You only argue in good faith with people who are arguing on good faith. People bringing up civil liberties and suicides are just puppetting conservative think tank scripts, trying to "pwn the libs".

HN is an international community and not everyone ascribes to the conservative/liberal paradigm of politics that dominates the U.S. I'm probably way more left than you but I also do not think giving up civil liberties to curb the spread of Covid-19 is worth the cost. In France they fined people who were outdoors on "non-essential errands". That's fucking insane. No one should be required to give up their right to take a walk in their own hometown. Forcing people to do that is Soviet-level authoritarianism.

It of course also sets a precedent. If the rulers can whip the masses into thinking a curfew to stop a virus is necessary, they surely can do it for other reasons again and again. Bye, bye right of assembly.

If you have actual evidence or data to share about suicide risk this year or if you have a bona fide legal opinion on civil liberties, please share. Otherwise, your comments have added next to nothing to this conversation. Here is a study that isn't a conservative talking point if you'd like something to read.

https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/113/10/707/5857612

Early data on suicide doesn't appear to show any increase in deaths yet. These are preliminary data and we do need to guard against an increase in future, but we're not seeing an increase at the moment.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352.full?ijkey=NDYZgh6...

http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=51861

Not being able to respond to scripts you're aware of quickly and concisely shouldn't be a point of pride. The game isn't to detect a conservative, it's to discover a strategy that does the least harm and to convince others of its merit.

I’m the furthest thing from a conservative, even in Europe I’m on the left.

Still, I believe that the massive restrictions on civil liberties in the form of lockdowns are completely unacceptable. I’d explain my arguments, but they’ve been repeated over and over by “conservative think tanks”.

I argue that using force to stop free men from living free is a greater moral evil than being out and about, also when there is contagious disease in the world. All men are equal children of creation; no man is born with the right to stand above another, unless it’s on owned land.

I promise that I’m arguing in good faith, and having spoken with countrymen of yours I am certain they too do. I’m glad my country never enforced anything COVID19-related, although I disagree strongly with my socialist rulers.

A good exercise to do with a friend, or on pen and paper if it’s socially uncomfortable, is to try to make your opponents argument as convincingly as you can. If your current understanding is true, you’ll learn to argue for it from another perspective, else you will have learned something. Kind regards

You can't go round dismissing the central core of the opposing side's strongest arguments like that.

And you are puppeting think tank scripts too. Why not calm down and let the facts speak for themselves instead of trying to bully people into silence. That isn't going to work.