Is it possible to be highly conscious but against covid lockdowns + mandatory masks?

[Yarco]

There are a lot of bad reasons to be anti-lockdown and against mandatory masking. Conspiracy theories, bad science, "muh freedoms", etc etc.

However, I feel like there could be some reasonable logic behind the thinking of some people who are opposed too.

• Unicef warns lockdown could kill more than Covid-19 as model predicts 1.2 million child deaths
• There's some good evidence to suggest that more people will commit suicide or die of an overdose as a result of covid lockdowns than from covid itself.
• The world economy got basically shut down for months, many businesses are still recovering or already went bankrupt. A deeper recession or even depression possibly looming when it all catches up with us. It's certainly hard to put a value on human life, but I feel like at some point we must, when it threatens to bring our economy to its knees to accomodate.
• 20%+ increase in domestic violence in most places during lockdown
• Depriving kids of a year or more of their childhood
• General quality of life decrease and isolation for everyone else in lockdown. Interruption to regular hobbies, activities, etc.

I feel like it's a very Stage Green thing to do everything in our power to try and save everyone. People make emotional appeals saying that it's selfish to not wear a mask for other people's sake, you're killing grandmas, etc. Shaming people into it.

But I feel like a Stage Yellow person might look at the bigger picture. It's unreasonable to think that we can save everyone. So we should take a utilitarian approach and maximize the happiness and well-being for as many people as possible. The elderly and immunocompromised are going to get an unfair deal either way... but it seems far easier to quarantine the old and sick in their homes and let everyone else go about their lives, instead of trying to quarantine the entire population. The old and sick will already have poor quality of life regardless, but now we're negatively impacting the lives of all young healthy people too in an attempt to save a few more of them.

I think this is a pretty logical and rational position to take, and it shouldn't be too controversial. But when I try to explain this to people, they basically call me a sociopath.

I'm curious what people here think. I'm open-minded to the fact that I might be wrong about this, and interested to hear any opposing viewpoints.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Yarco

[Preety_India]

 

No. 

 

 

[Lyubov]

I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it. You state a lot of stuff that seems nonsensical and the evidence of COVID harming more people if it spreads like wildfire is evident vs fears of what a lockdown might do.  

[Fran11]

Yeah I get what you are saying.

I'm pro-lockdown and masks generally speaking.

But there are people and goverments who look at it very myopically.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Matt23]

I get what you're saying.

My grandma brought up a similar piece of news the other day too.  We live on Vancouver Island, close to Vancouver (the city), which has a huge homeless and drug problem downtown.  Apparently lots of the drugs that they usually received from across the border with the U.S. haven't been coming since the border lockdown.  Many of them are now using drugs that have been really laced with other, more harmful chemicals.  So it looks like we're seeing a spike in deaths as a result.

Interestingly, her source said that the communities of those living on the street downtown aren't seeing many deaths related to Covid since, according to what she was saying, these communities are quite closed-circuit (i.e., they don't have much contact with new people on a daily basis).

This made me think though, just because we're seeing more deaths now because of drugs relating to lockdowns rather than Covid doesn't mean that if we loosened the lockdowns, we wouldn't see an even greater spike in deaths from Covid as a result.  Not too mention further economic or other ramifications.

• I imagine it being like if I owned pandora's box, and someone was killing citizens in order for me to hand it over.  Someone might say "Look, pandora's box isn't hurting anyone right now, so just give it up to save us!"  So I hand it over and the madman opens it and the entire cosmos enters into hell and everyone dies...
• obviously I don't know how it's really like and that this is just an illustration, but it made me reconsider any viewpoints that I saw as perhaps "the answer".  

I guess I think it's worth thinking of the various pros, cons, and chains of causality and effects that could happen in regards to various stances and points of views.

Intuitively, I get the feeling that we should consider things more and just be more present with things as they unfold, since things change and can change fast (one moment loosening the borders may be the best option based on current knowledge, but then the next moment it's like "Fuck!! Close the gates!", etc.).  

Maybe there's not a one-size-fits-all paradigm or philosophy of thought regarding Covid (and maybe life in general?) since things are always changing and you need to be able to A) sense and perceive accurately what's going on (thus, be free of biases and assumptions, etc.), B) make accurate sense and meaning out of it (critical thinking, check for biases, etc), and C) be able to use your agency to effect change.

I think-feel-sense it and life is kinda like a lot of "Yeah, but maybe...".

In the end, I feel like perfect choices aren't based on the results but by the decision-making process itself.  

Hindsight = always 20/20

 

[Matt23]

Again though, I just saw how that philosophical approach may lead to inaction (in my case I think I've tended to fall into this trap too much).  So maybe there's room for and just allowing making these choices without too much, emphasis on "too", deliberation (leading to inaction).  ... Hmmm... Even just writing this, "languaging" it, conceptualizing it (thus putting it into a box) seems off somehow to me.  Like maybe it can't be put into words and opinions/stances... feel it.. let it come and go.  Move with it.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Yarco said:

Depriving kids of a year or more of their childhood

You mean: letting kids have fun and enjoy their childhood rather than being school slaves.

[Vipassana]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You mean: letting kids have fun and enjoy their childhood rather than being school slaves.

Most kids arent privileged to have catering suburbian soccer moms whose best interest lie in letting their kids have fun and enjoy their childhood. In many cases, goofing around in school is the most fun part of a childs life. 

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Vipassana said:

Most kids arent privileged to have catering suburbian soccer moms whose best interest lie in letting their kids have fun and enjoy their childhood. In many cases, goofing around in school is the most fun part of a childs life. 

Kids don't need to be catered to. They can have fun on their own.

 

[Vipassana]

@Leo Gura they aren't having any fun in a dysfunctional house hold man & you would know how many house holds are dysfunctional.

You could argue that lockdowns are saving lives but you simply can't say kids are having fun walking around wearing face diapers & being unable to interact with their friends. 

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Vipassana said:

they aren't having any fun in a dysfunctional house hold man

If you posit a toxic household, those kids are in bad shape either way.

Not every kid is getting abused at home.

[Vipassana]

@Leo Gura i attended a school in a not so good neibhorhood with lots of my friends from section 8 housings. After school programs, in school counseling & extra curricular activities saved many of these people from being a full time drug addicts headed down to crime & suicide. Fortunately the kids who are in bad shape were getting support in school.. not too sure how its going now but many of our schools especially in blue states have somewhat evolved from manufacturing 'another brick in the wall' 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Vipassana

[Member]

4 hours ago, Yarco said:

But I feel like a Stage Yellow person might look at the bigger picture. It's unreasonable to think that we can save everyone. So we should take a utilitarian approach and maximize the happiness and well-being for as many people as possible. The elderly and immunocompromised are going to get an unfair deal either way... but it seems far easier to quarantine the old and sick in their homes and let everyone else go about their lives, instead of trying to quarantine the entire population. The old and sick will already have poor quality of life regardless, but now we're negatively impacting the lives of all young healthy people too in an attempt to save a few more of them.

This sounds very egoistical, imo. I don't think that you can determine who is going to survive and who is not. Most of the immunocompromised people have many chances to recover and the elderly can live many years if there wouldn't be egoistical people coughing in public and wearing no masks. Wtf is this kind of thinking, really dude. If you're in a bad shape and have health problems should I condemn you to death by spitting in your face?

[commie]

1 hour ago, Member said:

Wtf is this kind of thinking, really dude.

It's a death cult.

Notice the lack of arguments against masks and the arguments about the consequences of serious epidemics (economy and so forth) masks could slow or even prevent in some cases. If they actually cared, they would argue actual measures instead of symbols.

3 hours ago, Matt23 said:

This made me think though, just because we're seeing more deaths now because of drugs relating to lockdowns rather than Covid ...

More deaths because of prohibition, you mean. We don't want a "lockdown" because we don't want to interrupt the supply of illegal drugs... why make them illegal then? Interrupting the supply was supposed to be the whole point!

[Member]

9 minutes ago, commie said:

It's a death cult.

It's psychopathy/sociopathy.

[commie]

Nah. Sociopaths do not usually get worked up about the morality of clothing and so forth.

[No Self]

A few random points to make.

There was a viral post on Facebook claiming that suicide rates had doubled during COVID. And, you'll never believe this: it turned out to be fake news. There was no suicide increase. The point is that one has to be careful when making assumptions without looking at proper data.

It should be OK to have reasoned debate on the topic, but unfortunately it will be difficult to present any anti-lockdown arguments without having one's position conflated with various selfish/irresponsible/misinformed fanatics who humiliate themselves daily.

The main problem with COVID is the risk of a massive spike in cases as soon as control is lost. This is different from other forms of death that can be prevented with using existing knowledge.

If the lockdown situation were hypothetically to continue for many years, then many of the anti-lockdown arguments would definitely gain mainstream acceptance. But we are not at that place yet. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by No Self

[Member]

1 hour ago, commie said:

Nah. Sociopaths do not usually get worked up about the morality of clothing and so forth.

Saying that the elderly and immunocompromised people are going to die anyway because you don't feel comfortable wearing a mask, sounds like zero empathy to me. Also, I know plenty of young people with weak immune system who get ill easily... should I give 0 flying fucks because they're spitting like uneducated brats in the streets? Or maybe they should take the preventive measures like wearing a damn mask and practice social distancing so that everyone is safe and can live longer. Anyone thinking that they're healthy could be immunocompromised... so next time you're asking for troubles, don't play a victim and accept the consequences.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Member

[commie]

25 minutes ago, No Self said:

If the lockdown situation were hypothetically to continue for many years, then many of the anti-lockdown arguments would definitely gain mainstream acceptance. But we are not at that place yet. 

The issue with this "lockdown" discourse is that the word doesn't seem to mean anything. The Swedes were the first to introduce a long-haul strategy for the very reason you bring up and I understand it wasn't called "lockdown" (I don't speak Swedish). So far as I know other European countries either used this word for temporary measures or didn't use the word officially, even for their temporary measures. I'm partial to the latter choice since I've not heard of measures deserving of the name being used outside of China.

And since the virus can be stopped within weeks with quite mild temporary measures (basically a long holiday), why would one need years of "lockdown"? If people aren't happy with an ongoing situation, all they need to do is stop people from moving around so much for a few weeks as well as prevent travel from places which aren't doing the same. This isn't a permanent solution since people are going keep entering the country and rebooting the epidemic one way or another but if people like bouts of temporary measures better than permanent measures... well, this isn't rocket science. The sticking point is that someone has to pay for such holidays but that's never been a problem when it comes to military expenditures, has it?

[commie]

12 minutes ago, Member said:

Saying that the elderly and immunocompromised people are going to die anyway because you don't feel comfortable wearing a mask, sounds like zero empathy to me.

The Holocaust also sounds like zero empathy but most people who've carried it out or defended it weren't sociopaths. Unless of course you're a politician, running your mouth about sacrificing the elderly and so forth in public spaces isn't self-serving (quite the opposite) nor is it merely misguided. It's basically missionary zeal... that or looking for a fight.