Posted earlier in this thread: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/administrative_law/08gs_winner_essay.pdf
Yes, as mentioned previously I read it. And I just reread it to be sure I wasn't missing something. Did you even briefly review it before posting it and asserting that it supported your argument?
Assuming you did, exactly what part of that paper do you think either supports or demonstrates historical precedent for general lockdowns? If anything, that paper argues for limits and restrictions on quarantines and lockdowns to prevent abuse ...
Your analysis of the legal history of quarantines and lockdowns is simply wrong, there’s not much more to be said there and if you read the link you’ll get a short history of the expansive public health emergency powers available and their history in the USA.
Like I said, I read your link. If you were to read it you would see that it simply does not say what you are claiming it to say.
If this is true, how do you explain the staggering difference in per capita infection, serious complications, and death between the USA and Australia/NZ? And the long periods of zero Covid? The problem here is that you’re ignoring the actual figures to declare that the rest of the world is on its way to becoming like the US. There is absolutely no way to explain why the lockdowns resulted in no infection despite fully open economies if they are not in fact effective at stopping Covid. And their having worked for 12 months successfully when Covid took half that time to ravage the US.
I have never met someone so articulate whose literacy I doubt. I have never claimed that you can't possibly achieve local and temporary zero COVID through totalitarian control of a society. My complaints are exactly that it takes totalitarian control of society and that the society has to be willing to lock down again and again whenever the disease inevitably escapes. As I said, temporary and local, my friend.
Yes, Australia can have zero COVID but only while maintaining eternal vigilance and being willing to go full gulag at a moment's notice. The police should not be used as a permanent answer to a medical issue.
First, you didn’t answer the question. What’s an acceptable death or illness rate to justify measures that are effective to stop the disease?
A thousand apologies. You rarely answer direct questions, so I had no idea that was expected. I'm not nearly smart enough to think I have a fair answer.
I note that you have ceded the emotional "granny" argument as you are totally willing to decide when it is okay for other people to die. I guess it is okay when you do it.
My own personal answer is, and this goes to your question about why granny can die of the flu- one that doesn’t overwhelm hospital capacity, and that is comparable to seasonal flu. We’ve made decisions as a society about how much investment in hospital infrastructure we need over a long period of time, and diseases that force us to have never much more or choose mass casualties should be candidates for emergency controls. That’s a reasonable starting place, and voters should get to decide by having a chance to replace governments responsible for the disease response.
Seasonal flu
does overwhelm hospitals during bad years. When it does do you immediately call for locking down society until zero flu is achieved? And then locking down again every time someone catches a flu, because it might spread to the point that hospitals are overwhelmed?
Further, do you foresee maintaining zero COVID even once everyone in Australia has been given the opportunity to receive COVID vaccination? At that point hospitals will be unlikely to be overwhelmed and therefore your justification no longer applies.
I've heard concerns that aboriginal Australians are at particular risk of COVID to explain the severity of the lockdowns but also that supplies of vaccines provided to aboriginal communities have been severely limited compared to the rest of Australia.
