Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Would you accept indefinite house arrest (plus essential travel for groceries and so on) and a martial law like situation to prevent how many deaths?

Would you accept indefinite house arrest (plus essential travel for groceries and so on) and a martial law like situation to prevent how many deaths? (choose the minimum number)  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you accept indefinite house arrest (plus essential travel for groceries and so on) and a martial law like situation to collectively (as a society) prevent how many deaths? (choose the minimum number)

    • To prevent 1 death.
      2
    • To prevent 0.001% of the population dying (3,250 people in the U.S.)
      0
    • To prevent 0.01% of the population dying (32,500 people in the U.S.)
      0
    • To prevent 0.1% of the population dying (325,000 people in the U.S.)
      3
    • To prevent 0.5% of the population dying (1,625,000 people in the U.S.)
      1
    • To prevent 1% of the population dying (3,250,000 people in the U.S.)
      2
    • To prevent 2% of the population dying (6,500,000 people in the U.S.)
      1
    • To prevent 5% of the population dying (16,250,000 people in the U.S.)
      1
    • To prevent 10% of the population dying (32,500,000 people in the U.S.)
      2
    • I would not accept indefinite house arrest and martial law to save lives. It's not something you do in a free society.
      7


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Canada just invoked the Quarantine Act. 14-day mandatory house arrest for anyone (including citizens) entering country.

Please, quit using this term. Like I said, it is only for criminals or suspects with strong suspicion they have committed a crime. The term is counter-productive and hyperbolic. "Confinement," "isolation," or, at worst case scenario, "quarantine" (on a personal level) are terms that are appropriate and are being used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Interesting!  Exemption for buying groceries, getting medicine, that kind of thing?  Or not?

I don't believe so. Would have to have others bring it to them. Not clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Please, quit using this term. Like I said, it is only for criminals or suspects with strong suspicion they have committed a crime. The term is counter-productive and hyperbolic. "Confinement," "isolation," or, at worst case scenario, "quarantine" (on a personal level) are terms that are appropriate and are being used.

Call it whatever you want. House arrest is appropriate, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

I don't believe so. Would have to have others bring it to them. Not clear.

Who could bring it to them?  You'd need to know an essential worker -- and even so, that essential worker wouldn't be working while they're bringing you groceries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Call it whatever you want. House arrest is appropriate, IMO.

You're NOT being appropriate in terming this issue. And no one needs this kind of crap at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Who could bring it to them?  You'd need to know an essential worker -- and even so, that essential worker wouldn't be working while they're bringing you groceries.

Don't know. Again, not clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Definitely not. As a rule of thumb, favour more liberty than not, and libertarians have a realism about governmental tyranny that I think is usually healthy, but they tend to be naive on other matters, IMHO.

Where do you think they're naive? 

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

The experts are telling me to not leave the house, but can't tell me what the actual risk is or what their long-term plan is (huddle in our houses for 18 months? c'mon, guys).

I can agree on the lack of a formulated long-term plan, but you see the actual risks announces constantly. Today, the governor of Maryland mentioned that the majority of cases in his state are people in their 40's. They will mostly all survive, but many of these people will be on ventilators, and some might die. I don't know how much clearer risk can be? That's not even bringing up spreading it to higher risk people. The youngest, supposedly healthy casualty I've read about is a 12-year old. I hear of more 30 and 40 year olds dying each day, some with no pre-existing condition. 

In regard to 18 months, I think they're just trying to give us a worst-case scenario so it seems better once they release us in a month or two. My feeling (no evidence for this) is we will be in lock down until about June 1st. I think a combination of people abiding by the lockdown, weather change, effective but experimental medication, more ventilators, and other factors will prevent this from being an 18 month ordeal. I do think a recession will occur from this, even if we are released on Easter. I don't think we get to Great Recession level--one that carries to election day at least, unless we are in shutdown through the Summer. 

I'm going to walk outside now while I still can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Definitely not. As a rule of thumb, favour more liberty than not, and libertarians have a realism about governmental tyranny that I think is usually healthy, but they tend to be naive on other matters, IMHO.

They do get some points on Government tyranny by sheer law of averages because they always Government policy above the bare minimum. However, they also attack Government policy that actually funds and operates any benign infrastructure, economic aid, education, and anything else that actually helps the common population, and leave any such services, or services outside law-enforcement, military, judiciary, law-making, and other core concepts to soulless, sociopathic, greed-driven, heartless corporations who would take full advantage to gain massive profit off the labour, inequity, and ability to cheat and "ring-out," the common people without meaningful regulations or limits. In my opinion, a vile and despicable ideology - and one utterly ill-suited to deal with a crisis such as this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Definitely not. As a rule of thumb, favour more liberty than not, and libertarians have a realism about governmental tyranny that I think is usually healthy, but they tend to be naive on other matters, IMHO.

We're getting pretty close. We have been a bit ahead of you guys on the lock-downs and so on, by perhaps a few days. The PM (who is staying at home because his wife tested positive for COVID-19) recently threatened Canadians who don't abide by measures. Much is happening at the provincial level (= state level). Stores shut down. Restaurants shut down. Churches closed. Parks closed. Even a significant number of nature parks have been closed.

No, it's a distrust of expert opinion and politicians, especially in situations where there is little information. The experts are telling me to not leave the house, but can't tell me what the actual risk is or what their long-term plan is (huddle in our houses for 18 months? c'mon, guys).

I think strong initial measures are appropriate given what little we do know, but it's unsustainable long-term and probably most important in order to buy time to get a clearer picture, for production, innovation, and so on.

Yes a distrust of experts is good especially when they have gone to school and studied this exact thing their entire lives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Where do you think they're naive? 

How markets can be gamed, how any action affects other people.

31 minutes ago, vcczar said:

you see the actual risks announces constantly

Not really. They are announcing certain numbers, but difficult to go from that to any sort of reasonable ascertaining of risk of doing various things (and, of course, risks of lock-down measures).

Best data we have is mortality risk is extremely low for young (< 30), healthy person. Probably more risky to drive a car in terms of mortality risk than careful social activity for that demographic at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Yes a distrust of experts is good especially when they have gone to school and studied this exact thing their entire lives...

How many experts in contagious disease have studied the psychological and economic consequences of long-term society-wide shutdowns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

How many experts in contagious disease have studied the psychological and economic consequences of long-term society-wide shutdowns?

I would think most of them?  I studied public relations...a much simpler topic, of course...and yet my courses involved both psychological and economic consequences of various PR subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Patine said:

The term "house arrest," is in reference to law-enforcement and correctional processes and indicates who have committed a crime, or are awaiting trial for such, just locked in your home for extenuating circumstances. It has nothing to do, as a term, with what your talking about. Please do not such hyperbolically inappropriate terms. We get enough of those from @Wiw.

Please don't drag me into this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martial law is when the national guard can be deployed, and citizens rights can legally be restricted, that case no.

House arrest and only essential travel? Yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

Martial law is when the national guard can be deployed, and citizens rights can legally be restricted, that case no.

House arrest and only essential travel? Yes. 

Again, there's no house ARREST. Being confined to your house for an emergency situation is NOT house arrest. House arrest is when you are awaiting trial, or serving a sentence of incarceration, but, for very rare and extenuating circumstances, you're in your home and can't leave. It is not the same as confinement for an emergency. Now, could you and @admin_270 stop using this grossly inappropriate term (and could Anthony please edit his poll to remove the world - as technically, all votes on it are currently invalid, because they're voting for how long they'd tolerate a condition that's not relevant to the situation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

grossly inappropriate term

It's basically house arrest.

Meanwhile, my Premier has described the state of things as a 'lockdown', and people in my province can now be fined and arrested for not observing various measures such as keeping 6 feet between people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It's basically house arrest.

Meanwhile, my Premier has described the state of things as a 'lockdown', and people in my province can now be fined and arrested for not observing various measures such as keeping 6 feet between people.

Why do insist on clinging to an inappropriate term, stubbornly. I have said THREE TIMES what house arrest means, by definition, and you just insist on carrying on with it, just because - well, for real no stated reason or evidence, in retort, just BECAUSE, like a contrarian high school trouble maker, as far as I can gather from any response you've made on the issue - which, like several of your other terms recently, are not helping anything, and can only do harm to the discussions here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

@Patine You don't control what words I use. Next thing you're going to start criticizing people for saying 'Spanish flu' ...

No, I don't control them. And I don't often get this irate about words you use. But this term, and another term you had been using until recently, are highly irresponsible to be using, and insisting on using and defending their use, and it doesn't make you look good on these forums, and it greatly hurts your credibility and legitimacy to discuss these issues with any respect - or respectability. But no, I cannot CONTROL the words you use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

But this term, and another term you had been using until recently, are highly irresponsible to be using

'Spanish flu'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...