Besides the economic harm and potential developmental harm induced by closing schools for kids, I think lockdowns did incalculable social harm to society. It gave huge swaths of the population a grudge against the system, a chip on their shoulder that won't go away anytime soon. It burned up goodwill and trust for experts and politicians (who generally didn't have much to spare in the first place.) And coupling this…
So we should have let ~3 million or so Americans die? Death lottery? I'm pretty sure goodwill would be pretty charred after the final numbers were in.
Are any of those things bad by themself or in combination?
It's not necessarily that they're bad it's just that they're likely not a valuable source of acquiring information outside of what supports a specific position. Like I wouldn't necessarily trust an oil baron to tell me about how global warming doesn't really exist, or I don't necessarily believe Disney's Iger to tell me about how the writing and acting strikes are entitled whining nonsense.
...and the only legitimate source to ask about climate change is the Sierra Club.
and the only legitimate source to ask about the need for copyrights is Disney.
It always cuts both ways. Just because they're against the position you think is obviously correct doesn't mean that you can dismiss a dissenting position. Every story has another side to it. (Well, except this one :) )
Personal freedom can be a bad idea in crisis situations. Selflessness and following procedure can be better for the collective. This is why crisis operators follow checklists rather than giving each individual absolute personal freedom.
and there's the temptation to govern in a permanent crisis mode. there is no end to reasons why there is a crisis. or, is there a scientific definition of "crisis"?
Yes, I agree that there is a temptation for those in power. Legal frameworks can be created to try and limit the lengths and conditions under which a "crisis mode" can be enacted, but there will always be people looking for more power.
Did Sweden end up worse off with no lockdown? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/opinion/sweden-pandemic-c...
I think when you talk about Sweden, you've got to remember that they do have things like legally enforced sick pay (if you're ill, you stay at home and your employer has to pay you some proportion of your salary) and high quality government funded healthcare. They have a low-ish population density and social norms that give people a _lot_ of personal space when in public. So the experience that Sweden had with no lockdown is not necessarily the same experience that the USA would have had, where most people dont get paid if they are sick and dont go to work.
Besides the economic harm and potential developmental harm induced by closing schools for kids, I think lockdowns did incalculable social harm to society. It gave huge swaths of the population a grudge against the system, a chip on their shoulder that won't go away anytime soon. It burned up goodwill and trust for experts and politicians (who generally didn't have much to spare in the first place.) And coupling this…
> I think lockdowns did incalculable social harm to society. I don't know about society, but this was the straw the broke the camels back for me. I have not been the same since, I don't think I ever will be. The first lockdown in my province was when things really started to go wrong for me mental health wise in a major way and it only got worse as they continued. What's really been maddening is that people get angry…
And yet some of us actually liked that period of time where we were at home more, had more time to do things like bake bread, cook actual meals, read, etc. I think in my case my mental health declined for different reasons: As someone with health anxiety in the best of times, it started to dial up to 11. This was not even related to "lockdowns" - I had no desire to go anywhere where people congregated. The fact that there was a contagion out there and that there wasn't really any way out of it (until the vaccines showed up) was what led to many people's mental health decline.
Regardless of everything else, I don't think lockdowns could have ever been an option in a pre-internet society or even a pre-smartphone, pre-social-media society. So, say, before 2007 or so.
Did Sweden end up worse off with no lockdown? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/opinion/sweden-pandemic-c...
Compared to Norway and Denmark yes. And of course there was a lockdown in Sweden. Just less strict than in most other places. But it was not business as usual in Sweden. I assume you will now tell me I'm wrong about that despite I'm being in Sweden and you probably never even visited?
Unless you believe that 90% of the excess deaths were not directly related to COVID, your implied point falls flat. Edit: There were 1.1 million COVID deaths in the USA alone. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
We still have excess deaths in year 2023. Birth rates are 15% lower. New diabetes 30% higher...
I'm sorry about your friend. It's shameful that you're being silenced on HN for mentioning this.
Are any of those things bad by themself or in combination?
Personal freedom can be a bad idea in crisis situations. Selflessness and following procedure can be better for the collective. This is why crisis operators follow checklists rather than giving each individual absolute personal freedom.
Absolutely false. If the government is going to abridge my rights, such as forcing lockdowns or vaccinations, they better show me the necessity and efficacy of those abridgements. The government can't just come in and say, "This is a crisis, we get to do whatever we want." Fuck that. That's how authoritarians are born. Many closet authoritarians took advantage of covid to become dictators without any evidence of efficacy of their mandates.