Update to L.A.'s stay-at-home orders

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,”

>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?"

[ Parent | on HN ]

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!

[ Parent | on HN ]