lake_wrangler wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:24 am
All I can say is that from the start, I never liked the media coverage of this pandemic, and I think the lockdowns are a bad idea to keep going on for a long time. (What happened to "two weeks, to flatten the curve"?)
There have been areas which have used short, strict lockdowns quite successfully, knocking down the R-rate and choking off the infections.
You can't just return immediately to normal, unfortunately, or the exponential increase in infections will come back as soon as any new cases are introduced to the area.
The most effective way of having that not happen, is to consistently apply the sorts of mitigations that have been widely urged and recommended:. wear masks so you don't spread the infection if you're pre- or symptomatic, respect social distancing, limit your contacts, wash hands and clean/disinfect regularly, avoid crowded situations and unsafe behaviors ( "drinking in a bar or at a party" counts twice), test suspected cases quickly, contact-trace, and self-isolate if you've been exposed.
If people are willing to do these things consistently, then experience shows we have a good chance of holding the infection rate down to low levels
without requiring long-term lockdowns. It's not "like it was before" but I believe it's something we can sustain until vaccine are widely available.
If people can't or aren't willing to do these things (for whatever reason) then infection rates are going to climb and lots of people are going to die unnecessarily... and that puts the pressure on the authorities to mandate lockdowns again because they have no other way to protect the vulnerable.
Lemme ask a question. If someone "stands on their rights" and "asserts their liberties" and refuses to apply mitigations that they've been asked to do (say, the one about not coming into a grocery store without a mask), and it turns out that they're COVID-19-positive and contagious, and they expose and infect somebody (say, the lady running the checkout stand that day), and that other person ends up spending a week in Intensive Care and racks up $50k in medical bills (or dies)...
... then what is the proper assignment of responsibility to the first person?
Should they be held liable at a civil level... a tort? Sued for financial damages?
Should they be charged with negligent homicide (involuntary manslaughter), or reckless endangerment, or battery?
There's a legal standard for responsibility often applied: "knew, or should have known". How does that apply (or not apply) in situations like the current one?