Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Very sorry I said locked in their homes when you actually said 'confined to their homes for months'.

In this case including only a partial quote of mine is deceptive.
The rest of my sentence clearly stated there were exceptions and some of these were listed.

[Exile]

Portions left out in bold:

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

This occurred in parts of Europe and Australia, just to name two locations.

Both in the UK and parts of Australia people have been confined to their homes for months at a time, being permitted to leave only for “essential purposes” (eg an hours exercise a day or one person at a time per household grocery shopping etc).

eg Scotland had stay-at-home lockdowns for over two months from March to May 2020 and three months January to April 2021. All of the UK was nearly the same.

Melbourne in Australia had stay-at-home lockdowns (mainly with a curfew) for over three months July to October 2020 and two months August to October 2021 (this will end on Friday, but with other severe restrictions still in place).

Sydney’s last stay-at-home lockdown extended for almost 4 months late June 2021 to last Monday.

When the lockdowns overlapped in Melbourne and Sydney nearly half of Australia’s population was subjected to not leaving home except for “essential” purposes.

The point that was being made is that such "stay-at-home" restrictions are obviously severe. Not sure how else to fairly characterize restrictions which prohibit citizens from leaving their own homes for whatever reason they may choose. Whether they are justified or not by the obvious public health issue is what we are (or were) discussing.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

In 2020 in Subic, if over 60, you were not allowed to leave your home for any reason.....
Others were supposed to do the shopping for you or you had food delivered.
Similar restrictions for the under 16

.......

So maybe this is an example of being confined to their home for months at a time in single city or area(not country wide). How long were the over 60 kept inside? A quick search and I only saw this

A backlash from angry senior citizens has forced the Philippine government to back down on a plan that would have confined the elderly to their homes even after coronavirus quarantine measures were lifted for younger adults

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Solzhenitsyn had a far finer mind than mine, but this quote seemed so wrong that I delved further .

There was no full stop after “good”. This is the full quote:

“To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. . . . it is in the nature of a human being to seek a justification for his actions.”

Natural law I guess refers to moral principles? These have varied very widely not only between people, cultures and religions, but whole populations over time, let alone species. To me, “natural law” is a very personal, not universal term so it can be used to justify any action.

Sorry about the thread drift, but the quote you presented intrigued me.

SWL

Lapse of scholarship on my part -- should have been ellipses instead of full stop; sorry.

You've got a bad translation; Solzhenitsyn did not mention Natural Law. The original:

"Чтобы делать зло, человек должен прежде осознать его как добро или как осмысленное закономерное действие. Такова, к счастью, природа человека, что он должен искать оправдание своим действиям."

"To do evil, a person must first of all perceive it [the act] as good, or as a meaningful, non-random act. Such, fortunately is the nature of the human being, that he must find justification for his actions."

At the time of writing this, Sozhenitsyn had obviously not seen any Quentin Tarrantino movies

But it's a deep thought. Self-righteousness is a powerful source of evil.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Exile

Portions left out in bold:







The point that was being made is that such "stay-at-home" restrictions are obviously severe. Not sure how else to fairly characterize restrictions which prohibit citizens from leaving their own homes for whatever reason they may choose. Whether they are justified or not by the obvious public health issue is what we are (or were) discussing.

That's a good point, after 3000 posts, what are we discussing?

For me in the hopes that all peoples develop resistance to Covid thru natural or vaccinated means....

Are we at risk of permanently loosing our social freedoms and privacy, for the cause of preventing future pandemics?

Is the new normal they envision a more sedate and whimpering population?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Paul L

So maybe this is an example of being confined to their home for months at a time in single city or area(not country wide). How long were the over 60 kept inside? A quick search and I only saw this

This was the frustrating part of it all. .

Mixed messages and enforcements by all levels of Government.
Inside Subic Freeport it was tightly enforced and patrolled
Threats by the Administration were daily and yet in the surrounding communities, each had their own interpretation of what they wanted. So varying degrees of freedom that morphed every few weeks

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Like I said hyperbole. They were not locked in their homes for 2 months. There was restricted travel and a list of essential reasons they could go out, including as you mention shopping, excercise, etc. So say that instead of hyping up with locked inside for two months.
People have been literally locked in their homes for short periods in places like Wuhan or in isolated buildings in Malaysia that had active Covid cases. But it just isn't the country locked in their homes for two months hype thrown out here to drive the posters points.

I don't think it is hyperbolic at all to say that people subject to stay-at-home orders are "locked in their homes". Just because they are allowed out for some purpose or another does not cancel the nature of the thing, any more than inmates in prisons let out for exercise or on furlough from time to time, or allowed conjugal visits, would be said to be not locked up.


The severity of stay at home orders of course varied greatly in different countries, but it has been not uncommon for going out for exercise to be restricted to an hour a day and some very short radius from home. With a prohibition on any visiting of anyone or receiving visitors and lots of other restrictions.


Such measures might be justified if they don't last too long and are of great epidemiolgical benefit. But you can't pretend that they are not enormously costly. Human life is limited in time; the months of visits with your loved ones, of whatever you do outside your home, exploration, social interaction, work, whatever -- you will never get back. Such measures should be used with the greatest of judiciousness and based on science which demonstrates that the benefit is worth the cost.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Solzhenitsyn had a far finer mind than mine, but this quote seemed so wrong that I delved further .

There was no full stop after “good”. This is the full quote:

“To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. . . . it is in the nature of a human being to seek a justification for his actions.”

Natural law I guess refers to moral principles? These have varied very widely not only between people, cultures and religions, but whole populations over time, let alone species. To me, “natural law” is a very personal, not universal term so it can be used to justify any action.

Sorry about the thread drift, but the quote you presented intrigued me.

SWL

I also found the Solzhenitsyn quote most intriguing, so much so that I saved it for future reference. Solzhenitsyn's use of "in the nature of a human being" is right on the money, imho, and also explains why humans have always been so inclined towards conflict. There are (relatively) few among us who take positions for nefarious purposes. Most do so (I think) because they've convinced themselves that their positions are justified. This often combines with a well-intended albeit selfish desire for self-righteousness, and once convinced of their own superior "morality" it's an easy transition to beliefs that people who disagree are not only "wrong" but actually "immoral." At that point it devolves further into "any means justify the ends," and you get into ad hominem territory, bullying, character assassination, and worse. Of course, once convinced of the moral righteousness of your own position and reinforced by the like-minded, it's all too easy to be "offended" by contrarian perspectives and so efforts to suppress rather than engage quickly follow. So much for free speech, the "marketplace of ideas," and sunlight being the best disinfectant. Throw in ideology and identity and you have a toxic mix.

Even a rudimentary knowledge of history demonstrates that this truly is the "nature of humankind" which it appears Solzhenitsyn was making reference to. Whether one may think it is justified or not, there's a lot of fear -- in different parts of the world no less -- that some of the restrictions and now vaccine mandates we're seeing over Covid are a precursor to a more authoritarian world. As always, there's no binary answers, but it is worth respecting by resisting the human tendency towards ostracization, division and hatred.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Exile

I also found the Solzhenitsyn quote most intriguing, so much so that I saved it for future reference. Solzhenitsyn's use of "in the nature of a human being" is right on the money, imho, and also explains why humans have always been so inclined towards conflict. There are (relatively) few among us who take positions for nefarious purposes. Most do so (I think) because they've convinced themselves that their positions are justified. This often combines with a well-intended albeit selfish desire for self-righteousness, and once convinced of their own superior "morality" it's an easy transition to beliefs that people who disagree are not only "wrong" but actually "immoral." At that point it devolves further into "any means justify the ends," and you get into ad hominem territory, bullying, character assassination, and worse. Of course, once convinced of the moral righteousness of your own position and reinforced by the like-minded, it's all too easy to be "offended" by contrarian perspectives and so efforts to suppress rather than engage quickly follow. So much for free speech, the "marketplace of ideas," and sunlight being the best disinfectant. Throw in ideology and identity and you have a toxic mix.

Even a rudimentary knowledge of history demonstrates that this truly is the "nature of humankind" which it appears Solzhenitsyn was making reference to. Whether one may think it is justified or not, there's a lot of fear -- in different parts of the world no less -- that some of the restrictions and now vaccine mandates we're seeing over Covid are a precursor to a more authoritarian world. As always, there's no binary answers, but it is worth respecting by resisting the human tendency towards ostracization, division and hatred.

Well expressed. I very much agree with the above. It also helps explain some of the verbal tactics used in posts we see here on CF.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul L

So where were people confined to their home for months at a time besides perhaps Wuhan? It did not happen in any of the countries I have been in. Not in the US, Singapore, Malaysia, Maldives, Seychelles, Mayotte. From your descriptions it did not happen in Northern Europe. So back to more hyperbole.

We did not have any stay at home orders in the Nordic area, nor anywhere in Northern Europe (Germany had some short state lockdowns, but no national one).

But in many other parts of Europe people were severely confined to their homes. In Spain, people were not allowed outside of their houses even for exercise. Last summer the Supreme Court of Spain declared the lockdown unconstitutional.

In France, you were not allowed to leave your home except for a short list of essential reasons, and you had to have permission, a written pass. Exercise only for maximum one hour per day, and 1000 yards from your home.

In many European countries, you were obligated to stay in your home except for essential grocery shopping and limited time for outdoor exercise. If you were caught outside your home without a valid reason, you could be fined or jailed.

That's not "locked in your home"?

Originally Posted by Paul L

. . . How bout we play a what if game where just one country didn't do the major government interventional response to the pandemic. Let's take one with a big economy, say the US. No federal intervention, no giant stimulus plans, no vaccine development funding, no masks, no social distancing, no lockdowns, no extra ventilators, no travel restrictions. Now since you aren't running the country or making the scenario you don't get to cherry pick what the interventions are. The US goes into a recession, let's call it the Great Recession II. Conincidently the rest of the world follows suit. Now let's compare the great harm that you feel is being inflicted on people now versus the harm that would be inflicted in this scenario. Heck, even the wealthy, upper middle class, white collar, real estate owning group might feel tinge of harm.

What a bizarre post. If you think I was ever in favor of just doing nothing about the pandemic, then you haven't understood a single thing I've written since the beginning of this. It is typical of the horrible polarized thinking in the U.S. to jump to the conclusion that if someone questions any single aspect of the pandemic measures, then this person, this -- rat-licker -- is obviously in favor of just doing nothing. Because it's binary -- either take every single possible measure and don't think about the cost, or just do nothing. Us and them. Red state, blue state.

Well, it's not binary. Different combinations of measures can be used to fight the pandemic. I think it's obvious to about 99% of people with an IQ of above room temperature that the pandemic is a very serious thing which demands a serious government response, and I have always been in favor of a serious government response. You can believe both that, and that the particular measures should be chosen carefully with a view to what collateral harm they do and how much good they do.

I don't know what the best combination of measures is, and there is probably not a single combination which suits every country. As I've written so many times before -- we'll understand this much better in a year or two after the dust has settled and after an adequate amount of science has been done on it. In any case, I'm for science-driven, rational policies which balance the harmful side effects of different measures against their epidemiologic benefit, and which choose measures carefully keeping in mind, in particular, the interests of disadvantaged people. I'm against fear-driven, irrational, anti-scientific "just do everything and don't question it" policies, and particularly the attitude that anyone who even wants to discuss whether or not a given policy makes sense or not, should be censored, called a rat-licker, and subject to a lynch mob type of response. I'm not saying that's what we've had on here -- actually for the last year or so, I think we've had some reasonably good discussions. But you see this in society, particularly in the U.S.

I think we already know that school closings are a mistake -- that's certainly the consensus in the Nordic countries, where the public health officials in both Norway and Denmark have officially declared their brief school closings to have been errors (the Norwegian Prime Minister actually stated that most of the early pandemic measures -- however mild they were compared to most of the world -- were a fear-driven overreaction). Maybe school closings were forgivable errors since school ARE significant vectors for flu pandemics -- how could anyone have known that they wouldn't be for COVID? But how many countries have admitted the error and corrected their policies?

As to stay at home orders -- as I've said, I think we need more science to know for sure whether they do much good or not, but I am doubtful. In this part of the world, we have gotten through the pandemic very well without any such measures. What science there is seems to indicate that stay at home orders are not very effective. But again -- we need much more science on this to know for sure.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

I also found the Solzhenitsyn quote most intriguing, so much so that I saved it for future reference. Solzhenitsyn's use of "in the nature of a human being" is right on the money, imho, and also explains why humans have always been so inclined towards conflict. There are (relatively) few among us who take positions for nefarious purposes. Most do so (I think) because they've convinced themselves that their positions are justified. This often combines with a well-intended albeit selfish desire for self-righteousness, and once convinced of their own superior "morality" it's an easy transition to beliefs that people who disagree are not only "wrong" but actually "immoral." At that point it devolves further into "any means justify the ends," and you get into ad hominem territory, bullying, character assassination, and worse. Of course, once convinced of the moral righteousness of your own position and reinforced by the like-minded, it's all too easy to be "offended" by contrarian perspectives and so efforts to suppress rather than engage quickly follow. So much for free speech, the "marketplace of ideas," and sunlight being the best disinfectant. Throw in ideology and identity and you have a toxic mix.

Even a rudimentary knowledge of history demonstrates that this truly is the "nature of humankind" which it appears Solzhenitsyn was making reference to. Whether one may think it is justified or not, there's a lot of fear -- in different parts of the world no less -- that some of the restrictions and now vaccine mandates we're seeing over Covid are a precursor to a more authoritarian world. As always, there's no binary answers, but it is worth respecting by resisting the human tendency towards ostracization, division and hatred.

Just so


Solzhenitsyn was talking about where evil comes from, with particular thought about the evils of the Soviet system. You believe you are part of this great project to build a just new society, and this project, which is a life or death struggle, is led by this strong man who understands you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. The project is too important to waste time on debate. In fact, those who desire to debate anything are actually the enemy, and deserve what they get. That's how it starts.


And doesn't that remind us of something we've read in this very thread?

Originally Posted by sepharad

. . . Why hate people who fail to respond appropriately? Because they threaten the extinction of the entire group. The "enemy" cannot be negotiated with. They don't even have the ABILITY to do so.. . .

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

What disturbs me too is the hatred that is being directed at anyone unvaccinated in some Australian states, particularly Victoria who has had more days of stay at home lockdown than any other city worldwide (together with the curfew this is finally being lifted on Friday and some of the other restrictions eased). Those expressing any vaccine hesitancy are being treated as social pariahs and all sorts of ill wishes are being heaped on them. Read the Australian thread for a taste of this. I have not experienced this in the UK.

I think lots of aspects of this pandemic are actually worse than the virus itself.

SWL

Where on earth are you finding this stuff? Care to point us in the general direction? Did somebody say 'hyperbole'??

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Where on earth are you finding this stuff? Care to point us in the general direction? Did somebody say 'hyperbole'??

This is where it gets interesting

You deny that any of that is happening, yet media accounts have reported on these overreacting tactics. .
Perhaps the media was investing in some hyperbole, who knows, who cares, but the same message registered with many around the world.

Machiavelli got right to the point that if a threat is perceived, then the end justifies the means, to neutralize it.

Our default nature is as herd animals ..... and the most aggressive of herd animals are the ones protecting their young..

In the US media lately, there is the battle betwen parents and school board administrators over radical changes in what their children will be taught

The FBI have been directed to investigate outspoken parents as domestic terrorists.

Is this hyperbole or a throwback to McCarthyism ?

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

This is where it gets interesting

You deny that any of that is happening,
I'm not denying anything - just asking where this info is to be found

yet media accounts have reported on these overreacting tactics. .
Perhaps the media was investing in some hyperbole, who knows, who cares, but the same message registered with many around the world.

Machiavelli got right to the point that if a threat is perceived, then the end justifies the means, to neutralize it.

Our default nature is as herd animals ..... and the most aggressive of herd animals are the ones protecting their young..

In the US media lately, there is the battle betwen parents and school board administrators over radical changes in what their children will be taught

The FBI have been directed to investigate outspoken parents as domestic terrorists.

Is this hyperbole or a throwback to McCarthyism ?

That's in the US - SWL is talking about Australia - different country - different continent.

I'm just interested in finding out where this is happening in Australia. Simple question - should have a simple answer.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

It has become very much apparent to me that Australians’ ability to think clearly and independently shuts down when the instinct to follow the herd kicks in, and this seems to kick in frighteningly easily and far more so than I have experienced in the UK......

If you are referring to panic buying of dunny paper, I gotta agree wholeheartedly.

To be the devil's advocate for a moment let me ask - what do you get when 10 clear and independent thinkers are given a problem and independently 9 of them reach the same conclusion - an intelligent herd perhaps; however the lone voice only sees "sheeple".

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

.....One other thing that has been highlighted during the recent events in Australia is that we are pack hunters.....

I am unclear if there is an implied criticism here or not and if you are referring only to Australians or humanity in total.

Yes, we (humanity) are pack hunters, always have been. It's how we evolved and is (was?) completely necessary for the feeding/protecting the pack. No man is an island et al.

A prime example is the recent fiasco in southern Tassie. The day to day life 250,000 people are suddenly interrupted by a snap three day at home orders due to the actions of one unrepentant, uncooperative scofflaw. Not all agree with the government actions but all of them know why the orders were put in place. I'm confident in saying all 250,000 people want the book thrown at the fella and many want much more than that. Maybe his mum still loves him but even she would likely give him a serious tap upside of the ear.

I would say we have seen far more examples in Oz of pack compassionate protection (i.e. looking after the fail and weak by the strong and at the expense of the strong) than we see of hunting. Most (in Oz) accept the disruptions of life in Covid times as a necessary evil. Pretty sure this isn't the case in say the US - at least going by the media reports, dunno about the UK or Europe but I suspect they are closer to the Oz experience that the US.

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

This is my country and my people so this realisation has hit me hard....

You have been away far too long, come home and learn to luv us again.

There are many more things that unite us than divide us and we are still hugging - Covid be dammed!