Morality of Covid-19 lockdown

[MaximGun]

Healthy younger people are losing a year of their lives (and in many cases suffering unemployment) to stop a virus spreading to older and vulnerable people.

Lockdown essentially lets 5-10% of 80 year olds, and a few freaks and co-morbid people, live 1 to 2 years longer if they can avoid Coronavirus.  But, they live that year locked away unable to see their families.

Clearly, there is no moral requirement to avoid eating peanuts and peanut butter in order to avoid a very small number of people who have allergic reactions to peanuts.  They need to take the responsibility for themselves to carry around an epi-pen.  At the same time you would, out of respect, NOT have peanuts served at a party where one of the guests, had a severe peanut allergy.  Most of us can accept peanuts not being served on planes.  That is a small sacrifice to help out a few people with deadly peanut allergies.

Locking people down for a year is not a small sacrifice. There is a balance to be struck between what is reasonably expected of humans and how many people are affected by the medical threat and how much inconvenience there is for the people who believe it is low risk.  If virus mutated to a much more deadly form and killed 10% of people, regardless of age, then the types of measures in place would be reasonable.

Have you seen any decent attempts to thrash through the moral arguments of lockdown v. freedom?  I have looked and have not found any well thought out ones.  Only emotional fatuity about someone's grandmother.  Attitudes are hardening here in Devon and Dorset, people are ignoring lockdown and I see less mask wearing month to month.

[Miriam_M]

Healthy younger people are losing a year of their lives (and in many cases suffering unemployment) to stop a virus spreading to older and vulnerable people.

Lockdown essentially lets 5-10% of 80 year olds, and a few freaks and co-morbid people, live 1 to 2 years longer if they can avoid Coronavirus.  But, they live that year locked away unable to see their families.

Clearly, there is no moral requirement to avoid eating peanuts and peanut butter in order to avoid a very small number of people who have allergic reactions to peanuts.  They need to take the responsibility for themselves to carry around an epi-pen.  At the same time you would, out of respect, NOT have peanuts served at a party where one of the guests, had a severe peanut allergy.  Most of us can accept peanuts not being served on planes.  That is a small sacrifice to help out a few people with deadly peanut allergies.

Locking people down for a year is not a small sacrifice. There is a balance to be struck between what is reasonably expected of humans and how many people are affected by the medical threat and how much inconvenience there is for the people who believe it is low risk.  If virus mutated to a much more deadly form and killed 10% of people, regardless of age, then the types of measures in place would be reasonable.

Have you seen any decent attempts to thrash through the moral arguments of lockdown v. freedom?  I have looked and have not found any well thought out ones.  Only emotional fatuity about someone's grandmother.  Attitudes are hardening here in Devon and Dorset, people are ignoring lockdown and I see less mask wearing month to month.

I have been arguing the same as you, since February of 2020.  First, however, I will take the Devil's Advocate argument, and then conclude.

With this particular overall non-deadly epidemic, there is a subset of people who do not fall into the large segment of co-morbid circumstances which could put them in danger.  They wouldn't know ahead of time that they would develop, and sometimes have developed, complications from Covid, some possibly long-term.  I think an example on this board is the poster lauermar.

This lack of logical predictability also extends to the opposite side.  I have a close friend with an immunosuppressive condition combined with a heavy, heavy cluster of medical conditions which should make her an obvious risk category. She is, in a word, medically fragile, while not "elderly" but middle-aged. However, recently she contracted Covid and had just as light a case as I did -- lighter than a typical cold, much lighter than flu, etc.  I was stunned when she told me this, but she is known for her accuracy and frankness about medicine, and I would have been told by her or her large family if she had had a serious case.

All both examples show is that there is a factor of unpredictability, good and bad, for this disease that does not follow what normally  happens in medicine:  a syndrome, pertinent to the disease and its stage and degree, by which some reasonable, if conservative, predictions (prognoses) can be projected.  It does not follow the usual patterns of viral, bacterial, or system diseases which have a history by which physicians can make predictions. To the OP's question: Does that fact -- the absence of history, combined with a degree of variability new to medicine -- justify classifying it as "a public health emergency" (or "threat")?

In the United States, we have never, before 2020, answered that question with a Yes.  To rise to the occasion of a public health emergency, much more uniformity is needed. Even uniform threat to a particular age group (which is not true of Covid, by the way) does not qualify in current policy as a public health emergency. Instead, universal vaccination is highly recommended for particular age groups, while not essential. (I had all the childhood diseases for which infants are now routinely vaccinated, and as you can see, I am quite alive despite not having been vaccinated.) The two ways to achieve immunity are through the disease itself and through vaccination, but I was always taught that the body (immunity acquired from the disease) is more reliable than medical intervention.

What has been exposed, shockingly, in 2020, is the sorry state of U.S. public policy processes.  Instead of reasoned, it is knee-jerk. Disease is a 9-1-1 occasion now because the population expects freedom from disease as a modern entitlement.  But it is also a 9-1-1 because psychologically, the U.S. has become socialistic/communistic in its thinking about all policy:  Americans are "responsible" for the health of other people (i.e., your reference to grandmothers). That's the underlying justification for decisions founded on hysteria. Grandmother cannot supposedly take care of herself, nor can her family.  With regard to the rest of the population (the co-morbids), these are people who will not take care of their own health, such as the 50% of Covid fatalities who were obese; "therefore" the entire population is "responsible" to do it for them.

It is thirdly a 9-1-1 because this nation has become risk-averse and assumes an entitlement to formally "abolish" risk through extreme measures. 

This is a perverse basis on which to craft public policy. It's the ultimate in Nanny State:  remove decision-making options for the populace, and do it "for" them. The problem with this, as you articulated well, is that it unjustly creates an enormous population of victims of the Nanny State: economic victims, social victims, psychological victims, and more.  (Professional athletes and professional performing artists have a short window in which to pursue their careers and take advantage of their youth and strength. Eliminate those opportunities, and you may have permanently affected not only their careers, but entire industries supporting those careers -- orchestras, concert halls, professional sports venues, amateur sports such as the Olympics because those often lead to professional opportunities, etc.)

No, Covid is in no medical dictionary definition "a public health emergency," justifying extreme measures such as lockdowns and widespread semi-permanent changes in travel opportunities, social behavior, personal behavior, and personal attire (facial diapers). It's a selective, unpredictable private health risk. It means that people with co-morbidities who want to live longer have the option to exercise the least risky behaviors possible.  They should own that and not force others to pretend that they should feel just as afraid/cautious.

There was absolutely no need to shut down the economy. Those of whatever age and whatever medical risk category they fall into should have taken responsibility for their own health and isolated themselves, conscripting the rest of us who are not afraid and have had Covid to do their errands for them, etc.  A massive injustice with massive economic results has occurred, worldwide. That is not the definition of Catholic charity. It's a perversion of the word -- a convenient rationalization for private fear, not public "safety."

[MaximGun]

Heard a professor of law say you had a right to do as you will provided you did not harm other people and leaving your house was "potentially harming them".

But if you don't have the virus you are not potentially harming them.  Only if you are infected, or at risk of being infected, for example someone in your home has Covid-19 so there is a high chance you may have it.

Potentially harming has to be above the base level of potential.  When I drive my car I potentially could kill someone but all other road users accept this risk as they potentially can kill me also. Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol or at 100mph make the risk much higher which is why those are illegal and immoral.

There is always a base level of risk or threat which people accept when they play contact sports or climb Everest or fly in light aircraft.

[Miriam_M]

Heard a professor of law say you had a right to do as you will provided you did not harm other people and leaving your house was "potentially harming them".

But if you don't have the virus you are not potentially harming them.  Only if you are infected, or at risk of being infected, for example someone in your home has Covid-19 so there is a high chance you may have it.

Potentially harming has to be above the base level of potential.  When I drive my car I potentially could kill someone but all other road users accept this risk as they potentially can kill me also. Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol or at 100mph make the risk much higher which is why those are illegal and immoral.

There is always a base level of risk or threat which people accept when they play contact sports or climb Everest or fly in light aircraft.

Correct.  Understand that two generations of sloppy education in public schools has produced poor critical thinking even in the professions.  The so-called lawyer you quote doesn't know the law because one could endanger anyone, unknowingly, by leaving one's house:  One's presence on the sidewalk could distract a driver, who ends up hitting someone else. Yet the source of distraction did nothing risky or illegal.  I am smarter than many lawyers I have met, and I suspect that there are other similar SD posters.  I did study law, by the way, and almost went into it as a profession.

The point is that the bar was placed very, very low by "health officials" who made it up as they went along, so to speak.  Again, the assumption was that Covid was universally an equal public health risk (by virtue of transmission alone), which I have just demonstrated above is a false premise.  They got away with it because not enough of the rest of the public, also from poor critical thinking skills, did not object to such a false premise.  Anyone reading the actual medical literature in professional journals, which I did from early February of 2020, would understand how authoritarian these unprecedented policies were.  Again, for the three reasons I mentioned. 

But the government does not have the authority to force Americans not to take risks, including risks which have an unknown affect on others. That's not within the scope of their power.

I know what some might be tempted to argue: that the government mandates seat belts in cars whether one is or is not a good/great driver with a perfect driving record and is driving on a street where no accident has ever occurred. However, the statistics about unbelted drivers and passengers in any accident justify the requirement for seat belts, as well as the reality of liability and associated insurance costs. The connection between serious injury or death and seat belts can be statistically demonstrated. Not so for risks of Covid complications.

[MaximGun]

Wearing a seat belt is not difficult or an imposition on your freedom like shutting everything down is.

That said, I am still against seat belt laws.  If you want to have critical thinking skills in the population, then it is best to let dangers and threats exist.  Educate, convince, get people to think is their own best interest but don't mandate.  Show aftermath of a traffic accident without seat belts. Show damage from alcoholism, smoking cigarettes.

Tell people they must and they won't have the motive to find out why they should.

People kill themselves in car crashes sure.  But those who use their common sense and choose safety devices live and bring up others with critical thinking skills.

To be safe with power at the wall socket it helps it you have had an electric shock by the lighting circuit which carries less current.  Learning about dangers firsthand is a good way to know where the threats are.

There's not much danger to other road users from drivers who don't wear safety belts.  Passengers in the vehicle but they choose to ride in that vehicle.

[lauermar]

I am making natural antibodies to the present Covid strain for the next 3 months. The CDC estimates it could last up to 8 months but no guarantees. After that my antibodies will taper off because I have not had sufficient exposure to generate long-term T-cell immunity. For this reason, I hope to get the vaccine over the summer if it is available. That will boost my immune system and generate T-cells which could last up to a year.  I hope that the available vaccine is broad enough to cover the newest Covid strains which I'm reading may be more virulent, highly contagious, and deadly. Again, no guarantees. It is possible, although uncommon, to get Covid a second time. If there is a new strain, it is possible a new pandemic will begin.

[lauermar]

I forgot to add that the men in my family served their country in the military during 2 wars, and vaccines were given to them. I grew up in a suburb of Chicago where vaccines were required to enter school. Ditto for nursing school in 1977. I'm also required to have them working in home health as I do. My family hasn't sustained any injuries or permanent illness from any vaccines we've taken over our lifetimes. I am 61.

I am grateful for the polio vaccine. If we didn't have it, there would be more death and persons on permanent ventilators. As I explained in my post above, natural acquired immunity offers inconsistent protection from morbidity and mortality due to tapering off over time. Vaccines are a blessing from God. Before we had them, mortality was very high. People were quarantined on islands like Poveglia and left to die, then cremated. We don't need to go back to that kind of life.

[MaximGun]

One interesting feature of the vaccine rollout is that poor countries are not going to get them until 2022 because richer countries are buying them all up.  So if there were to be some type of terrible unforeseen reaction where people were sterilised, or killed off, plenty of people in the richer countries would die, while the poorer countries would be saved by dumb luck assuming that the reaction to the vaccine appears before the poor countries get given jabs.

If God wanted to flip the world on its backside, it would be a good "feature" to exploit.  The rich hogging the aborted baby vaccines that then turn around and wipe them out or do enough damage that their governments and economies collapse.

[Miriam_M]

As I explained in my post above, natural acquired immunity offers inconsistent protection from morbidity and mortality due to tapering off over time.

So people who have had German measles decades ago can get it again, "due to tapering off over time"?

[Miriam_M]

Father James Altman
1-24-21 Sermon
Immoral lockdowns and eternal consequences for those who locked us down

Salient portion begins at 10:15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZlE4OumEyg&feature=emb_logo

[lauermar]

Measles hasn't gone away. We need vaccines. Herd immunity isn't enough.

[Miriam_M]

Is measles deadly, lauermar? 

[Reader]

Measles hasn't gone away. We need vaccines. Herd immunity isn't enough.

I thought herd immunity was the goal of vaccination.

[Miriam_M]

Measles hasn't gone away. We need vaccines. Herd immunity isn't enough.

I thought herd immunity was the goal of vaccination.

It is.  But there's an additional problem in the U.S. and in any other country that has prolonged lockdowns.  Isolating masses of people delays herd immunity.  The first "surprising" spikes occurred in 2020 in blue states which had enacted extreme lockdown and quarantine rules, then relaxed them. Ditto for Europe, as I recall reading. I don't understand why the media would be surprised at the obvious consequence of such policies and reversals.

[lauermar]

Is measles deadly, lauermar?

Measles can be deadly for some patient types, yes. And from a world health perspective, mortality in developing countries from any disease is much higher.

Theoretically, prolonged lockdowns, masks, social distancing and disinfection of every surface are supposed to lower the risks of infection transmission but in praxis they are insufficient for a variety of reasons.

The outcome of any infection for an individual can vary between no symptoms up to death, depending on these factors:

1. Virulence of the pathogen (how deadly it is)
2. Pathogenic load (how much of an exposure you get, from a few pathogens to a larger number)
3. Portal of entry (via respiratory system, oral/digestive, sexual contact, etc.) Infections spread by casual contact occur more frequently in a population versus others whose portal of entry is a dirty needle or sexual contact.
4. Host resistance (inherited T-cell immunity, and ability to make antibodies varies with age and health condition)