I would like to think it's possible to protest lockdowns and their economic destruction while also taking the virus seriously and observing social distancing and wearing masks.
I was on the fence about attending a protest an hour away. Ended up not going. But I would absolutely be wearing a mask, at a distance from everybody else (look at what they did in Tel Aviv), and in the camp of "take this seriously, stay at home when you can (not ironic, I consider the protest important), take personal responsibility to save lives AND make room for people who have to work to maintain their livelihood, wear a mask and otherwise maximize safety when you do return to work". (Hard to fit that all on a sign, of course.)
Reasons would be: 1) Don't you dare tell me protests are "non-essential" activities (see Raleigh PD) 2) Let people decide if they want to work. People are already quite cautious at this point. (I say this with some hesitation, which is one part of why I didn't go)
There are important issues of health, economy, and government power grab. Most people on all sides of the issue seem to pick only one or two.
Restaurants could probably open with spread out tables, open windows, etc. Bars maybe not, fair enough. But in most states I think both already are somewhat open with take out.
Even if we open back up, we should still keep the elderly/at-risk populations as quarantined as possible. Practice social distancing. Not hold large festivals/gatherings/etc until we get a vaccine or achieve herd immunity.
Sweden argues that they have disciplined populace that does not socialize anyway. That they generally keep away from each other and follow rules without being forced to.
I dont know whether it is true statistically, nor whether it will end up being food from them, but that is what people from Sweden argue.
Sweden is on an exponential growth curve, has five-to-ten times the deaths of its neighbours, is severely under-testing, and is instituting more and more aspects of a lockdown.
> COVID-19 Is Likely to Lead to an Increase in Suicides
They didn't quantify the increase, but said Trump's warnings of "suicides by the thousands" "may be exaggerated".
So that's a couple days of COVID-19 deaths in the US.
> The Untold Toll — The Pandemic’s Effects on Patients without Covid-19
This explicitly says that the pandemic should have no effect on emergency admissions.
The others (cancer sufferers who are avoiding hospitals etc) are the people most likely to die because of a reduction in social distancing.
> Because the cure maybe worse using draconian lockdowns instead of just social distancing like Sweden
Sweden's death rate is nearly 3 times that of Denmark, 4 times that of Norway, and nearly 10 times that of Finland. Since late April it has had to reverse its loose policies and start introducing bans similar to elsewhere[1].
> Since late April it has had to reverse its loose policies and start introducing bans similar to elsewhere[1].
Citation does not support your claim. The reference you give was from April 17th (last friday), and references the barring of visits to nursing homes on April 1st, but no additional bans since that time.
Sorry - typo, meant late March (obviously, since it was only written mid-April!).
And the other restrictions were reducing the size of allowed gatherings (500 to 50) and importantly for this discussion introduced sanctions for non-compliance.
Lockdowns are very convenient for governments because they block protests. Now is the perfect time to pass all the inconvenient laws, because even if people march out on the streets, you can easily arrest them. And other, non-protesting part of the country will cheer you for it. At least until the other part wants to protest too and realizes it affects them as well.
> Now is the perfect time to pass all the inconvenient laws, because even if people march out on the streets, you can easily arrest them. And other, non-protesting part of the country will cheer you for it. At least until the other part wants to protest too and realizes it affects them as well.
The governor of VA did exactly that.
He got hit with a massive protest back in January(?) when it looked like he was gonna sign some gun related legislation. He signed a nearly identical bill recently while everyone was busy talking about Covid. Regardless of how you feel about the legislation I think it's a slimy move. I assume other state governors are doing the same things and just haven't heard about them yet.
The fact that protesting is illegal is reason enough in the USA to protest. If the government can take away fundamental rights via executive fiat then we never had rights in the first place, we had permissions.
For many it's a matter of principle. For others who are literally having to stand in food lines for the first time ever and are unable to pay rent or write paychecks, it's a matter of survival.
Protesting isn't illegal if you follow social distancing guidelines. I can't imagine courts would have an issue with that under a time, manner and place restriction framework.
"If the government can take away fundamental rights via executive fiat then we never had rights in the first place, we had permissions"
I mean, isn't that the definition of rights? If the government can take away fundamental rights via executive power, then it is called having a penal system. We all live in a state of exception, freedom is always conditioned, during a pandemic or otherwise. There is no principled libertarian stance that is violated now but not status quo ante.
People are really protesting the government with this, as they haven't provided a great solution to basically turning off capitalism for most businesses/employees. Most people I know who filed unemployment weeks ago, still haven't seen a single dime, and bills are due.
No-one is "confined". Even in Washington state, which has some of the more strict rules in place, says "You are perfectly allowed to go outside, and do the things you need to do, but practice common sense and public health best practices when you do".
> No one should be using force to ensure that.
Where has force been applied to keep people in their homes?
In Washington state, there are threats of fines for using facilities like parks. Most of our outside activities either take place in a private destination (like work or some other business) or a public one (city parks, state park trails, national forest alnds). When the private businesses are ordered closed, public lands are closed by the government, then the citizen has nothing left to go to.
You can claim that isn't coercion because you don't have to stay in your home and could aimlessly walk outside, but to most people, it feels like coercion. After all, private businesses and individuals can make their own voluntary risk assessment about staying open, and public lands belong well, to the public who front the taxes to support them.
Freedom requires that people make individual risk assessments. The true mortality rate of COVID-19 is only around 0.37%, based on the results from the broad antibody test in Germany. The typical flu season is 0.1%. For healthy people under 50, the risk is very low and they should be permitted to go about their lives if they so choose.
Those that are too scared to go outside can self isolate per their own risk assessment. But curtailing others’ freedom due to their own fears is not OK.
Your statement, labeling others’ choices as the wrong risk assessment, feels very authoritarian to me. By that logic we should ban anything that carries a nonzero possibility of death, whether it is skiing or biking or alcohol.
In this case, I do not mean individuals. I mean businesses.
> For healthy people under 50
This is not their choice: in the US you have completely unnecessary businesses forcing people with conditions, elderly people, etc. that could be transacted entirely online forcing people to "go to work or get fired and we will refuse any unemployment claim because you decided to no-show", "you are not allowed to wear masks because you will scare customers, even if you buy masks yourself", -type of bullshit. It does not help that unemployment is also rather broken or overloaded and people are not getting paid that need it the most.
This is unacceptable. And yes, you can argue that the individuals for this can eventually win in court, but they are also generally from populations where knowing how to navigate the complexity of the legal system is rare.
This comparison would be a lot better if certain portions of the US were not under situations where they are stuck between a rock and a hard place with regard to work availability, workers' rights, etc.
> But curtailing others’ freedom due to their own fears is not OK.
It's not only fears of individuals, but also a rate limited healthcare system. The people making the risk assessment as an individual to go out and gather should also consider "you no longer have access to medical care" as part of the risk assessment.
Exactly. And now we have Trump "considering" whether to pass an executive order allowing companies to require a waiver for their employees that they won't be liable, even if you get sick on the job.
Being cited for coordinating and organizing specifically prohibited (sure, we can debate the merits of this) public gatherings in confined spaces is still several steps removed from "confined in home by force".
> Human rights violations on free movement and association.
Can you be specific? No one is preventing you from visiting a friend or going to a private residence...
> Home confinement must be voluntary
Is it not?
> Everyone should be staying home. No one should be using force to ensure that.
Who is using force to ensure people stay home?
I'm really shocked at the difference in the way the lockdowns are perceived by some people. I mean, just read the text of your local order. Here's the one for California, for example: https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/
Now... read through that and tell me exactly which provisions constitute a "Human right violation" to you?
The "shelter in place" orders in many California counties don't allow for visiting a friend or going to a private residence. This is absolutely a violation of the right to free assembly. Temporarily restricting that right might be appropriate to slow down the pandemic, but it is technically a human rights violation.
All of the Bay Area counties have prohibited visiting friends. It is not listed as "essential travel" and the counties have threatened to fine or imprison violators.
So, because it's not in a list it's therefore prohibited and thus a human rights violation? Even though it says quite clearly you can meet your friends outdoors as long as you observe social distancing? (13. iii.)
And sorry, I missed the news I guess. What's the cite for people who have been threatened with fines or (!!) prison for visiting friends?
You really don't think you're making making a bit much of this?
If we are both in public and you decide to use your fully licensed and 2A permissible gun to start shooting in random directions then you will be liable for the consequences. Declaring that just by going out in public everyone else has decided to assume the risk that you are a dangerous asshole is not going to be acceptable and you will face legal consequences for your negligent behavior. Just because the weapon is a virus you may carry rather than a gun will not change your negligence.
From the page you linked "public events and gatherings" are banned. That sounds like restricting freedom of assembly to me.
Clearly forcing many businesses to shut down is restricting the right to work, and forcing schools to shut down or go online restricts the right to education.
Outside of individual states, the travel bans being instituted around the world are definitely restrictions on freedom of movement.
Disclaimer: I don't live in the US and the lockdowns in my country were (and to some degree still are) far more draconian than this. However, I can still see why people in the US are upset about what their government has required of them.
If you think social distancing is important and are taking the virus seriously, what exactly would you be protesting? You wouldn't be going to restaurants, or theaters, or crowded parks, or shopping for non-essential things. You probably wouldn't be sending your kids to schools either.
I think a lot of the problem here is that people have been led to believe these "lockdowns" are hugely invasive, when they're really about as minimal as is possible. There are no police-enforced quarantines, as there have been in many nations. The definitions of "essential" businesses have been VERY liberally interpreted, to the extent that large numbers of routine office workers are still going to work every day.
What, exactly is the policy you think needs a protest to be enacted?
Look at Sweden. Social distancing is the official strategy but we can still go to restaurants and schools are open. It's not black or white and the US lockdown is definitely not minimal compared to Sweden.
That article is old by corona standards. The tone has changed a lot internationally now when Sweden actually seems to have it under control even though essentially minimal measures have been taken.
You're assuming too much. We had just 40 new coronavirus deaths yesterday and the curve has been declining for two weeks (from a top of over 100). We still have a 20% ICU capacity in Stockholm (the hardest hit region).
Yes, we've only been testing people who require medical attention. No-one thinks we only have 15 000 cases. We probably have a hundreds of thousands of cases in Stockholm alone but the consensus in Sweden is that Stockholm will reach herd immunity in May.
Neighbouring countries are starting to ease up their restrictions so I think we will see an explosion of cases there compared to Sweden but let's talk again in a few days to see if it really exploded in Sweden like you claim it will.
I find I'm saying this more and more on HN these days - you're being downvoted but you're right. Living in Czech Republic, Sweden has been my benchmark since the population is nearly identical[0] and the responses have been markedly different - Sweden: open, Czech: closed.
Sweden has more than twice the number of confirmed cases Czech Republic has (~14700 vs ~6900). This is a hard thing to compare, this could be attributed to differences in testing, doesn't include asymptomatic cases and some suggest there's a bit of clever accounting going on so let's look at something else ...
Sweden currently has eight times the number of deaths the Czech Republic has (1580 vs 196). This is an absolutely incredible incredible difference! The Anglosphere has for a while had a really unhealthy obsession with the Nordic countries, Sweden in particular (I have my own theories on why). When it was apparent they were pursuing a more relaxed approach to Covid 19 many in the media and the public seemed desperate to latch on to them as How it Should Be Done. However it seems that in this case they should really have looked East for inspiration, rather than North.
The question is what will happen once you ease your restrictions. Nothing is comparable right now.
Not sure why you say the media was praising Sweden's approach. I only saw international media completely bashing Sweden's strategy but that has changed the last week now when the death rate curve is declining in Sweden and we still have ICU capacity.
The UK media was flooded with articles fawning over Sweden’s approach - they loved the idea that you could be open for business but closed for viral transmissions. Which sadly doesn’t seem to be the case and accordingly they’ve reversed course, and observed the decline you have described.
I don’t quite understand the first part of your comment - when to relax restrictions is a problem everyone will have and is not unique to Czech Republic. Granted, the huge success of the measures here might make the decision a little harder ... but the fact that we have prevented thousands of deaths is a GOOD thing and shouldn’t be taken as a negative.
> What, exactly is the policy you think needs a protest to be enacted?
A plan for re-opening. There should be reasonable targets of X transmission rate, Y available hospital beds, X masks, etc. that we can aim for and achieve.
The lockdown here in Canada feels 10x more uncomfortable and hopeless than it needs to be because without a concrete plan for re-opening my mind extrapolates into "this will last forever, or 18-24 months for a vaccine".
Nobody is willing to discuss an acceptable number of infections and deaths that we can aim for, they just say things like "health/lives at any cost" which is terrifying as it implies "lockdown until vaccine".
> Alright, that's just silly. People, very serious policy people, are arguing about that stuff as we speak.
> Who is "they"? Who says this? That sounds like a strawman to me.
I can't find a single quote from Doug Ford or Justin Trudeau indicating what they think an acceptable infection/death rate is that would allow a partial re-open.
I can find plenty saying the opposite (although I understand, you can't necessarily take these quotes literally):
"I understand the actions we are taking are affecting the lives and livelihoods of people across the province, but these are extraordinary times and we need to do whatever we can to keep individuals and families safe and stop the spread of this terrible virus" - Premier of Ontario
Respectfully, this seems like a you problem. Most people are more tolerant of the uncertainty and seem content to wait for a clear trend of decline that can be extrapolated toward a target date. Nobody knows for sure how this is going to play out, and a wait-and-see approach is broadly preferred to a premature leap towards what might be a false place of safety.
I don't expect a target date from them, I expect something like "we will re-open (partially, with such and such mitigations still in place) if and only if cases decline monotonically over a period of 7 days and we have 30,000 free hospital beds and 10 million N95 masks in stock".
This is weird. Most people are just fine with this wait-and-see approach? Is this the uniquely Silicon Valley "I can work from home and my job is safe forever" viewpoint I've been hearing working class people complain about? Have you not noticed that we tech workers are getting axed left and right?
Well, if you're breaking the law and being photographed, maybe a face mask is a good idea. And maybe, given what they're protesting, the face mask has a certain ironic humor to it.
Or maybe they're hypocrites, or just not thinking very well.
One of the biggest risks voicing any political viewpoint is that your opponents will demand you be fired from your job because of it. If you wear a mask, it becomes much more difficult for onlookers to identify you and contact your employer.
