The public policy for individual pain management and the public policy for highly contagious diseases can be different, for logical reasons that I hope are obvious.
Yeah, pain management is even more important and they got that wrong. COVID was just a flash in the pan then it seems to have settled down into the background as an issue, while chronic pain is an ongoing thing that is easier to study.
So even if we assume that they weight their efforts by importance that isn't particularly impressive for the COVID authoritarianism.
Well, yes. We have a society built around concepts of individual liberty and respect for basic human rights. So all the rules were rolled back. The question is why they were rolled out in the first place. Even to this day there is a distinct lack of evidence that any given rule was helpful. We successfully transitioned from a world where everyone was eventually going to get COVID to a world where everyone eventually got COVID and in hindsight it is hard to see what the authoritarian slant of the policies earned anyone. Except perhaps earmarking the people who should be kept out of positions of power.
Contagious diseases aren’t compatible with the fantasy that individual liberty is always the highest good. That is why decades ago our society realized the need for public health authorities that can temporarily override individual liberties to protect society.
Undoubtedly not all the COVID measures were perfect. Some ineffective measures were imposed, and some effective measures were not imposed. You can hindsight armchair quarterback that all you want, but there’s no question the authority to impose such measures is needed. And somebody (who thank heavens isn’t you or me) has to exercise that authority with only the information available at the time, and the highest possible stakes.
I don't think anyone is questioning the existence of the institutions; armies can do what armies want for example and there isn't much anyone can do about it unless the army agrees with their plans. Can't get rid of armies though, we just do what we can and live with the residual risk.
The issue is more that in this case the institutions did act, in a panicky and random fashion that seems to, on balance, not have helped but rather violated a large number of human rights and good principles for no particular gain. The only policies that seemed effective were quarantines, light contact tracing, removing red tape and funding R&D. We can do all those things without unduly coercing anyone, they're pretty minor inconveniences compared to the madness that was actually unleashed.
It seemed like you were questioning the need for the institution, but public health is as needed as defense, so maybe you’re equating them.
You left out vaccinations (obviously effective) and mask mandates (somewhat effective but certainly falls under minor inconvenience) — which are pretty standard public health playbook, so I’m assuming those aren’t considered part of the madness.
The lockdowns were pretty crazy, but recall their goal was mostly to avoid the breakdown of the entire health care system pre-vaccination. There wasn’t any precedent for how to do that.
> You left out vaccinations (obviously effective) and mask mandates (somewhat effective but certainly falls under minor inconvenience)
The authoritarian tactics used to impose both of those were ineffective, or at least can't be justified on the evidence. Otherwise all the people trying to justify their brush with their inner Nazi would be able to put up a good argument for what they advocated for.
Both measures failed to stop the spread of COVID, the evidence they had any effect on the number of people who eventually caught it is hard to some up with even as a thought experiment (elsewhere in the thread Retric theorised that the change in viral load would be significant, which is a weak attempt but the best I've seen so far, and also sounds hard to test for). In many cases the vaccines explicit weren't checked for effects on transmission.
There was a crisis, they banded together, identified the enemy withing and started a campaign to strip them of their rights. They knew they can't get their way with persuasion so they go straight to coercion and might-makes-right logic. Call them what you want, they aren't principled people.
Very much a scum rising to the top scenario. We saw the illiberals making a power play during COVID, they're cut from the same cloth as all the other authoritarians. They were even using the old "you're killing us" logic and people making up a you-struck-first narrative is a reasonable precursor to some really terrible things.
If the plan is to defend authoritarianism, I might just observe that "well they're targeting the right groups this time" is not a line that is going to get much traction with me. The problem here is not a group of people you've decided to dehumanise to the point where their basic rights aren't a factor. The problem is authoritarian tactics being visibly and enthusiastically used by people who's role is to uphold the opposite values.
If you put people in charge who only believe in using one bad tool, they eventually use it on everyone because they don't understand how to do things in a morally reasonable way.
I don't want to argue with you about whether it's authoritarian, I just want to say "Nazi" is overblown and ridiculous in this context.
> "the right groups"
It's not about which groups, it's about how the groups are defined that makes the analogy so broken. Attacking in certain ways based on any nationality is worth a Nazi comparison, while attacking based on mundane choices is not in the same category.
> If you put people in charge who only believe in using one bad tool, they eventually use it on everyone because they don't understand how to do things in a morally reasonable way.
Does this describe what happened? What is the "one bad tool"? I hope you don't mean "authoritarianism" because that's a circular argument.
