COVID question for anti-maskers/vaxers/distancing

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

08.04.2021 11:04PM

Over the past year as the world has grappled with a once in a century pandemic we have seen an entire political movement against masks, vaccines, social distancing… pretty much anything we can do to stop or slow down the spread of COVID. These folks will often hide behind notions of freedom or whatever other excuse they find to justify their positions.

Actions taken include the banning of mask mandates, not only at the county level but also in schools. In Florida they banned cruise ships from requiring patrons to be vaccinated. And then there’s the nonstop onslaught on right wing television aided by these public officials against health experts, science, and any confidence the public could possibly have that this virus is real, dangerous, and that we have vaccines that can get us out of this.

Imagine the following scenario: You are a secret agent of a foreign country and your mission is to do whatever you can to get as many Americans as possible killed through COVID, so first, you manage to get yourself elected governor of an entire US state. My question is, please tell me what you would do to complete your mission that republican governors are not already doing.

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,303

TheUnderdog

08.04.2021 11:14PM

-->

@Double_R

My question is, please tell me what you would do to complete your mission that republican governors are not already doing.

You would prohibit vaccines in your state on the grounds that they are too dangerous when in reality they save lives, and you would prohibit masks on the grounds that America needs to man up against the virus, "because 'Murcia" and "don't be a pussy" and, "Thin the herd"(a slogan that although I disagree with is popular enough for someone to have as a bumper sticker and not have their car destroyed over it in one of the bluest states in the country(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQsz-QxVUAEx-W3.jpg:large)). Yet we don't see the GOP doing either of these things and instead letting people choose their own risk tolerance because of the American value of freedom.

Is America principled with this value? Not nearly as much as I'd like them to be. However, if America doesn't mandate vaccines, that would be one part of freedom that I like.

Debates: 0

Posts: 398

08.04.2021 11:23PM

-->

@Double_R

You are a secret agent of a foreign country and your mission is to do whatever you can to get as many Americans as possible killed through COVID, so first, you manage to get yourself elected governor of an entire US state. My question is, please tell me what you would do to complete your mission

If my goal was to get as many people sick possible then I would start by making what seems like a reasonable mandate that limits human freedom but makes it seem reasonable. I would then extend such mandates and expand them, possibly even making decisions one day and different ones the next day all based on saying I have read more 'research' and talked to more doctors (I would always find a doctor that holds the position I now mandate based off of since there will never be universal agreement).

I would make mandates against going out and in speeches say things like "You don't need to go to a salon for your hair, there is a pandemic" and then make sure news is leaked that I did not listen to my own advice. The more people in positions of authority that are caught not listening the better.

The purpose of this is to build distrust in the government in many people, causing them to take whatever the opposite position I advocate for regardless of what it is. Create polarization and make use of it. I would even make policies to move sick patients into nursing homes even if there are safer alternatives, thus allowing it to spread and cause more deaths as well as further government distrust among those already skeptical.

I would also try to have as many people move into the state as possible, especially if they are unvaccinated. Undocumented migrants would be of greatest use as this could cause further governmental distrust.

I would then find out whatever vaccine and/or treatment that exists is the least effective and try to make mandates for vaccines/treatment and make sure to push for that specific one, but also keep things locked down despite people becoming vaccinated. This will cause those that already distrusted the government to take a hard stance against treatment of any kind. Hopefully enough people will be distrustful and so it will impact a large amount of people.

Furthermore, since the vaccine/treatment I recommend is the least effective those that still trust the government at this point will likely keep the one I recommended in mind and will, thus, get the least effective vaccine/treatment, thus while they might not be as at risk they will not be as safe as they think.

At this point I would 'lessen' the restrictions in such a way that those that are vaccinated would be able to let their guard down while those that are distrustful will be even angrier. This will cause more people that are on the fence to pick a side and thus get rid of the indecisive elements. I would then do what I can to make the vaccinated people feel safe while actually putting them in situations where they are most at risk. If this ever gets seen through it would only cause more people to distrust the government and thus increase the number of people that refuse the vaccine, if it isn't seen through then those that feel safe and let their guard down will now start to get sick.

This would be especially effective if a mutated strain appears in which the already least effective vaccine is unable to handle. Those that don't trust the government won't get vaccinated, those that do will likely wait to see what I recommend, and I will have already manipulated people into picking a side rather than stay neutral.

janesix

Debates: 12

Posts: 2,049

janesix

08.04.2021 11:40PM

-->

@Double_R

You are a sheep.

Topic's author

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

08.05.2021 12:21PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

You would prohibit vaccines in your state on the grounds that they are too dangerous when in reality they save lives

I don't know if governors can do this, but even if they could it would need a pretty bad strategy. The backlash would get that governor kicked out of office. Mission fail. But hey, at least we seem to agree that vaccines work and are crucial to controlling this so I'll take it.

Yet we don't see the GOP doing either of these things and instead letting people choose their own risk tolerance because of the American value of freedom.

Is America principled with this value?

Of course we all believe in freedom, the problem is that many people have a very perverted sense of what freedom is. The freedom to swing you're arms ends at someone else's nose. So no, mask wearing and getting vaccinated are not merely personal choices, so prioritizing freedom as opposed to upholding the basic responsibility we all have to avoid endangering the health and safety of others is absurd IMHO.

Topic's author

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

08.05.2021 01:02PM

-->

@TheMorningsStar

So your argument is essentially that you would do what you claim Democratic governors are doing, which is a pretty terrible argument given that the virus is surging almost exclusively in red States and has been for the most part since the early days of the pandemic.

The purpose of this is to build distrust in the government in many people, causing them to take whatever the opposite position I advocate for regardless of what it is.

Distrust in government is achieved by constantly telling your constituents not to trust government and then preying on their ignorance by "just asking questions" when we already have the answers, pretending health experts can't make up their minds and don't know what their talking about every time new scientific data is released and the health experts adapt accordingly, or by pretending that a governor deciding to not follow their own restrictions has any bearing on whether the restrictions themselves are beneficial to society and should be followed.

I would also try to have as many people move into the state as possible, especially if they are unvaccinated. Undocumented migrants would be of greatest use

Ah yes, my personal favorite; the "fear the brown people with COVID" argument made almost entirely by those who don't care about COVID.

but also keep things locked down despite people becoming vaccinated. This will cause those that already distrusted the government to take a hard stance against treatment of any kind.

You mean it will cause those who are so incredibly childish that they would not get themselves vaccinated because they're mad at the government... to not get vaccinated. This one is actually pretty genius, it's like when I got my niece to help me clean my living room by telling her she wasn't old enough to help out. Children are like that.

Just taking a step back, what I find most remarkable about your post is that it clearly comes from a right wing point of view while simultaneously arguing not only that the right's refusal to partake in COVID measures is causing them to die, but you also seem to be arguing that they are just as ignorant and childish as I find them to be. When I talked about what I would do to spread COVID I was talking mostly about policy. Your "ideas" for how you would spread COVID were all psychological, and all of them aimed at the right. Very interesting.

Debates: 0

Posts: 398

08.05.2021 02:00PM

-->

@Double_R

So your argument is essentially that you would do what you claim Democratic governors are doing

Similar to what they are doing, yes, but not the same thing. It is true that almost everything I listed has been done by Democratic governors, but spread out (not one governor doing all of it).

We know that putting covid patients into nursing homes caused a lot of death and allowed the virus to spread. We know that allowing mass migration of unvaccinated people has caused spikes. Etc.

If one governor did all of this then it could cause a lot of issues, but that is not the case, they only do some of it. Furthermore, as far as I am aware there isn't a governor anywhere that pushes for the 'least effective' vaccine.

what I find most remarkable about your post is that it clearly comes from a right wing point of view

No, an anti-authoritarian point of view. The right-wing response has been flawed as well, but the insanity by authoritarians (and more Left-leaning governors have taken authoritarian measures than right-leaning ones in response to Covid), even from other states, has caused such a level of distrust, especially when you take into account the social media censorship of criticism and how we know that social media, in very recent history, has censored stories for political gain.

You mean it will cause those who are so incredibly childish that they would not get themselves vaccinated because they're mad at the government

This is a complete strawman, or, at the very least, complete ignorance of reality. We are in a country that has become more and more polarized. People on both sides will take stances just to be contrarian to the other side. It isn't necessarily 'childish', it follows basic group psychology. In a way the country is divided into roughly two tribes (technically a few more, but they are not major players) and there is almost a tribal warfare going on. That is how polarized things have gotten. To pretend it is just people being childish shows little understanding on just how bad the situation in the country has gotten and little understanding of psychology.

Topic's author

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

08.05.2021 05:00PM

No, an anti-authoritarian point of view

So what is your view then? If you believe COVID is real and is dangerous, please explain how you would combat it without stepping into what you are criticizing as authoritarianism

the insanity by authoritarians (and more Left-leaning governors have taken authoritarian measures than right-leaning ones in response to Covid), even from other states, has caused such a level of distrust

What insanity, and how does it warrant such distrust?

especially when you take into account the social media censorship of criticism and how we know that social media, in very recent history, has censored stories for political gain

Social media platforms are not running for office, they're in business to money. Taking political positions and alienating half their users is not a great way to do that. The problem for these companies is that neutrality and objectivity are no longer compatible, so they had to choose. Objectivity won.

We are in a country that has become more and more polarized. People on both sides will take stances just to be contrarian to the other side. It isn't necessarily 'childish', it follows basic group psychology.

The fact that it follows group psychology doesn't make it any less childish. But what I was referring to specifically isn't just the tenancy to be contrarian to the other side, it's taking this tenancy to the point where one will make adverse health decisions on the basis of not wanting to be told what to do. That's a whole nother level.

Debates: 0

Posts: 398

08.05.2021 05:53PM

-->

@Double_R

If you believe COVID is real and is dangerous, please explain how you would combat it without stepping into what you are criticizing as authoritarianism

Let's go back to the beginning as I was critical of things almost right from the start (and assume that I am in charge).

I believe that the role of a country is to protect the citizens rights and to protect the citizens from outside threats, and as such there are some small 'authoritarian' aspects that can be taken if it is in line with these two roles.

I was actually talking about Covid being a threat in December of 2019, having paid attention to what was happening in China. Even as far back as this time it was known that China had an outbreak of something, some people were speculating it was going to be bad, and we knew a center of outbreak was in Wuhan.

I would then call for experts to further investigate and see if we had any connections into Wuhan to use to find out any specifics on the virus if possible. I would also ban any travel to and from China, its neighboring countries, and anyone that had been in China recently. I would make no policies that limit the citizens freedoms up to this point. I would then increase support for border control in order to prevent as many people from illegally entering the country as possible.

It should not be long before we would be able to see just how bad the virus is (there were people warning others about it in January) and thus I would start looking at what essential products come from China and see if there are alternate sources for these and encourage (possibly through monetary incentive) companies to switch to manufacturing products that do not have alternate sources. I would also put restrictions on good coming from China.

I would push government funding into ways to test for the virus as well as any treatment options (while keeping an eye on China to see if they come up with anything and don't bother sharing). The moment we have an effective way to test for the virus we would be able to allow people to reenter the country if they are tested (and make it clear that if you are in charge and let people into the country that test positive that you will face a large fine and jail time, as one of the ways it did enter the US was when someone tested positive and was put on the plane to the US anyways).

The moment an effective treatment is found I would create a program that anyone could get tested for Covid and if they test positive they would be given access to the treatment as well as some level of financial aid to make up for lost work time (instead of giving everyone checks and unemployment). I would never mandate masks but would encourage their use, as mandates tend to create distrust it is best not to use these. I would also do what Trump did with Operation Warpspeed in order to get a vaccine.

Once a vaccine is available I would not mandate it but would encourage people to use it. Depending on how bad Covid has impacted the country I would also give monetary incentive (again, no checks to everyone, no unemployment to everyone).

During the process I would hold a press conference twice a week, not every day (as this makes it easier for misinformation to accidentally be said during conferences) with updates on what is known, what measures one can take to protect themselves, etc.

If there was to be any limitation on freedom it would be a '15 day stay-at-home' that actually only lasts 15 days, but that is dependent upon how effective everything else has been.

No mandates = more trust. Less misinformation from not holding a press conference every day = more trust. Keeping the economy running = more trust. Giving financial aid to those that are sick = more trust.

The goal is to build trust while allowing people to be free so that when health recommendations are made that people will be more trusting of the information, when the vaccine becomes available people are more trusting of it, etc.

The most important thing is to act early and keep the national border as closed as possible. It is also important to create punishments for those that might bring the virus into the country (and for those that would put the sick into nursing homes) to make people more proactive rather than complacent in their positions that have large impact.

While there very well could still be a debt issue from the financial aid and incentives in this plan the economy will not have suffered nearly as bad and thus the country will be able to more easily handle it.

There are likely a few things I am forgetting at the moment, but that is because I have not considered every aspect as I am not someone with the power to do this.

The problem is that the right-wing didn't want to do some of these things because they hate government spending going anywhere but their own pockets while the left-wing didn't want this initially as it was 'xenophobic'.

Taking political positions and alienating half their users is not a great way to do that.

You are aware that social media already does take political positions, right?

Topic's author

#10

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

08.05.2021 10:48PM

-->

@TheMorningsStar

The goal is to build trust while allowing people to be free so that when health recommendations are made that people will be more trusting of the information, when the vaccine becomes available people are more trusting of it, etc.

One of my biggest pet peeves and reasons for starting this thread was the idea that freedom plays any real role in this debate. The measures being taken or seriously considered are all well within the limits of the Constitution and historical precedent. The problem is not an encroachment into anyone's freedom, the problem is that COVID had become so politicized on the right that scientists have how become the bad guys. That's absurd, so I don't buy this freedom argument for a second.

When it comes to trust we just have a fundamental disagreement here. The way to build trust is by following science and acting in the public's best interest. There is no way to fight back against the level of disinformation coming from Republican officials, Fox news and other right wing media. People are always going to screw up and get something wrong, when you prime you're base to believe your political opposition is you're biggest enemy and that everything they say it's a lie... There is no building trust.

#11

Debates: 6

Posts: 1,950

08.06.2021 02:05AM

-->

@Double_R

Several points for your consideration:

Mask mandates are vapid, absurd and politically motivated security theater. Anyone who supports mask mandates where any one of three commercially available vaccines are widely accessible to anyone who wants it, does so at the expense of public confidence in the vaccines. The vaccines work, there is no added safety whatsoever to masking if you're vaccinated and there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone, vaccinated or not, benefits directly/indirectly from any such mandate. Likewise, non-vaccinated people pose no risk whatsoever to vaccinated people.
So called "social distancing" is based on junk science. The idea is that respiratory particles do not travel more than 6 feet. Yet, the virus is airborne and with every exhaled breath in a closed room, the concentration of aerosolized viral material increases significantly --- which is why time spent in closed, non-ventilated spaces is the predictive factor of an outbreak (albeit only now among non-vaccinated persons) as opposed to "social distancing" or other such nonsense. Same goes for "capacity limits." There is not now, nor has there ever been, evidence supporting efficacy of those "safety measures" in accomplishing their intended purpose.
It is very clear that COVID is very political for you. It shouldn't be. According to the evidence, as Bill Maher correctly noted on Real Time, Democrats profoundly over-estimate the risks COVID presents to all people at all age groups and with or without any risk factors. Their understanding of COVID's risks has no connection to reality whatsoever. Republicans, for their part, while still wrong to some extent, were less wrong on every relevant point of consideration than Democrats. There is clear evidence linking media-based fear-pornography-reporting on COVID to these collective delusions of Democrats in this country. It's time people actually followed the science, rather than following the politics --- which is what you're doing in this thread.

Topic's author

#12

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

08.06.2021 11:47AM

-->

@coal

Mask mandates are vapid, absurd and politically motivated security theater

Was this your position before, or do you only take this position now because vaccines are available?

So called "social distancing" is based on junk science. The idea is that respiratory particles do not travel more than 6 feet.

The ideas is that germs theory of disease is a real thing, so the further you are away from someone the less likely you are to contract a disease they are carrying. 6 feet is a fairly arbitrary number, the point is to avoid close contact. Of course there are other factors including length of time, ventilation, capacity (another reason why 6 feet is used) etc. No one is saying 6 feet is the all encompassing answer, that's just the typical strawman.

Same goes for "capacity limits." There is not now, nor has there ever been, evidence supporting efficacy of those "safety measures" in accomplishing their intended purpose.

So according to you, there is no statistical difference in the potential spread between a room with 10 people in it vs. a room with 100. Is that correct?

It is very clear that COVID is very political for you

Taking issue with the fact that other people politicized a pandemic is not politicizing a pandemic.

#13

Debates: 6

Posts: 1,950