A more limited lockdown would have been better advised. Not without costs, but this is about trade-offs and cost/benefit calculations. In any case, with Governor Whitmer, she has imposed a lockdown that exceeds constitutional bounds and is not apt to survive court challenge. It frankly exceeds reason. The list of goods and services that may be purchased is almost arbitrary. Limiting people to visiting with family is positively totalitarian.Be careful what you wish for. Already when this episode ends there will be a different cultural mindset. If government can "fix" a pandemic, what other problems can it solve? It is the same logic that led from the economic management of the New Deal to the social engineering of "The Great Society." We have been here before.Bottom line, if ever there was a case where a protest - even at some minimal risk - was more justified, this was it. The Michigan state government has used the pretext of an emergency to claim powers well exceeding that justified by the nature of the emergency - not to mention even the vaguest pretext of constitutionality at the state or Federal levels. That is not a precedent even the staunchest advocate of an activist government will want to let stand.
So they're protesting by going out like this? And that's not harmless? And even if there aren't many elderly there who's to say one person catches it and brings it home to their parents/ grandparents who then get affected or worse spread it to more people.It's a stupid thing to do at this time. I can't believe anyone would think it's sensible. And what's so bad about a complete lockdown and to try something different than other states? A partial lockdown isn't working. If you look at what's happening worldwide the best results are from countries who take a hardline.
Statistically, it is safe enough. Furthermore, you postulate a hypothetical. You write, "And even if there aren't many elderly there who's to say one person catches it and brings it home to their parents/ grandparents who then get affected or worse spread it to more people.."The problem of course being that no fact begins with "If." You postulate a blanket rule for situations where individuals may make case-by-case assessments appropriate to their own homes and situations. Thus granting sweeping power to the state where individual judgment would suffice. (After all, given the extant nature of the lockdown, any given individual at this protest has no place to go other than home, thus limiting collateral exposure.)As to the lockdown, this I addressed in the question. It is an abstract solution that can be applied only imperfectly and whose costs have not been weighed against its benefits. The lockdowns that states like New York and - in extremis - Michigan have imposed can only achieve imperfect outcomes and only at the price of jobs lost and businesses destroyed and the pathologies that flow therefrom.Thus, already suicides are up. Police reports of domestic and child abuse are up. There is a fear that crime will rise as law enforcement officials release "non-violent offenders" to prevent the spreading of illness in prison.These are, of course, all judgment calls. However, fear has been the motive force of the hour and too little consideration has been given to the collateral damage caused by the lockdowns imposed by the states - often imposed by policymakers hoping to use science abstractly applied as a shield against the charge that they "did not do all they could do" to save lives.
I say if because there is a high chance that situation could happen, there are plenty of clusters through out the world from small gatherings, so there's no reason this will be any different? It's ridiculous to think they're immune.The suicides and what's already happening is sad but if you have thousands of people dying what good is that? And what good is it for the mental health of the family of those people? And what happens when the health system over flows? That means everyone else won't get treated to properly and you'll have more deaths through those people. In Spain they no longer treat people over 80, Italy they pick who they treat. Either way the world economy is most likely going to be in a bad shape for this year at least. So if a business can't survive a downturn now, they'll be In a bad shape for the rest of the year anyway. And as I said before look at how it's been handled internationally , the countries with bigger lockdowns have been the most successful.
The statistics of what amounts to a 70% immunity to ill effects - for most no symptoms or mild at best - beg to differ. Again, in any case, some scope needs to be made for individual judgment. Indeed, by your logic, we should shut down the hospitals, the grocery stores, the pharmacies, the power plants. After all, more people gather in such places DAILY than gathered for the protests to which you pose such strenuous objection. The disease is not apt to make exceptions for "essential workers."You are postulating a silly standard against an abstract measure of safety. You are apt to be be disappointed. As indeed, the fatalities already suggest - this also notwithstanding that currently more people have died from the regular flu, cancer or drug overdoses than have died from the pandemic. Indeed, 38,000 have died on the roads - should we abolish driving?The health system is managing as well. Indeed, the surge is little different than that required after any other natural disaster. In any case, based on the trends and more recent data, the surge in capacity may not have been as necessary as thought. That said, prudent precautions have been taken and continue to be taken.The bottom line, yours is an argument rooted in dogma. It spares you the torture of having to think through the implications of your choices. The total lockdown is not without its costs but these you do not take into account. Nor does it take into account the long term implications.You mention "ifs." So what if the consequence of the lockdown experience is that the precedent is set that the state may tell you who you entertain in your home and what you can buy and sell? History has shown where such precedents lead. You may wish to consider them beyond the fears of the moment. You lose sight of the long terms as you gaze upon the transitory.
Just read up more about lockdowns overseas. And you'll see how well those have worked. Trump hasn't done anything good with this so far. And the relax easy going approach hasn't worked anywhere in the world. So I dont see how it will work here? Only time will tell I guess.And yes you can catch it anywhere, it's about limiting the risk. Which is the point of trying to get everyone to stay home. But of course people will need food.
Japan has barely any lockdown - and yet minimal casualties. (85 last I checked.)You are pursuing the illusion of perfect security and are apt to be disappointed.Besides, define "works." Of course they work. Close down the power plants the grocery stores, the hospitals, etc, and the lockdowns will work even better. Force everyone to stay in a separate room in their own house and not budge, they will work better still.The problem is that you are defining works absent any consideration of collateral costs or context. To repeat, suicides are up. Child abuse and domestic abuse are up. Hunger is up. (Did you see the miles long lines at food banks in Texas - which by your logic also ought be shut down.) Bankruptcies are up - and unemployment. Drug and alcohol consumption have soared.On and on it goes. These too are costs and yet you fail to tally them against the cure you propose. Death by coronavirus or death by suicide is still death. These have to be weighed and balanced.When people had jobs they were happy. You saved them - at least nominally - from a disease, 70% of whom would not have been impacted by it in any event. So they lost their jobs, were isolated, despaired and committed suicide. This the price of your solution. To borrow from Burke, your abstract solution is its practical defect.
Shouldn't the issue be dealt with in a better way though?
Not how I would do it but stupid stuff like that happens all the time. It's sad the news is ignoring the real problem with governor
@Anonymous- why is it “stupid” to exercise your right to protest a leader who deprives its citizens of basic civil rights? Are you disappointed that “stupid stuff” like this happens all the time? Would you rather no one says anything, and let’s her run over these citizens? How would you prefer these citizens behave? You just said it’s “sad” the media is ignoring this. You are all over the place. Do you even know how you feel?
It is stupid to risk going out, getting sick and dying. I can also think what the governor is doing is stupid and illegal. They are sperate things. It's no different than people blocking blocking traffic, it stupid. They should be working to impeach or recall the governor.
@Girther10 how do I think they should behave? Just like the opinion owner said , there are other ways to go about it.I know isn't the time for mass gatherings and to ignore health officials. It just takes one of those idiots to spread it then you'll have many more people infected. There are many examples one person going to a wedding or sports game and you end up with 70 people infected from that one person.It's best for everyone not to take this lightly, remember that NBA player touching the microphones joing around and the next day he ends up testing positive. Or how about that youtube star who licked a toilet seat and ended with it lol.
The people have to be smarter than the media. There is no way they are going to cover something negative about a democrat. Stupid gatherings like this give the media a chance to ignore a democrat breaking the law make Republicans look bad.
It was fox news who covered it though? lol
Wow. I guess it makes sense they are the only one that even pretends to show both sides. CNN couldnt risk a Democrat looking bad
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Yup I posted it in the original story but was from yesterday
Whatever you say Haha
It’s simply dishonest, a lie, to call these people Trump fans.. lol it’s not “whatever you say. Haha”... it’s just a fact. So, in reality, this so called “question” is actually a statement based on a false premise. So if I pretend this post makes sense, my answer is: no more stupid than the Asker is.
@Asker- what is your suggestion as to how this should be dealt with? Is protesting too scary for you, or what? How should these citizens let their leader know they won’t stand for any more of her authoritarian acts?
Haha, they're just stupid. If going to a protest like this is what you or anyone calls brave then fkn hell I wouldn't want to be them.
I agree protests are stupid and irrelevant especially for this situation. Michigan people never have been known for respecting their neighbors. , however I am glad people are not just complying to a government controlled police state.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!