Re:Update to L.A.'s stay-at-home orders
by SpicyLemonZest on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @05:23PM
(#23160053)
I just don't buy it. If they were aiming to return to semi-normal life, they'd announce we're transitioning away from "stay at home". It seems very much like they're aiming to open up the bare minimum amount required to avoid riots or economic collapse, and people will continue to be ordered to stay at home.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Update to L.A.'s stay-at-home orders
by majormajor on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @05:31PM
(#23160151)
What is the difference between your take and the parent take? All I see is you assuming a negative - but not fully described - motive of preferring to keep people at home even if there wasn't a virus out there?
> “Our hope is that by using the data, we’d be able to slowly lift restrictions over the next three months,”
vs
>aiming to open up the bare minimum amount required to avoid riots or economic collapse
why do you believe the root goal is "keep people at home" vs "respond to a disease?"
Re:Update to L.A.'s stay-at-home orders
by SpicyLemonZest on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @05:34PM
(#23160187)
I don't think it's a versus. I acknowledge that "keep people at home forever" is a disease response measure, not some evil plan they cooked up for no reason. But the fact that they have a reason does not make it an acceptable measure.
It's especially frustrating because I've repeatedly seen people argue that it's a strawman, that nobody's really planning to stay at home forever. Even in this comments section, about an article where LA county says "yeah we're staying at home for the next 3 months at least", people insist they didn't mean it!