    7. American Socialist
      April.21.2020 at 8:57 pm
      “Give me liberty! (unless it means I might catch cold..)”
      Got it, you pathetic piece of cowardly shit.

    8. What some people today would sound like in 1776:
      “I’m tired of hearing people whine about the British quartering troops in our homes. What’s the big deal? It’s just an annoyance and is for our own safety. Those against British measures are putting lives at risk!”

  26. “Closers” are either statists or stupid.. or both.

  27. Perspective, seasonal flu:
    “…In total, the CDC estimates that up to 42.9 million people got sick during the 2018-2019 flu season, 647,000 people were hospitalized and 61,200 died. That’s fairly on par with a typical season, and well below the CDC’s 2017-2018 estimates of 48.8 million illnesses, 959,000 hospitalizations and 79,400 deaths…”
    https://time.com/5610878/2018-2019-flu-season/

    Mind you, those are diseases for which we assume to have a vaccine, unlike this one.
    So which ‘biggest whiney bitch’ is going to tell us how horrible this flu is?

  28. Staying home doesn’t make it go away. When they emerge the virus will still be out there.

    1. Exactly! It is zoonotic, which means it has animal hosts. It can infect bats, cervids, and cars, including domestic cats. I would not be surprised if it could also infect other mammals such as rodents and canines. And quite possibly other primates. Since it can cross to and from other mammals and humans we can’t eliminate it. Ever.

      1. Correct. This variant emerged in China. The next variant could easily evolve, and emerge, here in USA. It’s not the Wuhan virus any more.

        1. An irrelevant comment; no surprise coming from a cowardly piece of lefty shit.

      2. “…Since it can cross to and from other mammals and humans we can’t eliminate it. Ever.”

        Suggest “The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life”, Quammen.
        Eye-rolling in part, but a decent primer. Turns out virus have determined some decent amount of evolution, some quite beneficial.
        Like the quest to ‘stabilize’ the earth’s temperature range, the effort to eliminate it the virus is both likely futile and possibly harmful.
        Given my profession, I tend to see human control of other parts of nature to be beneficial, but overreach is always a possibility: Geo-engineering being one which causes me a bit of concern, especially if under control of a government.

      3. Aye

        (Looks at orange tabby cat, turkey sandwich, three of us here)

        Western theme in the background

        https://youtu.be/pLgJ7pk0X-s

        Wind blows in. Church bells ringing in the distance. One of us will make it out amigo.

  29. RE: “The war between Openers and Closers shouldn’t be seen as a fight between idiot death-worshippers and unnecessarily frightened tyrants.”

    Correct, it shouldn’t be seen that way. It should be seen as a fight between real people who are trying to limit the damage the virus is causing (on the one hand), and astroturf-posers who pretend, for a fee paid by actual would-be tyrants, to be idiot death-worshippers in order to make the real people look like frightened tyrants.

    1. No, cowardly piece of lefty shit, it should be seen as conflict between cowardly pieces of lefty shit who are willing to use the power of the government to imprison the population as opposed to those who are willing to accept responsibility for their actions.
      Did your mommy promise you you’d never get sick, cowardly piece of lefty shit? Is she still promising you that the boogey man won’t get you, cowardly piece of lefty shit?
      Are you ever going to grow up, cowardly piece of lefty shit, or just remain an infantile ego bereft of moral agency?
      Fuck off and die; the world will thank you.

    2. Correct, it shouldn’t be seen that way. It should be seen as a fight between real people who are trying to limit the damage the virus is causing (on the one hand),

      Yup, that’s pretty much what fascists believe: “limiting the damage” overrides all other concerns. That’s you, and that’s the Democrats: collectivism uber alles. Replace “virus” with “Jews”, and you literally have the Nazi position.

    3. The virus is not all that damaging.

      1. But the “limiting” measures have been devastating

  30. A lockdown to protect the vulnerable vs. protect the vulnerable without a lockdown. Since the virus is just a flu to healthy people < 60 years old and herd immunity will definitely occur. Normal life is best.

  31. Americans are divided about the best way to proceed from here,

    Americans are not divided about that at all; Americans are divided whether “the best way” is even a valid criterion. That is, progressives and socialists believe that there is such a thing as “the best way” and that it overrides all other considerations. Conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals believe that there is no “best way” and that we need to respect fundamental rights and let people live with the consequences of their personal decisions.

    But leave it to Reason writers not even to understand the basic libertarian position.

  32. I am old enough to remember when the lockdown was supposed to be only two weeks.

    I am old enough to remember hearing that these lockdowns would be extended to April 19th.

    1. ‘Flattening the curve’.

      When this piece of jargon came into the picture I knew we were screwed because now it’s become something else.

      Fuck you, we have to save every single life.

      Funny how all of a sudden everyone is a fricken humanist wanting to save every single life. I bet you most people who fall into this category are also climate change cultists who think humans are the problem for ‘earf’.

      Truth? In my lifetime and experience? No one ever gives a shit about two groups: The elderly and Veterans. Every single year we’re treated to stories of the atrocious conditions of old folks homes and how Vets have no services in BOTH my country of Canada (run by a bunch of cucks’n clowns paralyzed by their identity politics gulags) and the USA.

      But all of a sudden they care.

      Not saying we shouldn’t. Of course we have to throw everything we’ve got at caring for all. But shutting down an economy is preposterous to the point of complete irrationalism disproportionate to the problem.

      1. How much money is it worth to spend on saving a single life?

        1. All the money, as long as they keep printing it.

        2. We should shut down for 18 months and have the federal gov’t pay for everything, going deeper and deeper into debt — debt which will be owed by future generations — and which will be bought up by China, the country which created the pandemic in the first place. “If it saves one life.”

  33. That’s a long way to say ‘Pant shitters’ vs. ‘Non pant shitters’.

    I also see a whole lot of people enjoying their paid vacations screaming ‘muh shutdown’ all too glad to let others – those deplorables – take the hit for the team and sacrifice it all.

    And no one knows jack fucken shit about anything. The experts especially. From the get go we’ve let bad and confusing science define economic policy.

    The shutdown is a result of two things in North America: One, is incompetence and the fact our health bureaucracies are buried alive in a burrito of red tape and corruption. So whoever is the leader is bound to face this problem. Two, WHO and China lies. Had they not been their usual anti-humanist, commie, lying sack of shit selves and been fucken UPFRONT about it, we’d have a saner and calmer reaction perhaps.

    Which is where I add a third group: The sober-saners who kinda can do basic probabilities stats and are noticing some discrepancies in the messaging. This same group now have to watch retard celebrities raise money for an agency run by a former Marxist terrorist while mocking people who are protesting because they’re watching their lives fall apart. These same members of the ‘comfort class’ ain’t gonna be singing insufferable songs for the social fall out and unintended consequences (ie suicides, domestic violence, bankruptcies etc.). Not to mention their Fauci Bukkake fetish and placing health care workers as the new heroes du jour for doing their jobs. I surely respect and appreciate their long hours and dedication but this kinda comes with the territory, no?

    Leaders, also, should perhaps stop being cowards hiding behind medical bureaucrats to justify their obvious assault on civil liberties. People are gripped by fear now and the longer this goes, the harder it will be to get them to come out from under the bed. Doctors aren’t saints. They’re subjected to the very same laws of human nature as the rest of us. They push for the precautionary principle as a means to an end. We’re saying when does this end? When a vaccine is found? Good luck with that. When the cases go to zero? Again, bonne chance.

    These arbitrary day cut offs are a fool’s game and we’re all to glad to oblige.

    The cure IS already worse than the disease.

    35 million North Americans are out of work. If you think for one damn second this will be easy to rectify once we’re allowed by our masters (and this is the crux of the entire exercise: How we’re tolerating this soft tyranny based on fear) to go back to work, I’d argue you’re one can short of a six pack. It will take months and months if not years.

    We’ve ERADICATED wealth and prosperity that will never come back. You don’t make that stuff up by making your orphans work harder. It’s lost. And you’ve put people into further debt.

    Hello. McFly.

    1. “…We’ve ERADICATED wealth and prosperity that will never come back. You don’t make that stuff up by making your orphans work harder. It’s lost. And you’ve put people into further debt…”

      Yes.
      Wealth ruined now is never recovered; there is a time value to wealth.
      Shitbags like Hihn, JFree, Sarcasmic and the rest of the cowardly pieces of shit do not understand that, or are so terrified of getting sick, they simply do not care what harm they cause others.

      1. I have a close friend who was shut down. It’s a metal shop that requires high-skilled workers and welders. You don’t find those guys hanging around. They earn a serious living. His company employs 35 people at roughly an avg. of 8Ok CND. Decent to solid wages.

        Now, he doesn’t know if his company of 40 years will even be around because the suppliers may go under. That’s 35 families getting kicked in the head.

        I had to explain this to another friend, not seeing this big picture, who thought ‘they’ll be fine’. What planet are these people on?

        His quip this is necessary for ‘mankind’ and that he was angry I only focused on economics. I replied an economy IS mankind and there are real world unintended consequences of these measures.

    2. Of course, I could be wrong.

      If I am I will be the first to admit it.

      But.

      I’m cheering for Sweden. If they pull it off, it will (or at least it should) show how foolish we were.

      Plus Korea pulled it off without shutting down.

      Which reminds me of the great merchant empires of the Venetians (the Americans of their day when it comes to commerce) and Genoese. They were aware of infectious diseases and would quarantine ships for 40 days that came from places known for such diseases (they didn’t have to put up with shithead Democrats and Liberals screaming ‘racist’ like they did when it was suggested air travel from China and Iran be stopped). ‘Quaranta’ is 40 and is the root of the word ‘Quarantine’.

      Know what they didn’t do? Shut down life, the economy and commerce. Know what else they didn’t do? Quarantine healthy people.

      Now one can say ‘hey maybe they should have!” Perhaps. But they probably knew this was pure madness. Hence, they took simple precautions that we don’t even seem to want to enact for political correctness of some other crazy thing.

    3. It seems these lockdowns were not such a good idea.

      1. The anger and the stress alone confirms this. Stress alone kills more than anything out there.

        Imagine all the other fall outs. Be ready for an endless stream of ‘the bad side of shutdowns’ articles.

    4. Well said, rufus

  34. Sorry Brian but you’re wrong about this stuff in that we “openers” see that we don’t have the luxury of time to debate. We open the economy before it’s too late or… it’s too late. And why? Because there is no vaccine and there won’t be. As to the curve flattening stuff, we can do math; the area under curve remains the same. To math impaired this means you get the same misery, the same count of deaths, there’s no escape from that, and the only relevant question is: do you want to spread out the physical misery and economic ruin for *years* or do you want to put this on speed dial?

  35. A pretty fair article, though I believe that one ethical point is missed. To me, the question of whether to open or close is more akin to one of those ethical questions asking whether you would sacrifice one person’s life to save many others (the trolley problem). Saving people by closing will, in the end, cost lives if the shutdown continues too long, be it by suicide or lack of preventive medicine. In addition, the cost of closing is more than the lives lost. How different would the answers to the trolley problem be if each of the lives saved by the sacrifice of one came at a cost of a billion dollars, loss of freedom, destruction of people’s life worth, and lowered economic prosperity to a generation?

  36. Fundamental question: why are 10s of thousands enough deaths to panic over? The pandemic-that-wasn’t, 2009’s swine flu, killed more people than covid-19 has, by a factor of at least 3. There was no panic about swine flu in 2009.

    As far as I can tell, it’s the closers ignoring the actual science and the history of responses to pandemics. I mean: https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

    But ignore all that. Ignore disagreements in how lethal covid-19 is, and even the economic effects. Fundamental question: Where’s the dividing line between ‘panic’ and ‘no panic’ when it comes to a disease? If you can’t provide *an answer* for that question, you’re not thinking seriously about the problem. (And you need to be consistent – what would you have said in January of this year?) Because there can be no serious discussion if people don’t adapt consistent positions that can be confronted with evidence – hypotheses that can be disproven. Otherwise you just get a bunch of goalpost shifting, and we end up with people saying we should panic over seasonal flu, too, despite that being patently ridiculous. No one likes to be wrong, but if you want to be taken seriously, put your money where your mouth is and make a bet.

    1. Excellent points.

      Unfortunately, all you’re going to get is goalpost shifting because not shifting the goalposts would require an admission that one was wrong or, at the very least, that one balanced the benefits against the costs incorrectly, upon incomplete (and, inaccurate) data.

      The politicians will never admit to any errors outright, that much can be assured. And, even if they do, it will be in the context of blaming their decisions on an “overabundance of caution.”

      And those that supported the irrational overreactions from among the electorate? Easy. They’ll double down. They *will* insist that this pandemic has changed our lives *forever* and that we now understand that lockdowns are the morally required solution to every contagion.

      I’m sure you’ve heard it already from the lemmings.

      “Our lives will never be the same!”
      “We now have a novel, 21st century approach to illness!”
      “New standards for quarantines will redefine our entire understanding of modern healthcare.”

      The problem is you cannot talk an overconfident idiot out of their idiocy with reference to absurd conclusions or results. They will choose the absurdity. And that’ll be that.

  37. I don’t even see a rational argument here other the the left’s ally the fake news media attempting to use it for news.
    States that are heavy handed with one size fits all rules are going to get push back. Especially where governors did not let local government decide. In some states there are many counties with less then 10 cases. They should not be under the same draconian rules as counties with tens of thousands.
    Those that want their counties open to allow business to open are not a threat to anyone. Many are no longer following stay at home rules and have no need to. States that are allowing local governments to decide have much happier people.
    No one is suggesting cities and counties with high numbers should open.
    They are completing studies now with Anti-body tests that can tell if someone is actively fighting Covid 19 or if they have had it and now have anti-bodies. In California LA county after random testing they found the number of infected could be as high as 55 times the reported cases. That takes the death rate from 3 to 5% down to .1%. It seems the more they discover about this virus the more wrong they have been.

    1. Even NYC should open. There was never a meaningful lockdown in the first place.

      Grocery stores and restaurants? Open the entire time. Every type of delivery person, driver, transportation manager that is responsible for keeping the grocery stores and restaurants stocked? Still working. USPS? Still delivering. FedEx, Amazon, UPS? Still working. Everyone in healthcare? Still working.

      Subways? Still operating. Buses? Still operating.

      When you take all of the essential people, multiplied by all the continued use of public transportation, it doesn’t even seem reasonable to assume we are even reducing the rate of infection. I guess all the “essentials” never come home to their families? Don’t have common areas in their building? Don’t mingle at all?

      It’s a joke.

  38. The whole point, in my mind, is what was government’s role as spelled out in our Constitution.

  39. There seems to be a sort of inability on either side to recognize that we do not all lead the same lives. In California the northern third of counties are about equal in area to Scotland, and have the combined population of Fresno (or Sacramento or Long Beach, if you have never heard of Fresno). Controls needed for a place like LA or New York, where people are in close contact every day need not apply to a county where a big city has 25,000 people.
    Use some compassion and common sense when applying one size fits all rules.
    It has been suggested that if the stay at home rules are relaxed in the north, people from the south will stream north. If there are restrictions on motel and hotel rentals and the campgrounds stay closed, that means those people will be making a 600 mile day trip.

  40. Well, I was thinking, if you want the “closers” to turn into “openers” all you need is for the Internet to go down for a day or two.

  41. The war between Openers and Closers shouldn’t be seen as a fight between idiot death-worshippers and unnecessarily frightened tyrants.

    No, it’s a war between freedom and death-worhsipping, frightened tyrants. And given Reason’s progressive bona fides we know exactly where you fall.

  42. How do other libertarians compare government’s reaction to COVID-19 and their reaction to abortion?

    1. Seeing as how a baby would be either be a recipient of infection, a vector or both, this libertarian is highly amused by the deafening silence by the concerned experts regarding reproduction. Personally I’m not gonna tell one to not breed. And by extension I won’t ever use the specious “putting others at risk” argument that’s used to justify social distancing. I mean if it’s ok to expose a newborn to the possible horrors of this world (like this right?) then how is it wrong for the previously existing to expose one another to this? Seems like emotionalism and convert agendas have arrived at a crossroad.

  43. Nope. These are the two sides :
    The” liberal” authoritarians who say we got this and we’re saving lives so trust us. Oh and I’m smarter than you. My peers agree.
    And the critical thinkers who say no the fuck you’re not saving lives. People are dying, were dying before this shady event and will CONTINUE to die in large numbers from many things until we go extinct or unless China attempts to “cure” death which will seem to work until about the age of 200 when the person experiences the closest thing to an actual hell. So either you go to hell now or send me your paychecks/salary if you demand I stay home. In that case, you’d be a real hero, not a hero just because you play it by ear, learn on the job and possibly kill me BECAUSE of your treatment (high pressure ventilators) while engaging in a lot of self congratulatory emotionalism. I mean I know you think doing something is better than doing nothing but there is no arguing against the fact that the best thing is to wait until I ask for help. If I die, it should be because I overstepped not because you did. Don’t tell me to take it seriously when you don’t. This is the 21st century. Just as you instruct people to Livestream events, you should do the same. There is no reason we should not have real unedited “Frontline” coverage of anything these “news” sockpuppets merely say with words as they model for the camera. Show every detail of your “research” and tactics. If we can have drones watching us, the transparency should be mutual. Is Dr. Fauci working right now? Let’s see

  44. This boils down to a debate between science and pseudoscience. Right now, the politicians trying to enforce ever increasingly strict public control do not have science on their side. They are basing their authority on flawed data.

    Almost every day now we are seeing new studies that show this virus is not that deadly after all. There is no excuse to remain ignorant of that fact at this point. I think a lot of the same people promoting masks and extreme measures are the same people who are afraid of 5G. It’s all anti-science nonsense.

    1. Infection spreads promptly require differential equations just for the barest context. Then in real life complications make those ghastly enough to require brute-force modeling as a sort of replacement for math. None of what I see is reassuring in terms of folks having a handle on the inputs, or the outputs being helpful. Years ago nuclear energy was lynched as unsafe. But when compared to anything else, or to outages, it turned out the safest thing in the world–after it was too late.

  45. you missed a few-

    openers are angry at the moved goalposts. they were told reasons why we were closing and for how long and now they have changed.

    openers are angry that many of the restrictions make little sense and seem to have nothing to do with stopping the spread of the disease and veer into “you have to do what we say just because we say it, because this is an emergency.”

    closers, perplexingly, seem to not have any problem with either of the above ideas. they are aware of it and fully and openly embrace it.

  46. I find the basic premise of this article to be flawed. One cannot simply compare “closers” and “openers”, and imply they must understand one another. That premise is only valid if human life and money are of equal value to our society. When all of the posturing and disingenuous arguments are removed, each side is able to be boiled down to one salient idea. Closers believe human life is more important than economics. While openers believe their economic health is more important than the lives of others. What openers do not realize is that closers are also suffering economic hardship. They have mortgages/rents. They have just as many bills as closers. Despite those shared economic concerns, closers believe economic hardships are more easily endured than the loss of life that would inevitably happen if we opened everything back up.

    I have heard so many people talk about the “data” supporting their position. The problem is found in the fact that said data can be skewed to support any position. And since we have never before faced a microbe of this virulence, we cannot rely on past ideas or opinions to determine the current “data”. Fortunately for us, there is a place in the world to which we can look to see how each side has fared.

    The Nordic countries are very similar in lifestyle, mindset, tourism, travel, and industry. If we view that area as a microcosm, it perfectly illustrates the results of each position. Sweden has the looses nCoV restrictions. Finland has the tightest restrictions on travel and social distancing. Sweden has an infection rate of 1.6%, while Finland’s infection rate is .08% If we look at the mortality rate, the numbers are even more telling. Finland has a mortality rate of 4.0%, while Sweden’s is 12.0%.

    These are numbers paint a very real picture of the stark contrast between the position advocated by openers and that advocated by closers.

    1. “…When all of the posturing and disingenuous arguments are removed, each side is able to be boiled down to one salient idea. Closers believe human life is more important than economics. While openers believe their economic health is more important than the lives of others…”

      You are an ignoramus and
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.

    2. “These are numbers paint a very real picture of the stark contrast between the position advocated by openers and that advocated by closers.”

      No they don’t… The virus is either deadly or its not… and the mortality rate reflects the number of people who die per person infected. Social distancing might drive down the number of people infected, but it’s not going to affect the mortality rate. Again, either people are going to die from the virus or they’re not.

      When all is said and done, the mortality rate should be about the same in every country, only affected by things like the health of the population and the ability of the healthcare system to accommodate patients. So, countries with disproportionate amounts of elderly people or smokers might have a higher mortality rate, and countries whose hospitals are overwhelmed or didn’t have enough equipment to treat patients will also have a higher mortality rate. So Italy will end up with a particularly high mortality rate, because its suffered from both of these issues.

      Other than that, the figure will look different in different countries mainly because of statistical anomalies — difference in how the numbers get compiled. For example, a country that does less testing will look like it has a higher mortality rate, because the gap between the number of people infected and the number of people dying will look smaller. A country that has a wider definition for a covid-19 death will also look like it has a higher mortality rate.

      What you want to look at, instead, is the rate of increase in new cases. The rate of increase in new infections, or the rate of increase in new deaths; though the second number will probably be more reliable. If one country starts at +20% new cases, then goes down to +10% new cases, then goes down to +5% new cases; and another country starts at +20% new cases, then goes down to +10% new cases, then goes down to +5% new cases — they’re doing exactly just as well in containing the spread of the virus and flattening the curve.

      Consider that in uncontrolled circumstances, the spread of the virus should increase at the same rate until the population nears herd immunity. It should be +20% one day, +20% the next, then 20% the next.

      Guess what? Sweden has been bringing its numbers down and flattening the curve, and just as well or better than every other country. Its down to +1% to +2% cases, so is the United States. Another example is the Netherlands, which has also not shut down non-essential businesses. Its doing just as well.

      And why shouldn’t they be doing just as well? Why does it make sense that a business with one or two customers in it at a time has to be shut down to save lives, while a crowded Costco, Home Depot, or supermarket, can stay open? It doesn’t. Sweden is adopting social distancing guidelines just the same as every other country. Businesses there have line spacers, plexiglass at registers. People outside are wearing face masks. Crowds over 50 are banned. Counter service at restaurants are closed by force of law. They just aren’t making this stupid, arbitrary distinction over “essential” vs “non-essential.”

  47. Brian take note. There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide everyone into two kinds of people, and those who don’t.

  48. i make money extra pachup $17 k in a month .its really change my life. if you want change your your life. just now COPY THIS WEB…..► Read More

  49. I MAKE MORE THAN CASH$ IN MOTH.ITS REALLY CHANGE MY LIFE, IF YOU CLICK THIS WEBSITE …………JUST NOW ….open.site

  50. What this situation looks like to me is a doctor is describing a treatment option for a serious condition, as the patient repeatedly tries to tell the doctor how he can’t afford to be out of work during the recovery time. The doctor won’t listen to the patient because he’s already decided the patient’s health is more important and the patient can’t listen because he’s too stressed about not being able to earn a living.

    I think this is what frustrates people. When doctors are talking about lock downs until 2021 and 2022, and uses words like “inconvenience” to describe job losses. This can be taken as indifference on the side of the doctors.

    This idea that we can just have the government bail people out in order to continue the lock downs will have far reaching consequences. Including, but not limited to: increased inflation, and slower economic recovery.

  51. “And the “Openers” are so dedicated to keeping GDP growing and so ignorant of science they want to see hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Americans die of a hideous disease because they don’t understand how contagion works.”

    It’s been my experience that the “closers” are the ones who don’t understand.

    They don’t understand that this was never about “saving lives.” If a person who was going to get COVID in March gets it in May, his life was not saved, regardless of the outcome. Social distancing and quarantining merely reduce the odds of transmission of the disease, and as long as the odds are not zero, everyone who exists in society will get it in time. The only lives that are saved are the ones of patients that will not be denied medical assistance because there is simply no hospital infrastructure to provide it.

    Closers often yell and scream at those who flout the lockdown orders, claiming that because of them, the pandemic will last even longer. They don’t grasp that the entire point of a lockdown is to make the pandemic last longer, and that the only thing that will end it is herd immunity, which doesn’t happen if you block the transmission of the disease. Those people who violate lockdowns and get the disease are doing more to contribute to the end of the pandemic than those who want to keep hiding. And they think we don’t understand contagion?

    Closers don’t seem to understand that there are costs to the lockdown beyond the economics. It’s easy to put up a strawman and claim that openers favor money over lives, but like all strawmen, that’s a gross distortion. It’s not just about money, and lockdowns are not about saving lives. In fact, when you factor in all of the excess deaths from stress that the lockdown causes, whether from substance abuse, suicide, or lack of needed non-COVID medical care (because COVID Is all that matters now!), it’s quite possible (likely, I would say) that the lockdowns have been a source of a lot of avoidable deaths, while the lives they “save” are people who are still going to get COVID a month or two down the road, unless there is some kind of herd immunity first.

    Closers don’t seem to get that they’re being played by fearmongering politicians and media. “There’s no evidence that getting over COVID means you’re immune!” Ok, but there is no evidence to the contrary, either, and that would be the expected thing, based on the entire science of immunology and our knowledge of how things work with all the other viruses (excepting those that attack the immune system itself). They can’t see that the media continues to stress the scariest numbers they can find, while things like “California study shows COVID-19 no deadlier than the seasonal flu” never makes it to the front page, despite the newsworthy
    nature of such a thing. They will report the study, but they’ll emphasize the part where the number of real cases is 50 to 85 the number of confirmed ones, which sounds really scary if you don’t understand the math. They never connect the dots for people (ie that the death rate is 50 to 85 times less), leaving the non critical thinkers in the dark about the reasons for hope in this mess.

    Finally, the closers do not understand (or accept) that the role of government is to protect individual liberty. Unconstitutional edicts from would-be dictators do not protect individual liberty, and even our so-called “small government” allies in the GOP have largely done as they usually do, which is to buckle under pressure and do what the Democrats tell them to do. It’s almost become a quaint notion to think that the Bill of Rights still applies now, incorporated as it is in the states, and of course the states each have their own Bills of Rights that are also being ignored. The pundits who keep talking about a government’s legitimate interest in ignoring Constitutional rights missed the obvious… the whole concept of spelling out the things the government may not do is to reinforce that the government’s “legitimate interest” is irrelevant, and that the right in question stands unopposed. If rights can be freely ignored by governments any time they think there is a need to do so, then we have no rights at all.

    None of these lockdowns should ever have occurred. People will act out of self-preservation if they perceive an actual threat, and in my neck of the woods, lots of places were closed, with restaurants closing their dining rooms, clothes shops shut down, movie theaters closed, all kinds of stuff like that, before there was any official government action at all. The number of people out in public wearing masks has not changed since our governor chickened out and acted like a Democrat. I We’ve seen that nearly all governments in the world are tyrannical authoritarians, which was already obvious before all of this, but it’s breathtaking to see the proof so well laid out. It was just as appalling that outside of the USA, there seemed to be no pushback against the lockdowns, with many willing slaves in Europe calling the American protesters “stupid” and worse for thinking they had any rights at all.

  52. Yea, I agree that your average person on both sides has good intentions. But this is also a pointless way of looking at the issue, particularly for a libertarian site, isn’t it? People who supported Prohibition in the 1930s had good intentions. People who want to criminalize homosexuality have good intentions.

    I also think the “openers” vs “closers” dichotomy is stupid in the same way our whole politics has become stupid about this. Most “openers” are OK with businesses enforcing social distancing guidelines, they’re also OK with going out of the house less, and wearing masks on crowded subways. They just don’t agree with arbitrary distinctions between “essential” and “non-essential” that keeps Home Depot open but closes a crafting supply store. The “openers” vs “closers” dichotomy hides the fact that if you get past rhetoric and into practical details of what people want, one side is actually more moderate than the other.

    Internet debates get stupidly absorbed into abstractions sometimes.

    1. Btw the polls mentioned at the top of the article don’t make the distinctions I’ve mentioned either; they just ask biased all-or-nothing questions, ie “Do you want everything to go back to how things were in January, or do you want the current government policies?”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.