Are Democrats going to push masks and vaccines again?

[hollodero]

(09-06-2023, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have first hand knowledge of how angry people would have been, trust me.    But KG raises an interesting point below, what if the virus had a 20% lethality rate, would the protests have still been allowed?  Once you answer that then revisit the point I made; either the virus wasn't as deadly as they claimed, and they knew it, or they didn't know and let people expose themselves in the thousands.

First off, I used the same example for my purposes as well, to prove that logically at some theoretical point, restrictions of individual freedom have to be justifiable. If Covid met that threshold, that's a different debate for sure. But there's a threshold.

As to your specific example, I think I got the point. It makes sense. What I disagree with is your conclusion. I just find this to be a bit too black and white, no pun intended.
If I were to make the decisions, I would have supported the initial covid measures [not in its entirety, but that leads too far]. Mainly because almost everyone who has expertise tells me I should, my own advisors and others around the globe. But when then facing protests surrounding a highly sensitive topic, I might still have just done the same that was actually done. Leaving the measures in place, but not interfering with the protests. Even knowing that I could not credibly defend myself against accusations of hypocrisy.
For the only alternatives would be to either go full force against the protesters and risk riots, death and hatred for a generation over it, or to lift the measures to possibly devastating effects. Then I'd be less hypocritical, that's a plus, but the outcomes might be even worse. I'm not saying everyone was within this line of thinking, maybe a little, maybe not at all. But your two both nefarious alternatives are too sharp for me (either they knew it was not that deadly and lied or they wanted the protesters and their social circles to perish), sharper as I find reality to be, which mainly consists of foul compromises with ideals. If that's somehow understandable.

(09-06-2023, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That was the stated goal here as well, but it also got mixed in with "two weeks to flatten the curve".  There was little to no transparency and the more information we get the more we realized we were not always being told the truth.  Sometimes out of ignorance, but sometimes deliberately.

I mean, I feel it needs to be said that hardly anyone could make credible predictions or be transparent about the unknown. Not everything that was false was nefarious or deliberate in intent. I'm certainly critical about certain measures too, but I feel it needs to be recognized that most policy makers were in a real tight spot.

(09-06-2023, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I don't think I'll ever not be angry about that, which was only exacerbated when I saw the huge George Floyd funeral.  Apparently that was fine, but not an old man sitting on his wife of 50+ years deathbed.  

Understandably so. I'm most certainly not defending that.

(09-06-2023, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: People first went into the whole lockdown willingly, and gave the government a lot of leeway and benefit of the doubt.  Unfortunately, that was abused, such as Newsome's unmasked dinner for donors, and I think a sizeable percentage of our population will not trust the government on this type of issue again.  It would take a bodies stacked in the streets situation for many at this point.

Oh yeah... they caught people everywhere, if that's some consolation. It adds to my very well thought out thesis that most politicians are douchebags.
But to conclude from that that the measures were exaggerated in its entirety would be a leap too far for me. The message does not just hinge on the messenger.