|
Post by davey on Mar 3, 2023 22:11:46 GMT
The words social scientists are throwing around these days to describe Toby’s position are “low social trust.” Essentially, an unwillingness to defer to experts and/or subjugate individual desires for the perceived common good. I was thinking about that this morning while watching coverage of yesterday’s East Palestine, Ohio town hall, in which the topic at hand was the derailment of a train carrying dangerous chemicals. Give a watch to this clip on this page: amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/03/us/ohio-train-derailment-east-palestine-friday/index.htmlHere you’ve got the opposite situation from the pandemic: The government is telling them that their air and water is safe. The people don’t believe them. There are even calls for the government to take more control - perhaps even evacuate the whole city… But what if they did? Would we be hearing about the government overreacting and using its power too freely? I deeply feel for the people of East Palestine, and I share their conviction that the government ought to err on the side doing more. But I’m not the one arguing that “we must ensure this never happens again.”
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 5, 2023 19:45:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Mar 5, 2023 23:42:22 GMT
How? I don't want to defend the government, but the same thing happened in every country across the world - they had to make very difficult decisions very quickly, based on scant information. It was an almost impossible situation. Deaths in care homes were tragically high in other European countries too (I think Spain had it worse, among others). You can call it incompetence if you want, but I don't see how it could have been handled much better. Chances had to be taken. Nobody was wilful, everybody wished for the best outcome - but we ended up with some terrible, sometimes fatal misjudgments. We weren't the only ones. Oh please. The way the care homes were just left to bear the worst of the pandemic with no protective measures until it was too late is absolutely scandalous. This isn't revisionism, many were saying it at the time. They don't deserve your forgiveness. They need to be held to account.
|
|
|
Post by davey on Mar 6, 2023 1:41:32 GMT
How? I don't want to defend the government, but the same thing happened in every country across the world - they had to make very difficult decisions very quickly, based on scant information. It was an almost impossible situation. Deaths in care homes were tragically high in other European countries too (I think Spain had it worse, among others). You can call it incompetence if you want, but I don't see how it could have been handled much better. Chances had to be taken. Nobody was wilful, everybody wished for the best outcome - but we ended up with some terrible, sometimes fatal misjudgments. We weren't the only ones. Oh please. The way the care homes were just left to bear the worst of the pandemic with no protective measures until it was too late is absolutely scandalous. This isn't revisionism, many were saying it at the time. They don't deserve your forgiveness. They need to be held to account. Maybe I’m missing something here, but this seems to be being argued from both directions. On one hand you’ve got the argument Toby (and presumably others) are making that the government acted in too draconian a fashion. I believe (John… correct me if I’m wrong), the post you are responding to was answering that basic notion. Your contention that most governments could have responded quicker, better and with more decisiveness in the early days of the pandemic seems like a different (almost opposite) argument. I’m certainly more sympathetic to it. At a minimum we should try to learn from what happened. What I reject is the idea that we should use the body of knowledge we’ve gained since the pandemic’s start to condemn actors who we’re not armed with that knowledge and had to act in the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Mar 6, 2023 8:20:00 GMT
Oh please. The way the care homes were just left to bear the worst of the pandemic with no protective measures until it was too late is absolutely scandalous. This isn't revisionism, many were saying it at the time. They don't deserve your forgiveness. They need to be held to account. Maybe I’m missing something here, but this seems to be being argued from both directions. On one hand you’ve got the argument Toby (and presumably others) are making that the government acted in too draconian a fashion. I believe (John… correct me if I’m wrong), the post you are responding to was answering that basic notion. Your contention that most governments could have responded quicker, better and with more decisiveness in the early days of the pandemic seems like a different (almost opposite) argument. I’m certainly more sympathetic to it. At a minimum we should try to learn from what happened. What I reject is the idea that we should use the body of knowledge we’ve gained since the pandemic’s start to condemn actors who we’re not armed with that knowledge and had to act in the moment. You can reject the idea that the lockdown was draconian, without then having to defend or excuse the way the government acted.
|
|
|
Post by davey on Mar 6, 2023 9:49:55 GMT
Maybe I’m missing something here, but this seems to be being argued from both directions. On one hand you’ve got the argument Toby (and presumably others) are making that the government acted in too draconian a fashion. I believe (John… correct me if I’m wrong), the post you are responding to was answering that basic notion. Your contention that most governments could have responded quicker, better and with more decisiveness in the early days of the pandemic seems like a different (almost opposite) argument. I’m certainly more sympathetic to it. At a minimum we should try to learn from what happened. What I reject is the idea that we should use the body of knowledge we’ve gained since the pandemic’s start to condemn actors who we’re not armed with that knowledge and had to act in the moment. You can reject the idea that the lockdown was draconian, without then having to defend or excuse the way the government acted. I don’t think we’re disagreeing.
|
|
|
Post by fearlessfreap on Mar 6, 2023 13:02:16 GMT
Unrelated, but my workplace finally lifted the mask mandate on Friday. March 2023 and we were still made to wear masks.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Mar 23, 2023 12:07:08 GMT
Three years since the first UK lockdown.
The most disastrous policy any UK Government has made.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 23, 2023 12:09:45 GMT
This place is oddly silent on the Lockdown files.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Mar 23, 2023 12:19:48 GMT
Three years since the first UK lockdown. The most disastrous policy any UK Government has made. Oh shut up. They had no choice, which is why every other fucking country did it.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 23, 2023 12:22:19 GMT
Sweden didn't.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Mar 23, 2023 12:31:37 GMT
The Government caved into public pressure, which was amplified enormously by the media.
Britain did have a choice. It chose to go for a lockdown despite a decent amount of evidence that was available that talked about the immense psychological ramifications in the long-term.
I don't blame the Government entirely, as at the time, it seemed like a reasonable idea. However, in hindsight, it was a disastrous mistake.
We should acknowledge that it was an understandable move in many respects, but at the same time we should be critical too.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 23, 2023 12:42:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 23, 2023 12:45:07 GMT
If it was up to G we'd still fucking be in lockdown.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Mar 23, 2023 12:51:44 GMT
The Government caved into public pressure, which was amplified enormously by the media. Britain did have a choice. It chose to go for a lockdown despite a decent amount of evidence that was available that talked about the immense psychological ramifications in the long-term. - meaning 'very little' If you're worried about a potentially lethal virus that's spreading rapidly through your population, would you tell people to stay at home, or would you allow them to carry on as normal? I mean, it IS that simple a choice, even at the highest level.
|
|